The Ham Hock of Liberty

I can't see any problems with this.

2007-01-22T18:10:00.000-05:00

First, I'm not dead. I've just been relocating for a new job in a new town, which means finding new housing, moving, and generally throwing your life into total chaos for a few months. Blogging has been low on the priority list, particularly when everyone else is saying what needs to be said, faster and more entertainingly than I can.

Also, if anyone still reads and has something to say, that annoying word verification is now on, so as to discourage the spammers that finally found this site.

Now, back to business. It seems that Thersites found this quote about a new health care proposal that the administration is cooking up:

"In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush described his proposal as a way to “treat health insurance more like home ownership."

Well now, what's not to love about that! Of course, we can only hope that certain features of home ownership aren't part of the plan...

* You can't buy a house if you're not 18.

* Unless you have hundreds of thousands in dollars in cash, you have to take out a very very large loan to own a home.

* You can't get a loan unless you have a good enough credit score and high enough income to convince a bank to lend it to you.

* If you can't make your monthly payments on your home ownership, your bank forecloses on the collateral.

* If you declare bankruptcy or have a mortgage foreclosed, it's probably going to be a long time or a lottery win before you get another loan to own a home.

* If you're not at least upper-middle income, you probably can't afford to own a home in a lot of metropolitan areas like...all of the coasts. If you're middle income or low income, you're gonna have to save for a long while. Or move somewhere that real estate is still actually affordable.

* Taking ownership of a home, before you even set foot in it, costs a few thousand dollars in closing costs.

So basically...nice health insurance will be available to the wealthy, while the rest of the country has to devote large chunks of their income and commit to a 30-year loan to afford a modest home (if they can afford anything at all), and your crutches or pacemaker will be subject to foreclosure and repossession if you miss 2 or 3 payments?
OK, so that's probably not what they meant, but given how difficult home ownership is for most of the population, is that really the way the administration wants to sell their plan....?

Dead Horse

2006-08-30T01:23:00.000-04:00

To reiterate, here's why the punditry is losing market share:

2006 Predictions
Some Guy With a Blog - no readership - unpaid:
"W approval ratings languish around 40."

Jonah Goldberg:
Professional pundit, LA Times columnist:
"By Christmas 2006, George W. Bush's approval ratings will be 57 percent."

Progonostimicatin' is Hard Work

2006-08-30T00:42:00.000-04:00

Not too long ago, I took a look at the status of my 2006 predictions. It was fun. All 3 of us who read this blog had a grand time.

Somehow, however, I stumbled upon The Corner's 2006 predictions tonight. It seems that most of those bold pundits chose to duck actual predictions by making jokes (e.g., "Environmental artist Christo announces plans to wrap colorful nylon panels around Cindy Sheehan"), but some actual guesses at reality made it through. If you'd like to see exactly -why- we should not be taking these people seriously now, look at what they thought would happen to the world, just 9 months ago:

Wrong:

Warren Bell:
* Hollywood studios will continue to reach out to religious America in their efforts to market movies about gay cowboys, the suffering of terrorists, and greedy corporations. Then when these movies fail at the box office, the studios will respond by blaming competition from videogames and DVDs.

Denis Boyles:
* In Africa, yet another million of the world's poorest, weakest people (mostly kids) will die from malaria because the use of DDT offends the faux Western sheep-cowboy consciousness of middle-class Greenpeace types in the U.S. and Europe.

Kellyanna Conway:
* Chelsea Clinton gets engaged.
* Cindy Sheehan fades.
* Osama bin Laden resurfaces — and then is captured.**
* Valerie Plame poses in Playboy. Husband continues to complain others outed her.
* Four more states protect traditional marriage.
* Ed Cox reenters the race for U.S. Senate in New York.
* One of the Simpson sisters, Olsen twins, or Hilton sisters has a baby.
* Real-estate prices remain steady.**

The Derb:
* Iran will test a nuclear weapon.
* The space-shuttle program will be shut down for good.
* The main talking point in Iraq policy will become: Given that there is an Iraqi army up and running, do we really want them to have un-chaperoned access to anything more dangerous than small arms?**
* Some industrialized nation bigger than Andorra will, either by explicit legislation or implicit executive action, enact a ban on further immigration by Muslims from anywhere at all.
* China will lay the keel of that nation's first aircraft carrier. While denying any intention of engaging in a "space race" with China, India will announce preparations for placing a man in orbit by 2008.

Doughy Pantload:
* For the first time in memory — by which I mean my memory — three National Review authors will be on the New York Times bestseller's list in the same year. **
* Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame will enter talks to launch their own talk/reality show. Even after a sweeps week episode in which Wilson eats 6 pounds of yellow cake from in-between Plame's cleavage with his hands tied behind his back, he will take great offense at anyone who suggests he's a publicity hound.
* By Christmas 2006, George W. Bush's approval ratings will be 57 percent.**
* Abu Zarqawi will be caught alive. But he will hang himself in his cell when Reuters reports that Iraqi authorities found the director's cut of Brokeback Mountain in his portable DVD player.
* There will be another terrorist attack on the American homeland.**
* Howard Dean will not finish 2006 as chairman of the DNC. **

Victor Davis Hanson:
* There will be a major immigration bill passed that drastically halts the influx of illegal aliens.
* Howard Dean will leave the DNC chairmanship.**
* Serious social unrest in Iran by midyear.**

K-Lo:
* President Bush takes a fresh harsh tone with Saudi Arabia.**
* Israel strikes Iran. Freedom-hungry Iranians subsequently take their freedom into their own hands.**
* The Santorum-Casey race is full of surprises. Comes in much tighter than it looks right now.
* Rudy Guiliani announces that he will not run for president.*
* ABC's According to Jim wins an Emmy. ATJ Showrunner and too-cool-for-caps NRO writer Warren Bell does not wear a National Review cap on stage but does namedrop a lot in The Corner the next morning.**

Carrie Lukas:
* At least four states will enact new school-choice programs; several prominent Democrats will break with teachers' unions to support school choice.
* Latin America will emerge as a serious national-security concern that will soon rival the Middle East.**
* Air America will finally go under, ironically undermined by "competition" from the taxpayer-supported NPR that they vigorously support. Distraught listeners in search of liberal viewpoints will be forced to turn to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, etc..**
* Republicans will pick up seats in the House.**
* General Motors will declare bankruptcy due to the crushing costs of their union-coerced healthcare and retirement programs — a prelude to the looming crises in Medicare and Social Security.

Clifford May:
* Roger Ailes will not lose sleep over competitive pressures. More specifically, network news programs, CNN and MSNBC, and major newspapers will not stem declines in audience/circulation. The media moguls will not figure out that at least half of those who follow the news are conservatives who prefer not to be insulted and condescended to by "progressive" reporters, editors, and producers. **
* French policies aimed at heading off further racial/religious unrest will not prove successful.
* Howard Dean will not remain chairman of the DNC.

Peter Schweizer:
* Both Syria and Iran will face considerable social unrest as freedom continues to strengthen in the Middle East.**
* Intelligent design, far from being dead, will become an increasingly important factor in the culture wars.**
* Hillary Clinton will find it increasingly difficult to hold her coalition together by posing as both a centrist and a woman of the left. But she will stay the course and with growing success in Iraq, she'll be lauded as a "statesman" in the media for not caving in to the appeasement crowd. Iraq will be her "Sister Souljah" moment.**
* Some well-connected Republicans, concerned whether they have a dynamic and effective conservative ready for a presidential run, will turn up the pressure on Jeb Bush to enter the race.

Mark Steyn:
* There will be more riots in Europe, and an increase in the rate of ethnic Dutch emigration from the Netherlands. The German government will fall. There will be another terrorist attack in Britain.**
* John McCain will have increasing difficulty maintaining his approval ratings with the press. There will be more lay-offs at major U.S. media outlets.
* Baby Assad will not last the year as Syria's President. Iraq will recede deeper and deeper into the newspaper due to an ongoing lack of bad news.**
* Osama bin Laden will continue to be dead, and will be confirmed as such.**

OK, so now that we've seen how remarkably wrong these people can be, let's give credit where credit is due, and see what they managed to get right:

* In Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum will go down to defeat at the hands of Bob Casey Jr., causing Pat Toomey to smile a tight little smile. (Boyles)
* Two Democrats not named Hillary actively campaign for POTUS 2008. (Kellyanne Conway)
* Google and Apple laugh all the way to the bank. (Conway)
* The "ground zero" site in Manhattan will look very much the same at the end of 2006 as at the beginning. New Orleans will look slightly worse. (The Derb)
* John McCain will be widely considered the GOP frontrunner for the nomination. (Pantload)
* President Bush will not win the Nobel Peace Prize. (K-Lo)
* The Court does not overturn Roe v. Wade. (K-Lo)
* The Yanks come back. (K-Lo)
* Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes will name their baby something odd. (Carrie Lukas)
* Osama bin Laden will not be captured or killed in Pakistan; but Zarqawi will be captured or killed in Iraq. (Clifford May)
* Moveon.org will not argue that those on the Left calling for Bush's impeachment are over the top and damaging the Democratic party. (May)
* John McCain will recognize another major problem, speak out about it honestly and devise a solution that will not solve the problem but rather will make it worse. (May)
* Maureen Dowd will not get married. (May)

So, on balance, how did the Korner Kidz do?
Grade: They're idiots. Duh.

** Special bonus prize for Excellence in Stupid.

Getting to the point

2006-08-22T11:25:00.000-04:00

As usual, Glenn Greenwald has done a good job of separating the truth from the bullshit with regard to the analysis of the warrantless wiretapping decision that came down recently. He even takes the switch to Ann Althouse, which I fear will start him down the road to getting caught up in a "debate" with that particular brick wall.

Anyway, go check it out, because he's right.

I seriously doubt based on their commentary that Kerr or Althouse (and most, though not all, of the other law professor critics) have been following this case at all. They don't seem to be aware of some rather critical events which are indispensable in understanding what the court did here -- or, at least, they weren't aware of those events at the time they were attacking Judge Taylor's opinion. What appears to have happened is that they read the opinion on the day it was issued and evaluated it without regard to (or knowledge of) the procedural history of the case, the rules of civil litigation, and the arguments advanced by the DoJ-- i.e., they evaluated it the way a law professor would grade an exam or comment on a law review article, not the way a judicial opinion of this type must be understood (which was part of what Professor Tribe was pointing out the other day).

Memo to Conservative Pundits

2006-08-15T13:57:00.000-04:00

OK, conservative talking heads: we know you don't like accusations of racism levelled at you or your Republican politican friends. We know you think that racism is shunned by right-thinking conservatives, and is not accpetable within your circles. But if you want people outside of those circles to stop associating your party with the racists of the country, you're going to have to stop rushing to the defense of every conservative pol who sticks his boot in his mouth.

I'm looking at you, "The Corner." As you all know by now, VA Senator George Allen singled out one of his opponenent's campaign workers who is of Indian descent, at one of Allen's events, and belittled him in front of the crowd. He welcomed the young man to America and referred to him twice as "macaca." It's been publicized by now that "macaca" is a racist slur, particularly with respect to dark-skinned north Africans. That George Allen's mother was French Tunisian (north African, in case you didn't know offhand), is a remarkable coincidence.

In response to Mr. Allen's remarks, you've claimed that macaca is not a well-known term (twice , in fact), that Joe Biden says dumb things as well, and that the real villain was the recipient of the slur. The last one is my personal favorite.

There's been nothing even approaching an innocent explanation for the term. Allen's claim that it was a variation of "mohawk," a hairstyle that the young man obviously does not have, is so laughably pathetic that no parent in the country would buy it, if they heard it coming from one of their children.

Now, whether or not "macaca" is a well-known slur does not change the fact that it was made. Perhaps you don't understand what's wrong with a Senator, and presidential hopeful, directing racial slurs at members of minority groups. Much of this country, however, would like to know if people so high in office, with aspirations to the highest, hold viciously bigoted views. Just because "macaca" may not be as well-known as, say, "jigaboo," doesn't mean this is a tempest in a teapot. It's very serious. It's about what's inside George Allen, and why he would make -any- racial slur, let alone in public. Given the etymology of that slur, along with Allen's heritage and knowledge of French, that's pretty compelling prima facie evidence that he knew what he was saying. Until a better explanation than "he meant mohawk" comes along, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the man is a bigot, and holds racist views. That is serious, whether or not he used the "N" word itself.

If you want the GOP to really wash its old dirty linens of the taint of racism, you need to start condemning it when it comes from your own camp, not just Joe Biden. Making excuses, blaming the "liberal media," and writing it off as insignificant....that may keep your readers mollified, but you're never going to get rid of your scarlet "R" if you keep that up.

Sincerely,

Some Guy With a Blog

Strange bedfellows.

2006-08-14T23:49:00.000-04:00

It seems there's a little cognitive dissonance going on in Wingnuttia that will need to be sorted out.

First, W claims that Israel trounced Hezbollah, and that it's Hezbollah's "fantastic" propaganda machine proclaiming their victory:

"Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said. "But how can you claim victory when, at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force?"

And who or what is part of this fantastic Hezbollah propaganda machine? Why, Michelle Malkin and Powerline, of course:

"Israel and the US have been defeated. Hizballah will grow emboldened. As will Iran." - Jeff Goldstein

"Israel and the West surrender to Hizballah. Terrorists and the U.N. win." - Michelle Malkin

"Over at NRO's corner, John Podhoretz contends that this would mean the end of the Olmert government. I'm tempted to suggest that our government, having seemingly lost its will to oppose (or even to let others oppose) our deadliest enemies, deserves the same fate." - Powerline.

....

It'll be interesting to see whether the eliminationists come back to the fold and retract their initial "hasty" reactions, or whether they actually have the strength of their neo-genocidal convictions to dispute W's claims.

Unpossible.

2006-08-14T14:18:00.000-04:00

A new CBS poll is out today, showing W's approval ratings hanging steady at a moribund 36%. The article about the poll concludes with this shocking realization: "The arrests in Britain have not helped President Bush's popularity so far, the CBS poll finds. His job approval remains exactly at 36 percent, where it was a month ago."

How could this be?? How is it possible that the arrests of terrorist suspects in London, which has no relevance or relationship to W's job performance, could fail to improve his job performance rating? Surely, the "terror bounce" we've been hearing about for days couldn't be just the breathless anticipation of hyperventilating pundits, could it...? COULD IT?!?

Well, of course it was. But to be fair, it was a reasonable guess; after all, whenever terrorism has dominated a news cycle in the past, it has helped W's numbers nudge slightly upwards. However, it's a testament to how internalized the administration's exploitation of fear has become, that when British intelligence agents discover a criminal conspiracy, the old media just assume it's good news for the President, even though there's no logical reason whatsoever why it should be. Why is the mere reminder that criminals still exist good news for Republicans? It's not like everyone in the country forgot. And unless you count strawmen at the most unhinged reactionary blogs, it's not as though Democrats are claiming that terrorism no longer exists. If anything, the apprehension of the latest suspects should be good news for Democrats, demonstrating that terrorism can be interrupted through intelligence and policing, rather than blowing shit up.

Unfortunately, we're going to be treated to this same insightful "analysis" until the sun burns out. Our "War on Terror" is going to be about as successful as the "War" on drugs. Secular democracy will not flower in the mid-east at the end of a gun, and we can not bomb our way to safety over there. No matter how many excellent regime-changing adventures we have, terrorists will continue to exist. Some of them will want to direct their energies against the United States. And because the professional opinion-givers in the country have unquestioningly swallowed the rule that fear is good for Republicans, we will hear the same script being read every time a new terrorist suspect is identified. What we'll hear a lot less of, is whether anything the GOP does is actually related to the apprehension of the suspect.

Fortunately, as the CBS poll suggests, the electorate may be managing to notice the disconnect, despite the best efforts of the fear peddlers.

He. Just. Won't. Stay. Down.

2006-08-10T17:32:00.000-04:00

Sorry, I was feeling juvenile:

Fear the Kosfather and Hitler Dean

2006-08-09T21:17:00.000-04:00

Pulling off a feat of computer illiteracy that is impressive even now, a close Republican relative of mine managed to put me on the RNC mailing list accidentally. Yes, it was in fact an accident. Anyway, all I usually get are fundraising requests addressed from Ken Mehlman or Pete Wilson, but today was particularly entertaining. It seems that the GOP is going to be running against that wild-eyed whitebread businessman Ned Lamont, his godfather Kos, and Michael Moore (who is fat).

This was the picture in their "don't let this nightmare happen to YOU!" email:

Notice the not-so-subtle Hitler mustache photoshopped onto Howard Dean.

Yes, Virginia, the GOP is being run by 8 year olds.

More CT-Sen

2006-08-09T07:45:00.000-04:00

A few other thoughts on Connecticut, while the caffeine goes to work:

- Now that the D.C. Democrats seem to be dutifully lining up to support Ned Lamont, it will be interesting to see whether the interest groups like NARAL do the same....or whether they are more interested in the incumbency protection racket, than furthering their stated goals.

- Obviously there will be a huge amount of pressure on Joe to drop his destructive "independent Democrat" bid, but there will probably be even more pressure to stay in the race from a certain lobbyist who shares Joe's bedroom, and has a very vested career and financial interest in being married to a Senator.

- Remember when a 2-point win was a "mandate"....? What does that make a 4-point win?

- I hope Joe is ready for more egg on his face when the investigation into his website "hacking" goes absolutely nowhere. And, most likely, just shows that if they had bought a better hosting plan, their site would have been up on election day.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

2006-08-09T07:13:00.000-04:00

Skimming through Wingnuttia, to confirm that Joe's loss was indeed the Worst Thing Ever for Democrats and the "nutroots," this set of consecutive posts at redstate was particularly entertaining:

Posted at 12:32am on Aug. 9, 2006 Tim Walberg Wins
Conservatives Are Heard
By Erick

This is a tremendous victory for conservatives. Tim Walberg has beaten liberal Joe Schwarz in the Republican primary in Michigan. Well done! Well done to you all. Conservatives must make their voice heard and a Republican primary is the best way to do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted at 12:16am on Aug. 9, 2006
I Would Discuss Joementum, But That Would Be Joevenile
Great Pyrrhus, Have We Learned Nothing From Ye?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh

So the left-of-center netroots have won a victory . . . over a Democrat today. Well, a win is a win, in the eyes of many, and as such, the netroots will party like it's 1972. But somewhere in the distance, King Pyrrhus is shaking his head in sad resignation. He has seen this movie before, after all. [Ed: boldface in original]

The moral of the story? Defeating incumbents in a primary is an accomplishment to be proud of, unless you're the Democratic party, in which case it's an embarassing Pyrrhic victory by shortsighted fools.

All clear?

Liveblogging from Lieberman HQ

2006-08-08T09:31:00.000-04:00

Do yourself a favor and go enjoy The General's liveblogging from Lieberman HQ.

Yes, that is an order.

The Big Day

2006-08-08T07:51:00.000-04:00

So apparently there's some sort of election in Connecticut today. You guys hear about that....?

Being the 3l1t3 armchair quarterback that I am, I have a pretty good track record of predicting election outcomes (by using the very sophisticated strategy of looking at the most recent poll, then adding 5 points for the evil candidate), but I have no idea how this one is going to turn out. Ned Lamont should have the more motivated group of voters - many of them are going to be righteously pissed off - and I can't understand how Joe would inspire anyone, outside of wingnuts and lobbyists whose jobs get much harder if he loses. However, the bottom line is still that Holy Joe is still an 18-year incumbent Senator with a massive cash advantage, who has not been caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl. Senators in that position simply do not lose primary elections. There is too much of a network in place of folks who can influence elections that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and/or returning favors for their old political friends.

Not surprisingly, Joe is staying shameless up until the bitter end, taking a page straight from the Rove playbook and insisting that if you don't for him, you're an appeasenik hippie fool. Kevin Drum points out what's wrong with this nonsense; namely, we're now at the point where -any- questioning of the value or justification for any given war is automatically "weak on security." Don't think we should nuke Canada tomorrow? Weak on security. Don't think we should spend 2 trillion dollars to train giant angry apes to patrol the border with Mexico? Weak on security. And so on. AmericaBlog also has a fairly righteous rant about Joe's latest emission.

So, back to the point. The election. May as well go on the record with a prediction....I guess Ned Lamont will win, by about 54-46.

Words Fail

2006-08-07T11:27:00.000-04:00

Through the Huffington Post, I found this story about Paris Hilton at Yahoo News, which inadvertently summarizes almost everything that is fundamentally very, very wrong with the world today:

During the interview, Hilton also displayed some political illiteracy.

When asked about British Prime Minister Tony Blair, her response was: "Who? ... Oh, yeah, he's like your president. I don't know what he looks like."

Hilton also told the magazine she collects $500,000 in fees just to show up at parties and other events from Las Vegas to Tokyo. Her best-paying gig, she said, was a recent Austrian appearance.

"I had to say `hi' and tell them why I loved Austria so much," she is quoted as saying.

And why does she like Austria? "Because they pay me $1 million to wave at crowds!"

Call it class warfare, but how did humanity get to the point where notoriety - and nothing else - qualifies you to receive a million dollars for waving to crowds? That's more money than most people on the planet will earn in a lifetime of hard work. A lot more. Even in this, supposedly the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, some of the most valuable members of society are ignored and compensated almost nothing for their good. Teachers. Social workers, who staff shelters for the homeless, or battered women. Animal rescue agencies. Artists. Just lean your head out the door, and you can find people who will contribute more to humanity than Ms. Hilton, yet who will never be paid $500,000 or $1 million to appear at a party. It's madness. And what's worse, that money was probably paid to her from the public coffers. Middle- and low-income citizens of Austria giving their money to Paris Hilton, so she can wave at them. The Surreal World, indeed.

Prognosticatin' is Hard Work

2006-08-06T17:23:00.000-04:00

Earlier in the week when I went way out on a limb to predict that waiting another Friedman Unit to gauge Iraq's progress wouldn't tell us a damn thing we didn't already know, I remembered that I had made a bunch of predictions for 2006, at the beginning of the year:

1. DeLay acquitted in laundering trial.
Well, this one probably won't happen in 2006, as it's unlikely the trial will be over before the end of the year.

2. DeLay indicted by feds wrt Abramoff.
No federal indictments yet, and none seem forthcoming, which is surprising.

3. Rove indicted by Fitz's grand jury.
This one also looks wrong, but should have been right. It's somehow Jason Leopold's fault. That bastard tricked me.

4. Congress holds wiretap hearings.
Well, this one turned out accurate, sort of. See #5.

5. Wiretap hearings end up going nowhere; GOP + Liberman decide legality is "iffy," impeachment would be extreme.
Pretty much.

6. W approval ratings languish around 40.
Guess it depends how much leeway "around" gives you, but yep.

7. Democrats pick up House and Senate seats, but don't take majority in either house.
Have to wait for November for this one, obviously, but I stick by it. The electoral map is just too loaded against Democratic candidates to overcome the gulf in the legislature.

8. Time names RedState.org Blog of the Year.
Too soon! And L'Affaire Domenech (remember him?) kinda makes this impossible. But Time is crazy and unpredictable! They think outside the box!

9. Nothing much changes in Iraq; sectarian violence continues but US troop presence staves off inevitable all-out civil war.
More or less right. Although a good argument can be made that the inevitable civil war is already "all-out."

10. Some sharks bite some guys.
This was just snark about our serious media. But the sharks don't disappoint.

11. Some white women go missing for a few days.
More media snark. Fortunately, there haven't been too many of these stories dominating entire weeks worth of news cycles. But we still have another 5 months....

12. A nasty hurricane hits Florida. Local Democratic city comptroller blamed for inadequate response.
Not yet! Hurricane season is just getting started though. And W is back on vacation in Crawford, so another major American city is going to be feeling the pain soon.

13. Massachusetts does not fall into ocean or go up in flames.
Despite the continued legality of gay marriage, the earth itself has not swallowed the state down to hell.

14. Limbaugh charged by FL prosecutor.
Technically incorrect! He escaped by cutting a deal for deferred prosecution.

15. Santorum booted out on ass by Casey.
This will still happen in November. I can't think of a way to make a wisecrack about Ricky's fetus in a jar, though.

16. Paul Hackett loses senate race 51-49.
Paul dropped out, but his replacement Sherrod Brown will probably lose 51-49.

17. Deficit around $350 billion.
Optimistic projections of $300 billion notwithstanding, I think it'll end up being closer to 350 than 300. At least it's lower than the $420+ we had in 2005...

18. Katherine Harris drops out of senate race; poses for Playboy.
This hasn't happened yet, amazingly enough. Of course, I had been operating on the assumption that Katherine Harris was not literally insane. This was a naive assumption. Had she been at least a little bit sane, she would have dropped out by now.

19. Tony Blair forced out of office by overseas torture scandals.
Blair will still be gone soon, although he isn't out yet. England's complicity with torture and rendition will only be one factor of many, so I guess this is more wrong than right.

19. Playboy goes bankrupt.
Not yet! They were bailed out by Harris' dementia.

20. John Gibson and O'Reilly say a bunch of stupid shit, nobody pays attention to them, until they gin up the War on Xmas again, the day after Thanksgiving.
Spot on, so far. I can't wait for the annual Xmas wars again, where we all get to worry about the subtext of how we wish each other well during December.

Hmmm. Well, at least I'm still better at it than Joe Klein.

Baffling

2006-08-05T18:27:00.000-04:00

Every election cycle sees its share of baffling, quixotic runs, but one of the most baffling right now has to be George Pataki's. I thought perhaps he had sobered up and gone home, but it seems he's doing just the opposite, putting even more effort into his bid.

To its credit, the AP actually quotes a Hillary advisor who points out that George Pataki is the only person who takes his candidacy seriously. Which is true, and puts Pataki in such august company as Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich.

Seriously, what information could George Pataki or Joe Biden have that the rest of us don't, which leads them to waste what precious time is left in their lives, running for a presidency they have even less chance of seeing than Ralph Nader?
I feel bad for their political friends and relatives who pony up the obligatory donations...

The New Fall Fashion Line.

2006-08-03T09:03:00.000-04:00

All the fasionable Democratic candidates this fall will be wearing the latest bracelet from the "Some Guy With a Blog" line of accessories, "WWSD?"

A designer with a conscience, some guy with a blog wants to help the candidates retain their political moorings by carrying with them a constant reminder to ask, "What Would Shrum Do?" Bob Shrum is the uber-strategist who manages to attach himself, lamprey-like, to every Democratic candidate in a significant election, and lose all of them. Shrum's hobbies include watering down the candidate's messages, generally defanging them, having them imitate moderate Republicans, and collecting large fees. By wearing a reminder on their wrist to ask themselves, "What -would- Bob Shrum do?" successful candidates can easily keep their political compass, and their jobs, by immediately doing the exact opposite thing.

And if anyone wants to help make some of these things for real, I'd actually send them out.

Desparation is Unbecoming, Joe

2006-08-03T08:04:00.000-04:00

On the eve of the latest Quinnipiac poll showing Ned Lamont pulling ahead of Joe Lieberman in the CT primary, 54-41, Joe started singing a very different tune on Iraq:

"I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed," Lieberman said.

"This administration took far too many shortcuts. We continue to suffer the consequences, as do the Iraqi people."

Interesting choice of words from the man who went out of his way to tell us all this:

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

It seems undermining the president's credibility is practically treasonous, but undermining the president's competence is OK. Got that? All clear?

Some Good News

2006-08-02T07:15:00.000-04:00

Well, apparently there's still some sanity left in the Heartland(tm):

OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) - Conservative Republicans who pushed for criticism of evolution in Kansas classrooms lost control of the state school board as moderates scored a narrow victory in a primary election on Tuesday.

The shake-up came after the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in November to approve new science standards that local and national science groups charged were a product of religious zealotry because they challenged Darwin's theory. Teachers and scientists joined with moderate and liberal political action groups to campaign for the ouster of the conservatives and return to teaching what they consider conventional science.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, I guess there's nothing so wrong with Kansas that it can't be fixed by what's right with Kansas.

Politicians and Super-Pundits vs. Some Guy With a Blog

2006-08-01T17:29:00.000-04:00

Back on May 22, preznitial hopeful Evan Bayh said this:

Bayh said if the Iraqi factions “get their political act together — and we will know this in the next six to eight weeks… if they can form a government… then there’s something to work with there.” If not, then “we’re out.”

Atrios dutifully marked his calendar, and six to eight weeks later, pointed out that things are still a giant mess. Now Bayh's office has responded, and sure enough, "we're out" is no longer operative.

Now, I'm just some guy with a blog. I'm not a Senator, and I'm not a Super-Pundit, but I'd like to start making some predictions of my own. We can see whether Senators and Super-Pundits really know better than some guy with a blog.

I predict that in six to eight weeks, or six months, we won't know anything more about Iraq than we know right now. In six to eight weeks, Sunnis will still be killing Shi'ites en masse, Shi'ites will still be killing Sunnis en masse, and the Iraqi government won't be able to stop this from happening. In six months, nothing will be different. In one year, nothing will be different. And the U.S. death toll will keep slowly rising, along with the cost of the whole mess.

So, I'll mark my calendar, and in eight weeks, then six months, we'll see how things look. Of course, just about anyone who's been watching that little dustup in Iraq knows that nothing will be resolved in eight weeks or six months. So why do people who are paid to have important opinions about this matter keep pretending otherwise? Because, basically, they're chickenshit. "Wait a few more months" is such a convenient cop-out for taking an actual position, and mortgaging your credibility to avoid making hard choices. You don't have to look like a cut-and-run defeatist hate-America-firster, nor do you have to look like a wishful-thinking warhawk, furiously oblivious to reality. You get to look like a serious, sober-minded realist who above all else, doesn't want to take any hasty measures that we might regret later.

Well, guess what guys. It -is- later. Waiting and seeing is going to do nothing except increase the body count and the bill. We won't know anything about Iraq in six months that we don't know now.

The Earth on Fire

2006-08-01T12:21:00.000-04:00

It's unfortunate that summer is the only quarter of the year that any widespread attention gets paid to climate change and global warming, but not surprising. It's obviously harder to ignore when your power is going out because Springfield Nuclear can't handle the demand, or when people, cattle and crops are literally keeling over dead from heat. What's also unfortunate is that it provides a built-in snarky comeback for the flat-earth crowd: "Well, duh, it gets -hot- in summer, hippie."

Of course, the changes in climate are incremental, and we're not going to have 85 degree Januarys anytime soon, but on a global scale, even incremental changes have serious consequences, that will just keep getting incrementally worse over the years. And when you're talking about spans of 50 or 60 years, that's instantaneous on a geological scale. Maybe not fast enough for us to care about, once October rolls around and we can go outside without getting heat stroke, but I wonder how many summers of crippling heat waves that get progressively worse we'll have to sit through, before the lesson sinks in that the problem isn't going to go away if we just keep huddling inside until October.

Anyway, Hecate has been doing the admirable yeoman's job of documenting the problems we're having in supplying power in the wake of record demands almost every day, compounded by the fact that it's almost getting too hot to operate some nuclear plants. Just scroll through her front page and take your pick of the horror.

And in case that isn't enough fear for you, this article might help, about the Amazon in the process of drying up. I don't know how much stock to put it in the facts, but I'm definitely looking for some corroboration now....

Alive, mostly

2006-07-31T16:47:00.000-04:00

I've mostly recovered from the Michigan bar exam. This is the second state whose exam I've taken, and there won't be a third. Even having done it once before, it's a grueling, unpleasant endurance test. That it takes almost 4 months to get the results is the insult added to the injury. Fortunately, I think it went alright and I don't plan to lose much sleep over it.

Now that it's over, I can get back to watching the Connecticut primary, along with the Michigan governor's race. I realize that Jennifer Granholm is not particularly popular in Michigan, but how Dick DeVos has managed to avoid fallout from his job-outsourcing history is a minor political miracle. Of all the states where having a track record of shipping jobs away should be political suicide, Michigan is it. Whether or not the free trade agreements of the last decade have been good for the country, they have not been good for this state. Here in the western end of things, vacant factories are within stones' throws of each other, and many of the remaining factories are operating under constant rumors of closure, as whatever they're producing gets moved to places that don't place quite as much stock in minimum wages, collective bargaining, workplace safety, or health benefits. Seeing the effects of industry emigration first-hand is sobering, to put it euphemistically. And yet, a man who has done the same thing with Amway is getting a lot of support. Whomever his advisors are...the Democrats need to hire them away, and kick Bob Shrum and Donna Brazile to the curb.

Hiatus

2006-07-23T19:16:00.000-04:00

As interesting as it's been writing and reading here lately, this little corner of the left-wing fever swamp will have to go quiet until Thursday. I'm in the final stretch preparing for my second bar exam, which will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday. When I passed the Maryland bar 9 years ago, I had hoped it was a one-time experience. But as some of you know, I was enticed out to Michigan by the woman to whom I'm now engaged. So I get to do the exam all over; it's a big price to pay, but worth it. I'll be leaving town tomorrow to travel to the exam center, and returning in a few days when it's done.

Please see that those responsible for the assorted misdeeds of the last 6 years are removed from power and replaced with sensible adults by the time I'm back, OK?

Pop Quiz for Pundits

2006-07-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

You know who you are. Put away your Lexis/Nexis and Rolodex, and take out your pencils. It's time for a pop quiz.

1. When Connecticut Democrats enter the polls on August 8, they will be voting on which of the following:
        a) Proposition 28: The Democratic Party has no room for centrists.
        b) A ballot initiative holding a referendum on whether Joe Lieberman is a good person.
        c) Whatever Kos tells them to vote for.
        d) Whether they would rather be represented in the Senate by Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman.

2. Webster's Dictionary defines which word as follows: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections:
        a) Blogofascism
        b) Inquisition
        c) Purge
        d) Democracy

3. If the President of the United States is videotaped trying to give backrubs to female heads of state during economic summit meetings, which of the following facts is not relevant to a discussion of this event?
        a) Whether this behavior is appropriate for a G8 economic summit meeting
        b) Whether the rubbing was consensual
        c) Why the President does not treat male heads of state the same way
        d) Whether certain bloggers know that the President was a member of the "Deke" fraternity and not "Sigma Chi"

4. When war erupts in an historically volatile area of the world, and two groups of people are killing each other by the hundreds, which of the following subjects is least worthy of around-the-clock discussion?
        a) What steps the United States should take, if any, to intervene in the conflict
        b) What long-term effects the conflict has on regional stability
        c) What factors lead up to the outbreak of violence, and how those factors affect the resolution of the fighting
        d) Whether a few Americans being evacuated from the region should have to pay for being evacuated

5. When people suggest that you or other journalists should be put to death for lawfully publishing information of public concern, which of the following is the least appropriate response?
        a) Immediately and unequivocally condemn such radical hyperbole
        b) Ignore the radical hyperbole because it is an irrational and unjustified opinion
        c) Discuss the historical and legal basis for a free press in a representative democracy
        d) Invite the people calling for the execution of you or your colleagues onto roundtable television shows, and discuss whether their ideas have merit

6. If you answered anything besides "D" to any of the above questions, either during this quiz, or as part of your punditry, you should:
        a) Give up punditry and go back to reporting news for a while, and try to figure out how you became so confused
        b) Give up punditry, move to Tibet and try to figure out how to atone for your damage to the very notion of rational thought
        c) Write an article about how those uncivil and crazy liberal bloggers just don't "get" your maturity and wisdom
        d) A or B, but not C

Unbelievable

2006-07-20T09:20:00.000-04:00

This article by Peggy Noonan was actually published in the Wall Street Journal. This is, amazingly, the type of logic and argument that shapes our discourse, and to a lesser extent, policy-making:

You would think the world's greatest scientists could do this, in good faith and with complete honesty and a rigorous desire to discover the truth. And yet they can't. Because science too, like other great institutions, is poisoned by politics. Scientists have ideologies. They are politicized.

All too many of them could be expected enter this work not as seekers for truth but agents for a point of view who are eager to use whatever data can be agreed upon to buttress their point of view.

And so, in the end, every report from every group of scientists is treated as a political document. And no one knows what to believe. So no consensus on what to do can emerge.

Figuring out where to start untangling this logical, factual and rhetorical mess makes the Gordian Knot look like a shoelace. There is no serious debate that climate change is happening, that it's been happening incredibly rapidly, on a geological scale. There's no actual debate that increased levels of CO2 and assorted "greenhosue gases" in the atmosphere can trap the earth's infrared radiation. And it's almost self-evident that increased population, increased power consumption and decreasing forestation all increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Dramatically.

But because partisans, ideologues, and those with vested economic interests in the continued output of CO2 would like to confuse people such as Peggy Noonan, for their own self-interests, a fictitious "debate" gets created almost out of whole cloth in the popular media. In the scientific, peer-reviewed media, of course, the debate ended long ago. And so you end up with opinions like La Noonan's, which are notably free of references to exactly -which- scientists are "politicized," or how the conclusions of individuals and groups with no identifiable bias or self-interest are unreliable. But Peggy reads the Journal's editorials and concludes that there's still a disagreement. As a coup de grace, she blames "scientists" for her inability to distinguish fact from fiction, because she doesn't believe they're speaking with a unified voice.

They are, Peggy. The Journal editorial writers are not, but the scientific community is. If it hasn't been made clear by now, someone with a masters or even PhD can be found to advance almost -any- proposition, if someone else is sufficiently motivated to find a "scientist" to advance a claim that person wants advanced. Witness the "debate" about the causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer, and how long it took to overcome the mud thrown up in the air by the industry that had a vested interest in denying that causal link. This "debate" is no different, and as long as useful idiots like Peggy Noonan are given column inches in widely-read newspapers, we'll continue merrily digging our own graves.

Hearts and Minds

2006-07-18T15:40:00.000-04:00

According to a report just released by the U.N., 14,000 Iraqis have been killed during the first 6 months of 2006.

A recent estimate of the Iraqi population puts it at 26,780,000. The United States population is roughly 298,440,000.

As a percentage of population, the number of killings in Iraq through June would be equivalent to 312,000 killings in one year, in this country. By way of comparison, the entire population of Wyoming state is about 500,000.

Remember this, the next time Rep. Peter King tries to claim that Iraq is safer than Washington, D.C..

Thunderstorms Win

2006-07-18T13:47:00.000-04:00

Nasty nasty thunderstorms in my neck of the woods last night repeatedly knocked the power out, and kept my cable offline until about 10 minutes ago. The sky almost looked like a strobe light from lightning, in fact...

Anyway, I'm seeing what's been going on in the world while we were cut off from the collective; I'll try to update in a bit if there's anything worth saying.

Anecdata

2006-07-16T16:22:00.000-04:00

Yes, yes, we all know the plural of anecdote is not data. But it's still worth seeing some of the tangible results of global warming, to remember that this is no longer an abstract threat. Or, just stick your head outside today. Chances are, if you live in the northern hemisphere, you're in the middle of another heat wave....

Utah fire departments struggling with record heat -- July 16, 2006

Temperatures up to 122 in California create record energy consumption and severe fire danger -- July 16, 2006

Extreme heat alert from record highs in Canada -- July 16, 2006

Record heat in Wisconsin causing roads to buckle -- July 15, 2006

Minnesota's last 12 months the hottest ever recorded -- July 15, 2006

The first half of 2006 the hottest six months ever recorded for Kansas

The first half of 2006 the hottest ever recorded for the U.S. - three degrees above the average for the last century. -- July 14, 2006

Record heat in Bismarck -- July 13, 2006

Phoenix has the hottest June ever -- July 4, 2006

Record heat in Washington State -- June 28, 2006

Five people drown in Oregon trying to beat record heat -- June 26, 2006

and on a more global scale...

2005 was the hottest year ever recorded --
but so far, 2006 is even hotter.

Of course, it was only 3 summers ago when heat in Europe killed 35 to 50 thousand people.

Our grandchildren are going to have mighty interesting summers in 30 years. Maybe we owe them some apologies in advance.

More on You-Know-What

2006-07-15T16:36:00.000-04:00

Who among us does not love writing and reading about Connecticut 24 hours a day, every day?

Unfortunately, it seems that there are only two stories making the rounds today: the beginning of Armageddon in the middle east, and Vladimir Putin laughing in W's face, after W told him that Russia should be more like Iraq. I'm not qualified to say anything intelligent about the former, and the latter speaks for itself.

So, let's all just enjoy more of the slow-motion train wreck in Connecticut, courtesy of the NY Times. Joe continues to blame his constituents for his electoral vulnerability, rather than himself. Meanwhile, John McCain thinks it's sad that conservatives can't stump for Joe, without making him even less popular among Democrats...

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and one of Mr. Lieberman’s closest friends in the Senate, called him “one of the most decent men I have ever known” and simply shook his head when asked about his friend’s situation. “I hesitate to say anything nice about him, for fear that it would be used against him,” Mr. McCain said. “And that’s a terrible commentary on the state of politics and the political climate today.” . . .

Mr. Lieberman was scheduled to attend a Puerto Rican festival in Bridgeport last Sunday, but his campaign canceled his appearance upon hearing a report of a stabbing there that afternoon. The festival went on, drawing over a thousand people (including a Lamont supporter holding a “Kiss this, Senator Lieberman” sign). It was Mr. Lieberman’s only scheduled campaign appearance on one of the few Sundays left before the primary. Mr. Lieberman said he made an impromptu trip to an Italian neighborhood in Bridgeport instead, after Italy’s soccer team won the World Cup.

And then the piece closes with another back-hand to the non-Irish voters of Connecticut:

“Irish-Americans have been great supporters of mine,” Mr. Lieberman said in remarks to the small crowd, between prelunch sips of Guinness. He seemed, at the moment, every bit in his ethnic political element — a backslapping, blog-free retail setting characteristic of the Democratic Party he grew up in.

“The Irish tend not to be fair-weather friends,” Mr. Lieberman said. “They’re with you all the way.”

That's right, Joe. The voters are betraying you, and not vice versa. They owe you loyalty, you know...just because. Lieberman either has the worst tin ear or the worst advisors in the country today, because there isn't much more he could be doing to hand the primary to Ned Lamont, complete with silver platter.

Wilson v. Cheney et al. For Dummies

2006-07-14T09:43:00.000-04:00

A .pdf of the lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and John Does 1-10 is available online. I read the complaint last night, and then watched John Dean and Lawrence O'Donnell on Olbermann's show explaining their take on it. Dean seemed to think that the Wilsons had a strong case. O'Donnell thought it was weak. I think it's somewhere in between.

The Wilsons brought eight counts:

Violating the Wilsons' first amendment right to freedom of speech

Violating the Wilsons' fifth amendment rights to equal protection.

Violating Plame's right to privacy under the fifth amendment.

Deprivation of property without due process under the fifth amendment, as to both plaintiffs.

Conspiracy to deprive the Wilsons of their civil rights under 42 usc 1985(3).

Failure to prevent deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC 1986.

Public disclosure of private facts.

Civil conspiracy.

I'm a little surprised there was no defamation claim, based on the "Joe's trip to Niger was a nepotism vacation" attack, though.

The Wilsons sued all of the Defendants in their individual capacities; no actual governmental entity was named. As a result, the million dollar question will be whether Cheney, Rove and Libby are immune from being sued for their actions. Unlike the Paula Jones/Bill Clinton lawsuit, this one involves actions taken by the defendants while they were in office, acting on the job. Because most of the claims here are based on the improper deprivation of Constitutional rights, whether or not Cheney/Rove/Libby can be sued will depend on how the District Court applies the relevant line of cases - most importantly, Harlow v. Fitzgerald and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.

To oversimplify a little bit, the rules for suing executive branch officers is that some executives are absolutely immune from suit, while others have only a qualified immunity. The President, in the past, has been held to have absolute immunity. To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't explicitly stated whether the Vice President is absolutely immune, but it's likely that he is. So, Cheney is probably safe.

Lesser executive officers including Presidential advisers, however, don't get absolute immunity. When an official is performing a "discretionary" act, that official is immune from suit if his or her conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." The conduct here is discretionary (as opposed to "ministerial," which is basically something that an officer is mandated to do as a basic part of her job), so the wrangling should come down to whether Rove and Libby violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" when they outed Plame. The Wilsons have tried to frame their complaint with that in mind - they alleged that their rights of speech and equal protection were violated. It's a decent claim, but the hurdle is still a high one to clear, because courts are generally reluctant to allow government officials to get sued for their on-the-job conduct, even if the conduct is inappropriate. This issue really could go either way, in my opinion.

IF Libby and Rove don't get the case knocked out on immunity grounds, however, I think they're in trouble. The facts are damning and relatively straightforward. Of all the specific injuries alleged by the Wilsons, I think the strongest is probably Valerie Plame's claim to deprivation of her job without due process. The law is pretty settled that if you're a public employee who can't be fired "at will" (and I assume that Plame was not, as a CIA operative), you're entitled to a certain amount of due process before you lose your job. By outing Plame and making it impossible for her to do her job, she was essentially fired without the process to which she was entitled. The conspiracy and free speech claims are probably the next strongest, with the equal protection and public disclosure tort bringing up the rear.

The bottom line: Cheney will probably be excused on absolute immunity grounds. Rove and Cheney have a good chance of being excused on qualified immunity grounds, but -probably- won't be. If they aren't, they're in trouble.

Quote of the Day

2006-07-14T08:13:00.000-04:00

Courtesy of Karl Rove's toady:

Without even having had a chance to review the complaint, it is clear that the allegations are absolutely and utterly without merit,'' Rove spokesman Mark Corallo said in a statement."

Spin 101: How -not- to be taken seriously.

More on the lawsuit itself after the caffeine kicks in.

You don't say....

2006-07-13T09:06:00.000-04:00

Master of the Gaggle, Holden, found this fun quote from Tony Snow yesterday:

Q Was the President frustrated [by Iran], too?

MR. SNOW: No, the President doesn't give into frustration. To be frustrated is to waste your time stomping and fuming, and when you're President of the United States your chief objective is to get things done. So as the facts on the ground change, you try to figure out proper ways to get people working in concert to get the result you desire.

I realize Tony is new to the job, but maybe he needs to do a little research:

10.24.2005 -- WASHINGTON - Facing the darkest days of his presidency, President Bush is frustrated, sometimes angry and even bitter, his associates say.

6.01.2004 -- "It's a process debate that takes places up on Capitol Hill rather than a results-oriented debate. If you're a results-oriented debater, you say, all I care about is making sure that the addict receives help. And if it takes changing a person's heart to change addiction, we ought to welcome the power that changes a person's heart in our society. (Applause.)

So I got frustrated and signed an Executive Order. (Laughter.) And it said that -- it directed the federal agencies, which are run by some of the folks here, that we will reverse regulations that discriminate against faith-based organizations. "

3.28.2003 -- "President Bush has "some level of frustration with the press corps" for accounts questioning the U.S. and coalition war plan in Iraq, and he finds it "silly" that such skepticism and questions were being raised just days into a conflict he says is going quite well, according to a senior administration official."

3.20.2002 -- " Q. Mr. President, are you frustrated by the continuing violence in the Middle East, that looks -- one day it looks good, the next day it's --"
" THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I am. I am frustrated by the violence in the Middle East, and so are a lot of people who live in the Middle East. I know there are some people who do not want us to achieve any kind of peaceful settlement of a longstanding dispute. And they're willing to use terrorist means to disrupt any progress that's being made. And that frustrates me. It frustrates mothers and dads who happen to be Palestinians and Israelis, because they want to raise their children in a secure environment."

...hell, you get the point. Just Google "Bush frustrated" if you need a few thousand more.

Take that, "Atrios"

2006-07-13T07:52:00.000-04:00

Mr. Noam Scheiber at The New Republic has discovered that U.S. Senators don't read every post on liberal blogs:

Whaaa???!!! You don't read Atrios, Senator Obama? I mean, as a U.S. Senator, isn't it kind of your obligation to keep up with who's a "whiny ass titty baby" and who's just a "wanker"? Unbelievable.

Zing! Down goes Atrios! Down goes Atrios!

Well, Mr. Scheiber, you've managed to pack a lot of straw AND irony into 2 rhetorical questions, and a bonus sentence fragment. However, you left out a few other salient points: Atrios sometimes uses cuss words; people who post on liberal blogs sometimes use cuss words; and popular blogs like Eschaton sometimes have open threads.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: sandbox fights with bloggers are pointless and make you look just as petty as the caricatures you're attacking. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of intelligent, informed adults read and contribute to blogs. If you prefer to dismiss the entire phenomenon with a wave of your erudite, non-cuss-word-writing hand, rather than try to understand the demand for which lefty blogs are a supply, the TNR is going to continue its rather precipitous decline in circulation. Remember, we're supposedly on the same side here.

So, at the risk of being a juvenile and unserious blogger who does not appreciate the shining light of mature civil wisdom from The Plank: stop being a whiny-ass titty baby.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood: It's the Honesty, Stupids

2006-07-12T11:04:00.000-04:00

Jane Hamsher has been beating the drums about NARAL and Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and has concluded that they're full of it. She's right, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, the episode illustrates a much bigger problem with the state of politics, and special interest groups' role in it.

Let's start with a few premises:
First, Joe Lieberman is, in fact, more pro-choice than most Senators.
Second, Ned Lamont would be even friendlier to the interests of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, were he in the Senate.

Now, if Ned Lamont's beliefs are more aligned with NARAL and PP, what in the world would make these organizations endorse someone else? The responses haven't exactly been compelling: They can't figure out the significance of a cloture vote on judicial nominees and Lieberman has generally voted well in the past. The problem, of course, is that the election is not a referendum on Joe Lieberman, it's a choice between two alternatives. And neither NARAL nor PP has, nor possibly could, make a compelling argument that Ned Lamont would be more hostile to reproductive rights than Joe Lieberman.
So what's really going on? Steve Gilliard and Matt Stoller are probably right. Why rock the boat? If you jump ship on the incumbent, and he wins, you might find that incumbent a lot frostier to you in the future.

It's not rocket science, but unfortunately, the folks at NARAL and PP seem to think their donors and supporters are too stupid to figure out what's really going on. One of the frequent complaints about bloggers and online activists is that they're simply too naive to appreciate the realities of the political process, and idealism doesn't really work too well in Washington. I disagree. Look at the articles linked above, and the responses in the comments. It's very well understood what's going on; the problem is that the angryliberalbloggers do not tolerate this system any longer. There are only so many times that a "representative" or special interest group can compromise its principles and sell-out their supporters, before those supporters get fed up. There is no good reason why the system has to be the way it is; if Joe Lieberman will be more hostile to NARAL or PP because they didn't scratch his back during the primary, then he's not principled on the issue - he'd be engaging in the exact sort of petty quid-pro-quo sandbox fights that corrupt the entire democratic process. By playing along with these rules, NARAL and PP are just reinforcing them. And they shouldn't - not just because the whole concept is miserable, but because they're telling their supporters outside of Congress that they don't have the strength of their convictions. Even worse, they're lying to their supporters when they try to soft-shoe around the real reasons for their compromises.

If NARAL or Planned Parenthood are going to lie through their teeth while they're asking for money, they shouldn't be surprised when their donors start doubting whether they can be trusted to use that money to represent and advance the donors' interests. So why not just be honest about the endorsement? I don't know, but I assume it's for the same reasons they make the endorsement in the first place - if they admit they're supporting Candidate A over a stronger Candidate B, just because they don't want to incur Candidate A's wrath later on, presumably Candidate A will become upset and retaliate. And we're back to square one.

The netroots are not as naive as conventional wisdom believes. We understand that compromises are made, and that favor-trading is de rigeur in Washington. We don't care. The system does not have to be that way, and many of us expect more from our representatives and advocacy groups. If Joe Lieberman (or any other Congressman) wants the support of pro-choice voters, then he should have the strength of character to support pro-choice groups, regardless of whether they showed him sufficient fealty during the last election. And interest groups should have the same courage of their convictions, to at least not lie to the people for whose interests they are supposedly fighting. Is that really asking too much in a democracy?

Just a few more Friedmans....

2006-07-11T19:42:00.000-04:00

More hearts and minds...

As night fell on Baghdad, however, in a pattern seen for the last few days, there was more violence. A car bomb in the western Alam district killed five and wounded 17, police said, while clashes erupted between militia fighters and residents in the violent Sunni area of Amriya.

Addressing a heated parliamentary session on a day in which at least 30 other people were killed around Baghdad and an Iraqi diplomat was kidnapped, Ali al-Adib, from the prime minister's Dawa party said: "The country is sliding fast toward civil war."

U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad acknowledged that a security crackdown in Baghdad had not yet curbed violence.

"It has not produced the results they expected so far. The plan is being reviewed and adjustments will be made. No, it has not performed to the level that was expected," Khalilzad said in Washington in an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"I believe that securing Baghdad is critical," he said. "Violent sectarianism is now the main challenge ... It's imperative for the new Iraqi government to make major progress in dealing with this challenge in the next six months.

There's something oddly familiar about the ambassador's assessment.....

Once more on Connecticut

2006-07-11T10:45:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, it's been a slow news summer, and Left Blogistan is turning into a 24-hour Lieberman Watch as a result. Almost all of what can be said has been said by now, but there's one last argument I'd like to see, ah, purged from the discussion. This quote is a little stale, but it comes straight from the DLC, and has been repeated a lot by the punditry that is getting the vapors from the mean kids with blogs:

A party with no room for Joe Lieberman -- or for that matter, such occasionally lonely dissenters on the left as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders -- is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice.

To the DLCs and David Brookseses and Jason Zengerles of the world, the CT Senate race is not just a choice between two candidates, but it is a referendum on the ideological purity of the Party (and yes, only two candidates are in this election; no matter who wins the primary, a Republican will not have the seat in 2007, Jon Chait's handwringing notwithstanding).

It isn't about ideological purity.

When Connecticut voters go to the polls in August, they won't be voting on whether the Democratic party "has room" for dissenters, war supporters, or even those who think rape victims should have to hospital-shop in order to find emergency contraception. That question is not going to be on the ballot, literally or figuratively. Connecticut voters will be voting on the very narrow question of whether they think they will be better represented in Washington by Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. Even the "fever swamp" of crazed bomb-throwing liberalswithblogs understands that Democrats will not be in lockstep on every issue, particularly the big ones. To suggest otherwise is a pretty obvious and pretty weak strawman.

The question that Connecticut Dems will be answering in the ballot box is not about the Party. It's about Lieberman and Lamont. One or the other. If Lamont wins, it will be because Connecticut Democrats agreed with more of his positions than Joe Lieberman's. No matter how much you love or hate Joe Lieberman, the election is not being held in a vacuum. It is not a theoretical referendum on loyalty. It's a narrow question on the beliefs and the ability of the two men on the ballot. No amount of hand-wringing from David Brooks about ideological inquisitions will make a primary voter pull the lever for a candidate with whom that voter disagrees, when someone else is on the ballot that better represents the voter's values.

If Lieberman loses (and I don't actually think he will), it won't be because Democrats don't tolerate dissent. It will be because the voters of Connecticut had a choice, and they liked the alternative more. So please, DLC and the rest of you....stop making this election something it isn't. For the sake of your fainting couches, if nothing else.

Attention Pundits

2006-07-09T19:07:00.000-04:00

Memo to: Jon Chait, Joe Klein, Lee Siegel, Richard Cohen, and the rest.

From: Some guy with a blog.

Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that your strings of pearls are being worn thin from clutching, at the intemperate and potty-mouthed "fascism" of liberal blogs. Apparently, you don't like these self-appointed kingmakers "purging" the Democratic party of anyone who doesn't toe the line, as seen most clearly in the current Senatorial primary race in Connecticut. You have picked up the whiff of intolerance and fascism behind the near-unanimous support for Ned Lamont, versus the incumbent Joe Lieberman. You think that the full-court press to elect Mr. Lamont is, apparently, almost a crime against basic human decency. And so you have started several sandbox fights with your arch-enemies, the guys (and girls) with blogs.

As you are so fond of explaining to the rabid pre-teens on the internets what is really good for them, let me explain what's good for all of you: NOT calling the exercise of democracy "fascism" or "purging." Some people with websites do not hold the reins of governmental power. They do not direct party funds. They don't run the military. They have, in other words, no actual power. What they have are opinions and some facts. Sort of like yourselves. When they advocate the election of Ned Lamont, the only ability they have to effect this is to convince people that he is a worthy candidate. Worthy of votes, donations, and word of mouth to Connecticut voters. The voters of Connecticut will decide whether they agree. This is the point you seem to be missing. If enough voters in Connecticut decide that their views will be better represented by Ned Lamont than by Joe Lieberman, he should be elected. Right? This is how democracy works. If you disagree, you are just as free as Markos, or Jane Hamsher, or Atrios, to make your argument why Joe Lieberman is the better choice.

Let me suggest, however, that "Joe follows his conscience" and "Joe is bipartisan" may not be compelling reasons for a voter who does not agree with Mr. Lieberman on the substance of his beliefs. And when you attack the rabid lambs of the blogofascisphere, you're insulting and denigrating not the purported kingmakers of the internet, but the people who read and contribute to these sites. This is the second mistake you've been making. Markos, Atrios and the rest do not have monopolies on truth any more than you do, and their audiences are quite aware of this. What the popular bloggers provide is not the shining light of truth, but fora. They're basically glorified party hosts, and if the party ends, or the host starts acting like an ass, the party will go elsewhere. But it won't go away. It could even end up back on your doorsteps, if you had opinions and information that were of interest.

In the meantime, however, I have not seen any of you offer a compelling reason why a Connecticut voter should cast his or her ballot for a candidate that does not represent that voter's views as well as another candidate. Maybe competence or ethics would be a good reason, but nobody has offered any evidence that Lamont would be unethical or inept, apart from the fact that he would be new at the job. Which, of course, every officeholder is at some point.

So, for your own sakes, please consider trying to understand the new media environment a little better. As far as I can tell, none of you does actual investigative reporting, just opinion. Now that instantaneous worldwide publishing is available to just about anyone, you can no longer expect to have an audience simply because of your names, or your employer. There is simply no point in attacking the blogosphere because it speaks out and supports politicians with whom the writers and readers agree, and criticizes those with whom it does not agree. If you continue to perceive this as "fascism" rather than the epitome of "democracy," the next few decades are going to be very unpleasant for you.

Stop focusing on the messengers, and focus on the message. If you believe that Ned Lamont's campaign is misguided, and the voters of Connecticut should have fewer choices on election day, explain why on the substance of the candidates' positions. I'm glad Joe Lieberman has a conscience (which I sincerely believe he does), and that he is willing to break with his party when he does not agree with them. If, however, Joe's conscience causes him to cast votes that make his constituents unhappy, he runs an electoral risk. See the difference? Joe is not being challenged because he has a conscience and does not toe the party line, he is being challenged despite those traits. Because he breaks with the party on issues of importance to lots of people and lots of voters.

"Lieberman deserves support, because he votes against your beliefs and interests." That's basically what you're saying. Think about it.

Reason 9,527 why Al Gore is, in fact, sweet

2006-07-04T14:17:00.000-04:00

He's probably the only Vice President who's ever uttered the word "pimpmobile."

Body Language 101

2006-06-21T02:01:00.000-04:00

Kinda speaks for itself though...

So much for "respect for precedent"...

2006-06-15T17:58:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court today decided that the "knock and announce" rule for execution of warrants doesn't require exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of that rule.

The substance of that argument isn't particularly egregious; even a wild-eyed leftist such as myself can think it's not clear that the Fourth Amendment requires such a result.

What is troublesome, however, is that both Roberts and Alito voted to upturn over 90 years of relatively settled law on this issue. Remember, of course, that both men gave a lot of lip service to the sanctity of precedent and settled law during their confirmation hearings, in response to questions about Roe v. Wade. And yet, within months after being put on the bench, they've very enthusiastically upturned a long-standing line of case law.

Perhaps our Senators will remember this, the next time we hear "precedent" and "settled law" from a controversial nominee. But somehow I doubt it.

Update: I've read the SCOTUS opinion in this case. The majority, concurrence and dissent are all fairly persuasive and well-argued. There are a few problems with Scalia's opinion, though. The biggest one is the majority's claim that even without the use of the exclusionary rule, there are still realistic incentives for police to comply with the law, including civil lawsuits and "better training of police" in recent years. The dissent points out that the majority basically pulls these claims out of thin air, and I think they're right.

In jusifying the wholesale tossing of the exclusionary rule for knock-and-announce violations, the majority's main argument is that the privacy and liberty interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule won't be furthered by the remedy of the exclusionary rule. They do a lot of hair-splitting, but they have a decent argument; the interests involved are different than those for, say, protecting against warrantless searches. However, the dissent rightfully points out, imo, that this sort of distinction is new to the exclusionary rule jurisprudence, which is primarily about giving the Fourth Amendment some meaning, instead of making it purely optional. The majority is significantly deviating from precedent in this area.

Fortunately, this decision probably won't change police behavior too radically, as the knock and announce rule tends to help keep them safe as much as anything else. Most police probably realize the extra danger they're putting themselves in by busting down doors unannounced, and I imagine will continue to knock and announce, except when they have reason to believe that doing so would let a suspect destroy evidence...which was legal for them to do before this case, anyway.

Burning anonymous sources

2006-06-06T09:08:00.000-04:00

Talking about the Wen Ho Lee case last night, Atrios wrote this:

Look. Cut the fucking crap already. If your sources feed you horseshit, you are under no obligation to protect them. There is no journalistic principle which says that journalists should be information launderers for those who wish to libel people.

Whether journalistic ethics or regular ethics suggest that you shouldn't out anonymous sources who've been feeding you lies is not something I'm qualified to answer. I suspect the answer is "go ahead and burn em." But journalistic ethics are not the only constraint on outing a source to whom you've promised anonymity. There's the distinct possibility of being sued, too.

Journalists have been successfully sued by anonymous sources that they outed. In Minnesota, the Star Tribune was sued by a Republican campaign operative who had been peddling stories about the opponent candidate's criminal arrest record. Although the information was true, it was somewhat misleading; the documents that the source provided showed that the other candidate had been arrested and convicted. The Strib, however, found out that one of the charges was dismissed, and the other, which did result in a conviction, was later vacated. The Strib ran the story with the angle that a GOP smear merchant was trying to fling mud on the eve of the election, and identified the source.

The source, Dan Cohen, sued the Strib, on several theories. To get to the point, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the paper, saying in part that the First Amendment protected what the newspaper had done. Cohen appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Minnesota Court, on the First Amendment issue (i.e., there's no federal constitutional protection for reporters being sued by formerly-anonymous sources). After the case was sent back down to the Minnesota Supreme Court, to be reconsidered in light of what the SCOTUS said, the Minnesota court reinstated the original judgment against the Strib, on "promissory estoppel" grounds. Basically, this theory is that Party A makes a promise to Party B. B takes (or refrains from taking) some action, in reasonable reliance on A's promise. A then breaches the promise, and B is damaged as a result. B can recover her damages from A in that situation, in most states.

Now, a few caveats apply here. First, this decision was ultimately based on Minnesota state law. Just because the First Amendment doesn't protect journalists from outing anonymous sources, doesn't mean that those sources have any right to recover damages, under applicable state law. I haven't checked the other 49 states to see if there are any similar precedents, so it could be that Minnesota is the only state in the union where this could happen.

Second, it isn't clear that the Minnesota court would have ruled the same way if Cohen was peddling deliberate lies, or even defamatory material, rather than just misleadingly-incomplete facts. That distinction wasn't addressed in the Court's remand opinion.

SO....the bottom line is, a newspaper may very well have some constraint on outing a source to whom it's promised anonymity. The Strib had to pay $200,000 for doing just that.

When wingnuts attack

2006-05-31T17:58:00.000-04:00

R.I.P. metacomments

The guardians of civility and integrity in the blogosphere harassed Thersites and his wife so badly that he shut down his old blog, in order to keep pictures of his children out of the hands of Jeff Goldstein's mongrel horde. One of them had commented that his one-year old daughter had "dick-sucking lips," for starters.

Fortunately, Thers will keep writing and mocking right-wing idiocy. But it's unfortunate that an otherwise intelligent and decent man has to keep his personal life so anonymous, because the high-minded William F. Buckley wannabes enjoy making a sport of intimidation and harassment.

Sex sells?

2006-04-26T07:45:00.000-04:00

That sex sells is not exactly a stunning revelation, but this ad still managed to surprise me:

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how there is any connection between the image and the text. It looks like the whole calculus went no further than "Put some blondes in bikinis in the ad." Maybe it'll work, too. Maybe this company will get more subscribers from this ad, just because of the women. But don't ads usually make at least a token attempt to connect their product to the skin - maybe showing some underwear model using the company's product, or at least looking at it? If for no other reason, than to give the reader a pretense for his/her lingering eyeballs...

When you don't even try, it's just embarassing. "Hey, we've got phone service. Oh, and here you go. We know you like this sort of thing too." The reductio ad absurdum of the whole thing is just kind of insulting....

Low-grade snark

2006-04-20T08:34:00.000-04:00

In light of the Swiftboating of the retired generals (and anonymous active generals) who have had the temerity to criticize the Dept. Of Defense's prosecution of the "War" in Iraq, it seems a little more honest sloganeering is in order:

Padilla Update

2006-04-03T10:38:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the Padilla appeal. From the write-up, it sounds as though the Justices denied the appeal on the grounds that the case was moot.

When I wrote about this back in January, I guessed they'd hear the case, but if they didn't, it would be on the grounds that it was moot when the government decided to transfer Padilla to civilian custody, and not when he was actually transferred in January, after the 4th Circuit's odd little stunt. I'm still poking around trying to find the actual Court order, so I don't know for sure. I'll update when I do...particularly because I'd like to know whether I or a certain "nonpartisan" law professor diva was correct about what all the gamesmanship meant back in January...

Not Dead Yet

2006-03-28T11:59:00.000-05:00

I know that a -few- of you out there are still checking in. I haven't locked the doors here and gone home...but over the last two weeks, when I've been inspired to write something amazingly witty, insightful and devastating, I've discovered that four other bloggers have already said the same things first.

So at the moment, I'm trying to resist the temptation to just break down and post pictures of my pets. If the muse doesn't strike soon, though....

Men, Women and Abortion Rights

2006-03-13T09:03:00.000-05:00

Apropos of nothing...way back when in college, some source that I had reason to trust (don't remember who exactly) claimed that men actually supported abortion rights in slightly greater percentages than women. This didn't seem possible.
But something reminded me of that this morning and I decided to check it out. I found this:
2003 CBS news poll

Abortion should be...
Generally available
Men: 40%
Women: 37%

Not permitted
Men: 20%
Women: 24%
------------------------

Also...
2005 Pew Report
% of Men who believe abortion should be "Generally Available" or "Generally Available but with more limitations" than present now: 58
% of Women: 56

% of Men who believe abortion should be illegal except for rape/incest/to save the life of the mother (weird that these are lumped together) or never permitted: 40
% of Women: 42
-----------------------------------------

Now, there's no particular relevance to the merits of the debate here, but I was pretty surprised that the numbers were close, let alone that women were slightly more in favor of rolling back the clock.
(Also interesting - 31% of white catholics thought abortion should be generally available, versus only 11% who thought it should never be permitted).

In other news, Pandora blames the box

2006-02-28T14:23:00.000-05:00

Bush to Iraq: This is your fault

In Washington, Bush sidestepped a question about whether the surge in sectarian violence would affect his administration's hopes to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

"Obviously there are some who are trying to sow the seeds of sectarian violence," Bush said. "And now, the people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice. The choice is chaos or unity, the choice is a free society, or a society dictated by evil people who would kill innocents."

You reap what you sow. Plenty of people anticipated this outcome, instead of rose petals...including the last President Bush. Telling the Sunnis and Shi'ites to just play nice with each other is about as foolish a thing as can be said on the state of affairs in Iraq.

You opened the box, Pandora. Good luck getting everything back in there.

...but it's not about racism.

2006-02-28T08:12:00.000-05:00

Trudging through some wingnut blogs as I am wont to do, to keep tabs on what the other side is thinking - and, to be fair, to occasionally find a fact or two worth knowing - I came across this post on King County, Washington's resolution to "rename" itself to King County...just in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. They're also redoing the county logo.

At the time of this post, there were only 8 responses to this article, but take a guess as to how many were clucks of disapproval at this relatively benign action. Tough pop quiz, right?

Of course, the commenters were tripping over themselves to point out that it wasn't about anything as pedestrian as racism. Perish the thought. It was concern over the efficient use of government resources! Because, as we all know, the GOP these days is all about penny-pinching. Anyway, some of the other concerns included: the King family might charge the county for use of the likeness; and MLK didn't have as much "standing" and "relevance" as other notables the county could have honored.

And how concerned are the Freepers about the frivolous use of taxpayer dollars when used to honor someone a little more ideologically (and ethnically) correct? Not so much.

But remember....it's not about racism.

Deadeye Dick

2006-02-14T11:45:00.000-05:00

OK, so by now we have been treated to three straight days of jokes revolving around the Vice President having shot an old man in the face. I assume that this was basically an accident. A serious accident, but an accident nonetheless. Not an actual scandal involving official misconduct...we already have plenty of those to go around, so take your pick.

The Vice President shooting a hunting buddy in the face is weird and great fodder for the late-night talk shows (unless the guy doesn't somehow recover), but that's about all it is.

HOWEVER, the part of this story that does tick me off is the administration's knee-jerk insistence on blaming the victim. If nothing else, for the sake of gun safety in general, Cheney should have just come out and said, "See, people, this is why we have to take gun safety seriously; I made a mistake and a good friend got hurt. I want him and his family to know I feel terrible about it and wish him the best. Remember, hunters: don't pull the trigger unless you're sure a person isn't in front of the barrel."

How do you lose politically saying that? Hell, I'd even give him a little grudging respect.

Instead, we're treated to the administration downplaying the whole thing ("this was just a pellet gun"), blaming the victim, and generally looking like they're trying to hide something. It's insulting....like 7 year olds handling their public relations. And it's typical of the White House mentality - We're infallible. If something bad happens, it's someone else's fault. Stop asking questions. You don't need to know that.

Even when they probably don't have anything to gain from dodging and weaving, they do it anyway.

Today, wiretaps. Tomorrow, summary execution.

2006-02-06T09:13:00.000-05:00

The administration's defense of its warrantless-wiretapping program has been basically two-fold:

First, Congress implicitly OK'ed this when it authorized the President to use force against Iraq (strict constructionists need not apply). This one pretty much fails the laugh test, for all sorts of reasons. Not the least of which is that Congress specifically rejected an -explicit- attempt to authorize warrantless wiretapping.

Second, and slightly more reality-based, is the argument that warrantless wiretapping (assuming it is limited in scope to what the White House has described - a dicey assumption at best) is part of the President's inherent "wartime" or national-security authority. Once again, strict constructionists need not apply. According to this argument, if Article II of the Constitution grants this inherent authority to the ~~king~~President, any infringement of that authority, a la FISA, is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.

Some shrill left-wing bloggers have wondered if the White House believes there are -any- limits on what it can do, as long as it claims to be acting to preserve "national security" during "wartime." Sober-minded pundits like to dismiss this speculation as wild-eyed slippery-slope speculation.

Except, apparently, it isn't.

Perhaps emboldened by their fun new interpretation of executive authority, some attorneys in the Justice Department have actually been considering whether the President can order summary executions of suspected terrorists. Not convicted terrorists, and not terrorists in the midst of committing an act of terrorism. But suspected terrorists.

I think that basically speaks for itself.

At the risk of sounding shrill, are we now officially a frog being boiled alive, who doesn't notice that it's being boiled, because the heat increases slowly and steadily?

Ouch

2006-02-03T11:34:00.000-05:00

Ann Altmouse unloads on me, double-barrel-style.

It hurts so good, though. Sure, sometimes lobbing my non-arguments at her may feel like trying to talk to a parrot, but I'm pretty sure it's sinking in on some level. Perhaps after another few years of trying, Phila and I will make some progress.

What the hell is this

2006-02-02T10:09:00.000-05:00

OK, I -may- buy my car insurance from a gecko, but I am NOT taking a mortgage from a mutated, panting, pregnant wolf:

The first warning sign that you should NOT borrow several hundred thousand dollars from a company, is that they tempt you with freakish distended mammals. Common sense here, people.

Messages

2006-02-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

Atrios posted about "dog-whistle" politics today, and the ensuing discussion about message versus policy got me thinking about how the parties dress up their respective ideas when selling them to the voters.

Wingnuts like pointing to the last several years of elections as proof that the GOP has "won the war of ideas," and paint the Democratic Party as intellectually bankrupt.

This is, of course, incorrect. The GOP has not won the "war of ideas." Their ideas, most thinking people realize, are regressive, short-sighted, and generally destructive. What the GOP has won, however, is the war of messages - they have managed to take their ideas, which appeal mostly to the id, the lizard brain, whatever you want to call it...and dress them up respectably enough to make otherwise average people find them palatable. When they vote GOP, they're satisfying their baser instincts, but convinced they're doing a nobler thing.

Of course, the GOP has an easier job of this, as their policies have a lot of appeal to peoples' uglier urges....greed, retribution, xenophobia, power, gluttony. Almost every deadly sin except lust, for that matter.

Progressive ideals, however...social and legal equality, protection of the weak and disenfranchised, peace, civil liberty...these ideas don't sell as well to the lizard brain. They appeal to the superego. They require traits like empathy, sacrifice, self-reflection. And that's the problem, imo. The Democrats are trying to sell vegetables and fiber to a market that has been convinced that ice cream and cheetos are good nutrition. And that's what the GOP has done. The answer, Lieberman/Brazile/Shrum notwithstanding, is NOT to give in and start selling vegetable-flavored ice cream.

I'm not sure how to make a superego platform more palatable to the id. I've been hoping that the ruinous consequences of GOP policy would speak for themselves, and the voters might figure it out on their own, and to some extent, that's happening. But Democrats still need better marketing for their ideas. Not to sell out the ideas, as the DLC seems to think is necessary.

Can We Stop Pretending Yet?

2006-01-25T21:26:00.000-05:00

US anti-abortion movement sees victory near

"WASHINGTON (AFP) - Thirty-three years after a Supreme Court decision gave women the right to abortions, anti-abortion activists expressed "new hope" that they would soon be able to outlaw the practice.

Wearing religious vestments and wielding shocking pictures of blood-covered fetuses, tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists rallied in the US capital Monday, encouraged by
President George W. Bush's nomination of two judges with conservative credentials to the Supreme Court.

. . .

Leaders of the protest expressed confidence that the changes in the makeup of the court, expected to turn it decisively to the right, will lead to a ban on abortion.

"Roe's days are numbered," said Stephen Peroutka, president of the National Pro-Life Action Center, an anti-abortion group. "Time is on our side."

So what do these demonstrators know that our distinguished Senators, like Arlen Specter, don't? The several pro-choice Republicans were apparently satisfied that Sam Alito was not a guaranteed vote to overturn Roe, that he would approach the issue with an "open mind," and gave more than lip service to stare decisis. Are the demonstrators all just wishful thinkers?

Or could it be the case that they are simply celebrating the obvious, which everyone already knows, except for a few disingenuous politicians and pundits? To Specter and the few other pro-choice Republicans: STOP LYING. We know Alito will vote to overturn Roe given the chance. The "pro-lifers" know it and are shouting it happily from the rooftops. Everyone in the flippin' country knows it. And you know it too. Nobody's buying the willfull ignorance act. When you vote to confirm Alito, explain why you're doing it despite your "pro-choice" stance, instead of playing dumb.

We're sick of hearing "NOBODY could have predicted...." from D.C.

Hummers

2006-01-25T07:53:00.000-05:00

And here I was off to such a decent start on this blog...

Between packing to move 700 miles away and having constant problems accessing Blogspot, I haven't had the chance to post anything in a while, so I'm sure all 3 of you that visit are disappointed....

Anyway, before getting started on today's frenzy of packing and throwing junk away, I would appreciate any help furthering my sophisticated social science research project. A few years back, I developed a rather immature and vicious theory that people who own Humvees were presumed to be asses. Bill Maher described SUV behemoths as "Fuck You-mobiles," and the Hummer is pretty much the ultimate Fuck You-mobile. It's such a garish, in-your-face, unapologetic trophy of commercial consumerism that I assume anyone owning such a thing has got to have some socialization issues.

So...I now presume that anyone owning such a thing is an ass. However, in the few years that I've developed this amazingly profound theory, I haven't met any Hummer owners that weren't -actually- asses as well. Admittedly, I don't know too many of them, so I want to increase my sample size.

Anyone out there know some Hummer owners? And if so....are they asses?
Your valuable insight will help further the noble cause of science - thank you.

You Cannot Defeat My Flying Malkin-Style

2006-01-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

Via Eschaton, John Lombard noticed that some of Michelle Malkin's writing seems to look curiously like ABC News reporting. Only with the actul facts plagiarized, and surrounded with, well...lies. So as to help make her point.

This is a bold new frontier in truthiness blogging, and I want in on the ground floor, so I'm going to try my hand at it. Can you spot the truthiness?

Craven opportunist President Bush, who never met a cynical, counter-productive photo-op that he didn't like, traveled to a still-ravaged Gulf Coast Thursday after having neglected the region for three months (since playing Xbox and drinking whiskey is much less of a downer), promising that a building boom is on its way, just as soon as all the contracts are handed out to cronies.

Emperor Bush's visit to New Orleans and Mississippi was part of a series of events to showcase his priorities leading up to the State of the Union address. Of course, the event was entirely in keeping with the familiar Rovian strategy of taking a glaring weakness and brazenly trumpeting it as an asset. He paid some lip-service to the notion he was committed to rebuilding communities devastated from Hurricane Katrina. Mostly those communities without the brown folks, though.

"People in far away places like Washington, D.C., still hear you and care about you," Bush condescendingly smirked at survivors gathered at St. Stanislaus College, just a couple of blocks from where Katrina blew ashore.

Bush's travelling photo-op to the college took him down a coastal road past thousands of snapped trees, debris still hanging from limbs and lots emptied of their buildings. There were almost no intact structures -- in most cases only concrete foundations were left -- and little evidence of rebuilding.

"There's no homes to repair," offered Bush, managing to get basic grammar wrong yet again, while stating the painfully obvious. "It's just been flattened. That's what the people of America have got to understand." It is not clear whether he was referring to the Bill of Rights, or the economy.

Have YOU caught Truthiness Fever?

I Hate Confirmation Hearings

2006-01-11T09:26:00.000-05:00

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution

From the WaPo transcript.

That's why confirmation hearings are annoying. The issue of abortion rights IS important. It's something the country should know before a judge takes the bench, and Alito's softshoe dance is disingenuous; if he can say whether the Constitution protects free speech, he can say whether he thinks it protects abortion. He doesn't have to get specific if he thinks it's a gray area. He could say, "No it absolutely does not," or "I believe that one's rights to bodily privacy and autonomy are protected to some extent by amendments X, Y and Z, but that the state also has a legitimate interest in preventing a fetus from being aborted, which in some situations may trump the right to bodily autonomy and privacy, but it isn't a bright line."

But instead, because this one issue is now the third rail of confirmation hearings, we end up with the absurd exchange between Alito and Schumer. I don't like it when supposedly "liberal" judges dodge the question, and I don't like it when Alito does it, particularly when the reasons are as lame as Alito's. He can't offer an opinion as to whether the Constitution protects abortion rights, because it involves "interpreting" terms like "liberty" and "due process"....? Bull. The Constitution also doesn't talk about judicial review, which Marbury v. Madison had to "interpret" to find; I would like Alito to say he can't offer an opinion on that one either.

Lest there's any doubt, however, look at this exchange between Alito and Cornyn:

CORNYN: And outside of let's say the Fourth Amendment, perhaps, does the right to privacy appear explicitly stated in the Constitution?

ALITO: There is no express reference to privacy in the Constitution. But it is protected by the Fourth Amendment and in certain circumstances by the First Amendment and in certain circumstances by the Fifth and the 14th Amendments.

CORNYN: And the reason it's protected is because the Supreme Court has so interpreted the Constitution. Isn't that correct, sir?

ALITO: That's correct. It's a question of interpretation rather than simply looking at what is in the text of the document.

Now, Cornyn was trying to bail Alito out here, and ends up doing the exact -opposite-. Look at what Alito said: "Privacy rights aren't explicit, and you have to interpret other language to find them there. But they do exist."
This is right on the heels of him arguing he can't say whether a right to abortion exists because it involves "interpretation."

And this is why confirmation hearings stink. Each side will go berserk if they get a committal answer on a relatively straightfoward legal issue, which just happens to be a nuclear social and political issue. So we all have to pretend that there are principled reasons to dodge the question.

There aren't. Just answer the damn question, and let the Senate figure out how to confirm a nominee that -will- answer it.

UPDATE: Cyberstalking doesn't cover message boards

2006-01-10T09:05:00.000-05:00

In yesterday's post about the cyberstalking law that purports to outlaw "annoying" anonymous communications over the net, I mentioned that I had come across various discussions of the existing phone-stalking law which claimed that it did not apply to message boards or forum posts. After a cursory reading of the statute, I wasn't sure where this had come from.

Well, with the help of a comment to the post, I've taken a closer look at the related and applicable statutes, and it seems that message boards and forums (fora, if you're a stickler about that sort of thing) are indeed NOT covered by the cyberstalking law. This blog post summarizes the issue neatly.

The law that was signed by Bush last week contains this language in Section 113:

b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.

Section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act is now on the books at 47 USC 223, and subsection (h)(1) says the following:

(h) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section—
(A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter; and
(B) does not include an interactive computer service.

So "interactive computer services" are not considered telecommunications devices under this law, and use of "interactive computer services" to send "annoying" or harassing communications isn't a crime. I had in fact seen this when looking at the law yesterday, but, since you get the legal analysis you pay for, I had assumed this was the standard "doesn't apply to ISPs" provision that is added almost as a matter of course to internet laws. I was wrong.

"Interactive computer services" is defined at 47 USC 230(f)(2):

(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

Now this is a little difficult to parse, but I think any reasonable reading of it includes message boards, fora, and blog posts. Blogger, for example, seems to fall squarely in the category of a "system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server." As unwieldy as the language is, this was Congress' attempt to limit the harassment/annoyance/threats prohibition to what are basically communications between the maker and the target. There may very well be exceptions, where publically-posted communications can fall under the cyberstalking law, but this section does in fact exclude most message board and forum posts, as well as blog updates.

So, breathe easier. The General isn't going to be shut down....

On Being Annoying

2006-01-09T11:11:00.000-05:00

Earlier this morning, Atrios posted an entry about a new federal law that purports to make annoying, anonymous internet messages a federal crime. His blurb was based on this C|Net article. While the author of the C|Net piece was technically correct, there is not quite so much "there" there. Here's why.

The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act did not come out of the blue to outlaw "annoying" internet messages. What it did was amend an existing law, 47 USC s.223, which already prohibited this conduct when used over the phone:

[Any naughty boy or girl who] makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

The new law basically added "this includes the net" to that clause.

Now the reason why this is not a particularly outrageous law is that the existing law has been upheld. Although the term "annoy" is broad and vague, courts have interpreted it narrowly, in the context of the phrase "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass," to mean not just being a jerk over the phone, but actual stalking or harassment-type situations. To an extent, the judiciary has been cleaning up after the legislature, and interpreted this law narrowly enough so that it would be constitutional.

Because the new law only said, in essence, "This goes for the net too," there is no reason to think that courts faced with this law will interpret it to prohibit any conduct that is legal to do over the phone. In short, there is little chance that the new law will be used to prosecute successfully anyone who isn't engaged in actual threats, harassment or stalking. Any attempt to convict someone based on an internet flamewar or obnoxious email will fail; first, because the statute does not cover those communications, and second, it would be unconstitutional if it did.

Furthermore, a number of legal authorities have concluded that 47 USC s.223 applies only to communications between the communicator and target, and does not apply to message posting in an open forum. Having read the statute, I'm not quite sure where this conclusion is coming from, but the language referring to "the called number" and "the person who receives the communications" do arguably show an intent to limit this law to what are more or less private, directed messages.

I think if this law is challenged, it will actually be upheld; what has been OK'ed for phone calls will be OK'ed for the net, because the law has been interpreted very narrowly, and does not actually prohibit anonymous "annoyances." Courts recognized the law was designed to prevent stalking, and have consistently intepreted it that way.

Hometown Pride

2006-01-06T11:52:00.000-05:00

Apparently Baltimore is the fittest city in the country. Something to be proud of, I suppose :)

It's not surprising, though...running for your life, and grappling with hobos during knife fights is pretty good cardio.

As Surely As The Sun Rising....

2006-01-06T10:55:00.000-05:00

Well, we all knew it was just a matter of time....

The Abramoff "unpleasantness" was really who's fault? House Republicans? Ambramoff himself? Tom DeLay? No, foolish liberals. It was of course BILL CLINTON'S FAULT. Just like the "war" in Iraq, obesity, teenage fellatio, and all those movies that are just re-makes of campy 70s television shows.

Warning to those prone to the vapors, wingnuttiness to be quoted, if you're too delicate to follow the link:

Kudos to Michelle Malkin for being among the first to see the potential for mischief in a little-noticed (at the time) ruling by the Clinton-era FEC. It seems that the august commissioners ruled in 2000 that while Indian tribes were "persons" subject to individual limits on contributions to candidates, parties, and political action committees, they were not "individuals" subject to the $25,000 limit on the annual total of contributions.

Yes, the wingers are sourcing 2001 Michelle Malkin wisdom to dump the GOP corruption into Clinton's abundant lap.

Jose Padilla For Dummies

2006-01-05T09:38:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, the Supreme Court approved the Justice Department's request to have Jose Padilla transferred from military to civilian custody. In the wake of this ruling, a lot of confusion, spin, and tea-leaf reading was happening, and most of it was inaccurate. After reading one law professor's description of the ruling that was not, in a word, correct, it seemed that a summary of the facts and procedure in this case was appropriate, since it doesn't make a whole lot of intuitive sense unless you've slogged through the briefs and court orders. The writers at ScotusBlog deserve kudos for meticulously documenting this case as it has progressed, and linking to the parties' briefs.

Anyway, here's a (hopefully) plain-English version of what's been happening in this case.

In May 2002, US citizen Jose Padilla was arrested on US soil, designated an "enemy combatant," and put into military custody.

Padilla challenged the government's decision to hold him without charges, apparently indefinitely, and argued that he can't be considered an "enemy combatant" and deprived due process rights afforded to any other citizen arrested. The challenge is brought in a federal District Court in the 2nd Circuit, which includes Chicago (where Padilla was arrested). Padilla's challenge is brought through a "Petition for a writ of habeas corpus," and not a lawsuit for damages against the goverment, or an action for "declaratory judgment," where he would ask the judiciary to declare the executive's "enemy combatant" policy unconstitutional (either on its face or as applied to him). The 2d Circuit rules against the government.

The Supreme Court vacates the 2d Circuit decision, not on the merits of the argument, but on the grounds that the 2d Circuit was not the proper location for the suit. Padilla re-files the habeas petition in a District Court in the 4th Circuit.

The District Court in the new suit rules in favor of the government. However, no trial on the facts was held; it was a decision only on the legal issue of whether Padilla could be held as an "enemy combatant." For purposes of this decision, the court assumed that all of the government's allegations about Padilla were true.

Padilla appealed to the 4th Circuit which upheld the district court. Again, there was no decision on the truth of the government's claims regarding Padilla's terrorist ties or activity, as Padilla was claiming that even if everything the government said was true, they were still not entitled to hold him indefinitely without charges.

Just a few weeks after the 4th Circuit certifies its order as a "final decision," Padilla files a request for the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit's decision (known as a petition for a writ of certiorari). This is where the gamesmanship begins.

Before the government replies to Padilla's appeal request, it gets an indictment against him in a Florida federal court. The charges bear little relation to the story the government told the courts when it was arguing that Padilla was an "enemy combatant" whom they could detain indefinitely.

Shortly after Padilla is indicted, the Justice Dept. files its brief with the Supreme Court arguing that it should not take Padilla's appeal because the case is now moot. The government argues that because Padilla was seeking a writ of habeas corpus, he no longer has a claim, as the government no longer wants to hold him as an enemy combatant.

While the appeal request is pending in the Supreme Court, the DoJ asks the 4th Circuit to approve Padilla's transfer from military custory to civilian custody, and to vacate the decision in its favor. The DoJ states that they no longer need or want to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant, and since he has been indicted, he should be transferred to the civilian jail to await trial. The most reasonable interpretation of the DoJ's request that the 4th Circuit vacate a ruling in the executive's favor, is that they did not want the constitutionality of their program decided by the Supreme Court, and were trying to render the case moot.

In their reply brief, Padilla's lawyers agree that he should be transferred to civilian jail, and argue that the case won't be rendered moot by such a transfer:

Padilla believes the appropriate course of action is for this Court to order his immediate transfer to civilian custody, and to defer action on the question of whether to recall the mandate until after the Supreme Court disposes of his petition for certiorari, which is currently scheduled to be considered in early January.

The 4th Circuit then generates a tsunami of confused headlines and analysis when it denies the request both parties had made, to transfer Padilla. The court was not happy when it saw Padilla's indictments, which bore little resemblance to the allegations the government had made when justifying its designation of Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Nothing about "dirty bombs," for example. So, the 4th circuit came right out and said, in essence: "We no longer think you're being honest about why you needed to hold Jose Padilla for years without charges or a trial, and it's obvious you're trying to keep the Supreme Court from looking into that, by making the issue moot. So we're not going to cooperate, and keep him where he is, so that the Supreme Court can deal with this."

Now, the problem with this is that the 4th circuit was almost certainly wrong about their conclusion; keeping Padilla in military detention against the will of the people holding him was not likely to affect whether his habeas petition was moot, one way or the other. In my opinion, the 4th circuit knew this as well, but wanted to send a clear message to the DoJ and the Supreme Court, that the government was acting in bad faith, and should not be allowed to avoid having its actions reviewed -right now-.

So, the government appealed this order to the Supreme Court, asking it to approve Padilla's transfer. Importantly, they conceded in a brief that transferring Padilla now would not render his case moot. They argued that if it was moot, it was moot when they wanted to let him go. Holding him in military custody now or transferring him would not affect his appeal to the Supreme Court:

Granting the application [to transfer Padilla] will not prejudice this Court's consideration of Padilla's petition for certiorari. It would, however, eliminate the anomaly of a citizen being held by the military against the wishes of both the Executive and the detainee. . .

On this point, the government was right, and yesterday the Supreme Court agreed.

In agreeing to transfer Padilla, the Supreme Court did not discuss the mootness issue, or make any ruling on Padilla's request for an appeal, which will be considered later this month. In short, this is a very inconsequential order, and it is not, as certain law professors have claimed, either a setback for Padilla, or a repudiation of the 4th Circuit's assessment of the government's conduct. The Justice Dept. has agreed that transferring Padilla now won't prejudice his appeal request. And that's about as straightforward as it can get: Padilla wanted out, the DoJ wanted him out, and the 4th circuit was wrong that transferring him would affect his chances to get his appeal heard.

Reading tea leaves of my own, I expect the Supreme Court will take the appeal. If it does not grant cert., it will NOT be because the issue was rendered moot by their approval of Padilla's transfer to civilian jail now. If it was moot, it was moot when Justice decided they wanted him transferred.

Also, even if Padilla's appeal isn't heard, the government is not off the hook; they've merely bought more time. Padilla most likely can go back and file a damages claim against the government. Because that issue was not involved in his habeas petition, however, he will essentially have to start over from scratch.

So there you have it.

Worst Humans of 2005

2006-01-03T09:33:00.000-05:00

Another year-end phenomenon that is apparently making its way around the internets is the Worst _______ of 2005. It's very clever, because usually these lists around about the Best of 2005; but these are the Worst! Get it??!

Anyway, making a bullet list is an easy and lazy substitute for insightful writing, so of course I like it.

So, here are my Worst Humans of 2005. People whose absence would have made the world a much healthier, happier, saner place:

1. Bill O'Reilly
This almost goes without saying. The fatuous gasbag turned up the volume on his freak show this year to astonishing levels. After the sexual harassment lawsuit, he has started to become more and more unhinged and sociopathic, in a bid to stay relevant. Pick any show of the year. It doesn't matter. They're all incitements to hatred. Inviting al Qaeda to blow up the Coit Tower in San Francisco? No problem. Ginning up a bogus "War of Xmas" to turn every holiday well-wish into a coded subtextual fight? Sure! Publishing an enemies list? Fuck yeah! NOT including me on the enemies list? The icing on the cake.

2. Barbara Bush
This rotten woman probably deserves a lifetime award more than a specific year. But her fun little quote about Katrina refugees enjoying their new standard of living in the Houston Astrodome nicely punctuates a lifetime of evil. The fact that Babs is supposedly one of the few people that W still talks with daily, only highlights the Freudian nightmare that family is playing out on the rest of us.

3. John Yoo
Law "professor" at Berkeley. I hope that the history books won't overlook this mendacious bastard's role in turning our Chief Executive into a King. On the heels of his analysis that torture is OK as long as you don't call it torture, Yoo has convinced the executive that they're more or less above federal law. If we're at "war," then whatever the President does is per se legal. That's about what it comes down to.

4. John Bolton
Now that he's been back-doored into the UN, he's doing exactly what he wanted to: piss off the rest of the world even more, and do everything he can to grind any progress to a halt. For his continued tantrums, intransigence and general derangement, Bolton is an easy choice.

5. Judith Miller
She's a first amendment martyr. She's a victim of a runaway prosecutor bent on savaging the freedom of the press. She's a Pulitzer-winning journalist who was misled by faulty intelligence. She's certainly NOT a stenographer with a massive chip on her shoulder, and the embodiment of everything wrong with "access" journalism. Right? If she had an ounce of human shame, or pride in her craft, she would have packed up her things and left the NYT quietly, moved to Wyoming and taken a job at a local general store, spending the rest of her life regretting what she'd done to the NYT and to the country. Instead she demands an enormous severance settlement.

6. Fanatics with bombs
OK, we all realize that Iraq is a mess, and that ethnic, religious and political violence were inevitable after Saddam's dictatorship was removed, leaving the vacuum that's there now. But the bombers targetting innocent civilians who happen to be Sunnis instead of Shi'ites, or vice versa, aren't to be excused. Fanatacism comes in many stripes, and the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children on the level that Iraq has seen over the last twelve months is horrific. We may have opened the Pandora's Box, but the nasty shit that came out is still nasty.

7. W
Self-explanatory. He couldn't -not- be on the list.

8. Bruce Chapman
President of the ironically-named "Discovery Institute" in Seattle - the "think tank" that has been pushing Intelligent Design across the country. Now that Kansas has actually bought into that warmed-over creationist nonsense, we have embarassed ourselves to the rest of the world yet again. For working tirelessly to push the U.S. back into the dark ages, Bruce Chapman and his Discovery Institute was certainly one of the worst humans of 2005.

9. "Reverend" Fred Phelps
The same assclown who picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral has taken his freakshow on the road, and spent a good deal of 2005 picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Follow the logic here: Phelps and his slope-headed neanderthals believe that the war casualties are the inevitable and just consequence of America's moral decay. Mostly because of gay sex, or something. I cannot even imagine what it must be like to live in Fred Phelps' head. Must be a horrible place. Lots of spiders.

10. Tie: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage
For what should be obvious reasons, this vanguard of fascist apologia worked overtime in 2005 to spread their caustic bullshit to every corner of the country. There isn't enough storage space on the internets to document the tsunami of lies that got blast-faxed into this Wurlitzer of wingnutty madness, but Media Matters fights the good fight for us. There is literally nothing too extreme to be championed by these mongoloids, and we saw plenty of it in 2005. Expect the calls for prosecution of dissenters to start being made with straight faces in 2006, rather than the smarmy grin that normally accompanies them now.

Quotes of 2005

2006-01-01T09:30:00.000-05:00

A lot of blogs and old media such as the Washington Post have been picking Quotes of the Year for 2005. The usual suspects are getting the attention that they deserve: Brownie's heck of a job, living in the Astrodome "working out quite well" for those untouchables, Pat Robertson putting a hit out on Huge Chavez...

BUT we should not forget this little gem that came late to the party, as it says so much about the GOP in so few words:

This has been the saddest day of my life It's a day I don't want to remember, and I'm sorry to see it come to an end

-Ted Stevens (R - Alaska) on the day the Senate blocked oil drilling in ANWR.

Ignoring the confusing bit about being sorry to see the saddest day of his life come to an end, let's consider:
The Senate voting to keep oil companies from drilling in a wildlife refuge? Very very sad.
Your wife dying in a plane crash?* Not so much

Although to be fair, she cut his sandwiches diagonally, instead of down the middle, the way he liked. So impeding oil company profiteering really is sadder.

------------------------------------------------------
* "In December 1978, Stevens survived the crash of a lear jet at the airport, which killed five people, including his first wife, Ann." - Wikipedia

Happy Hangover!

2006-01-01T08:45:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts before I stumble out to refresh the cigarette supply:

* Digby is particularly good, if you haven't caught this post yet, on W's pathological need to clear brush:

You can't compare this to his bicycling or running obsessions, because those have a certain meditative yet thrilling physical challenge. This is something else entirely. This is the the only thing he can think of to do when he isn't running or biking. Mindless, loud, repetitive manual labor. It's like obsessively jackhammering sidewalks for fun.

* Hi Ann! One of the few visitors I've had since starting this irrelevance has been someone from Madison, Wisconsin, visiting the "Althouse or Altmouse?" update. This is not very significant in and of itself, but it gives me an excuse to point out that her site is the top result if you Google goose excrement.

What doth the new year hold....

2006-01-01T00:13:00.000-05:00

2006 predictions:

DeLay acquitted in laundering trial.
DeLay indicted by feds wrt Abramoff.
Rove indicted by Fitz's grand jury.
Congress holds wiretap hearings.
Wiretap hearings end up going nowhere; GOP + Liberman decide legality is "iffy," impeachment would be extreme.
W approval ratings languish around 40.
Democrats pick up House and Senate seats, but don't take majority in either house.
Time names RedState.org Blog of the Year.
Nothing much changes in Iraq; sectarian violence continues but US troop presence staves off inevitable all-out civil war.
Some sharks bite some guys.
Some white women go missing for a few days.
A nasty hurricane hits Florida. Local Democratic city comptroller blamed for inadequate response.
Massachusetts does not fall into ocean or go up in flames.
Limbaugh charged by FL prosecutor.
Santorum booted out on ass by Casey.
Paul Hackett loses senate race 51-49.
Deficit around $350 billion.
Katherine Harris drops out of senate race; poses for Playboy.
Tony Blair forced out of office by overseas torture scandals.
Playboy goes bankrupt.
John Gibson and O'Reilly say a bunch of stupid shit, nobody pays attention to them, until they gin up the War on Xmas again, the day after Thanksgiving.

TTFN

2005-12-30T15:20:00.000-05:00

"U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., discusses his re-election bid during an interview Sept. 16, 2005, in Harrisburg, Pa. (AP Photo/Bradley C Bower) "

"Right now, it looks like I'm about -this- far behind Casey...."

Fun game

2005-12-30T09:23:00.000-05:00

Another round of "Althouse or Altmouse!" Not recommended for children under the age of 6, or those prone to weeping.

"How should a man decide whether or not the collar of his shirt belongs inside or outside the lapels of his jacket? Obviously, if he's wearing a tie, the collar goes inside, and a big crazy disco collar goes outside. But other than that, what is the significance of inside or outside?"

The amazingly shocking answer can be found here!

Thematic Materials

2005-12-28T22:41:00.000-05:00

Follow-up to the movie blogging:

The Skeleton Key was rated R in part because of "Thematic Materials."

I have a reasonable grasp of the English language, but "Thematic Materials" tells me exactly jack plus shit. Do many movies not have "thematic materials"....? And what about themes makes them inappropriate for children?

Instead of a weird euphemism, the rating board should probably just say "Bad Hoodoo Mojo and chicken bones and crap like that." Lord knows there isn't a single parent out there that could use "thematic materials" as a basis to judge a movie's content.

Movie blogging

2005-12-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

Slow news day, apparently. So, movie blogging.

The Skeleton Key.
aka "The Movie Where You Can't See Shit."
As horror movies go, it wasn't bad. Almost good, in fact. The fact that it had Gena Rowlands almost makes it automatically good, not to mention being a gothic set in the Bayou. The overuse of some hackneyed horror conventions was a real kick in the stones, however - particularly the tight close-ups that turn into cheap shock gags when it turns out the character is standing right next to something that you couldn't see, and is supposed to scare you. Usually a cat. At least they didn't use that one... And the fact that the entire film is practically pitch black gets tiresome.

Still, the ending didn't pull any punches, which is damn close to a miracle these days. Of course, now that the Bayou has been flattened, watching the movie is more than a little morbid.....

Handicapping '08

2005-12-28T10:31:00.000-05:00

Yeah, yeah, it's way too early to be talking about '08, and the candidates will probably be people who aren't even on the radar yet. But it's still fun. Here's how I see it:

GOP
John McCain and George Allen have the best chance of getting the nomination, and they're probably about equal. McCain doesn't have much charisma, but he's the media darling because of his ostensible centrism/bipartisanship/principle. Of course, he's not really a centrist, and this photo tells you pretty much all you need to know. But that's the narrative, and the media will stick to it. McCain and Giuliani are the two Republicans that would be the most palatable to Sally Soccer Mom, and both can tap into peoples' apparent need for the Daddy State to keep them safe from the scary brown people. Giuliani, however, is even less charismatic than McCain, even more socially centrist, and generally resembles a snake. So McCain will get the "moderate" support.

Which leaves George Allen to pick up the mouth-breathers that just loves them some W. He's cut straight from the W mold, being a whiter-than-white golden boy, who can please both corporate America and the "values" Republicans. He also has the advantage of not being particularly bright. Or, to put it more succinctly, he's dumb as a post. Which is now a political asset, as it makes you seem less frightening. Think, "Non-Threatening-Boys Magazine" for the government.

I'm guessing it'll be Allen. The upside: both McCain and Allen are senators, who have a history of doing miserably in preznitial bids.

Democrat
Sadly enough, Hillary is the most likely choice. She's totally unelectable, but nobody else seems even close in terms of early support. She could have a fight on her hands from Al Gore, Mark Warner, or Wesley Clark, but none of them could really stop the Democrats from tilting at windmills yet again, and nominating Hillary.

I'd be happy with almost any combination of Clark, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama, Brian Schweitzer or Gore on the ticket, but it ain't gonna happen. Russell Feingold would be an excellent President, but he has even less chance of being elected than Hillary.

If '08 ends up being Hillary versus McCain, the GOP wins.
If it's Hillary versus Allen...it will be closer, but the GOP will still win.

More trips into Wingnuttia

2005-12-28T09:48:00.000-05:00

WARNING: This post contains links to sites that may cause your eyeballs to melt.

The last few weeks I've taken to regularly visiting wingnut sites...probably just out of masochism, but I tell myself it's to stay on top of what the other side of the street is talking about.I swear on the baby jebus, we inhabit totally different universes. It's gospel truth that the old media hate the administration and hate Israel. And they're simply tickled pink that the left is not happy about the wiretapping. There is no doubt in their minds it was all entirely legal and constitutional, that it is a valiant effort to keep America safe, and the more Democrats squawk about it, the better it will be for W.

Of course, on the sites that actually allow dissent without immediately deleting and banning it, it's treated about as dismissively as trolls at left-wing blogs, regardless of whether any substantive points are made.It's just...mind-boggling. And I can't decide if that's because I'm brainwashed from living inside a left-wing echo chamber, if -they're- brainwashed from living inside a wingnutty echo chamber, or some combination of the two. Sadly, it's probably the latter.

Odd, still, that they sometimes get it right. On Redstate, for example, they didn't like the proposed law to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, on the grounds that it obviously contradicted the Constitutional amendment on point. Seeing an issue like that, where they don't try to spin the facts and the law to fit a desirable outcome, is odd, when it's being done on every other issue around it...

Wingnuttia is a bizarre place. But it is disconcerting not to know whose echo chamber is warping whose good sense and objectivity the most.

Test post

2005-11-22T14:18:00.000-05:00

Frist!