Hydrogen & Stupidity

No, I'm not dead

2007-06-01T21:09:00.000-06:00

Though I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for thinking as much.

I don't know what prompted me to stick my head back in here, much less look at the traffic meter, but imagine my surprise to see there's a teeeeeeeeny little bit of drive-through eyes still hitting these pages. Even more bizarrely, 5 of you never did get around to deleting this feed from your readers. Now *that's* loyalty. Or laziness, I'm not sure.

At any rate, for those of you mildly interested in my personal life, the nutshell is this: Everyone is happy here in CO. I've returned to full-time work at a job I love, Baby Bitch is a giant 3 1/2 year old now, and Mr. Bitch has been promoted to Very Big Cheese. House-hunting is on the horizon, and thank heavens... this apartment living sucks, no matter how nice the building(s) and tame (most of) the neighbors are.

I don't need to tell any of you about the State of the Nation these days, right? I mean it's seriously like the editorial staff at The Onion is running the country. Just when you think it can't get any more absurd, it DOES.

Personally, I still like Obama and find Edwards terribly appealing as well. I will only vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, and even then will do so with a distinct grimace on my face.

That said, I'm still furious at the Democrats & their handling of the funding bill. I know, I know, they don't have the votes for override but Christ on a Cracker when the FUCK will these people get their act together?!?!?

Anyway, sadly, I don't have the steam even now to plow into a really good rant (like I could choose from the sickening myriad of topics anyway, right?) but I thought in case anyone that used to visit still does, I'd say Hi, hope you're well, and that things, no matter what they might be, are looking up for you & yours.

One of these days I'll dust off the barstools and fill the kegs.

Until then, be well....

Well, This Totally Blows

2006-08-01T12:52:00.000-06:00

Michael Reynolds is hanging it up.

If you've ever stopped by and enjoyed even a syllable, head over and wish him well.

Sigh.

Reply All

2006-07-31T16:48:00.000-06:00

I got an email today. It’s like many others I’ve received since 2003, inviting readers to drop by a particular website and drop a “thank you” note into a group of messages destined for our military personnel overseas. I don’t doubt you’ve gotten similar messages.

But for whatever reason, today’s really stuck with me, wriggling under my skin like a persistent itch. So, I sat down, intending to hit “reply all” and send my rebuttal to some 2 dozen co-recipients.

After typing most of it, I thought better of my breach-of-etiquette and thought I’d just send it off to the individual sender. But that didn’t seem like enough, as if it's a violation of Blogger Law to write anything longer than 2 paragraphs and then fail to post an entry about it.

So, here 'tis. Everyone in my address book got a copy. I'll let you know if I get any (unlikely) negative responses.

Today’s email:

WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click on the web address and send a card to one who is serving our country for your freedom......
This was just sent to me. How AMAZING if we could get everyone we know to send one.
If you go to the web site at http://www.letssaythanks.com/ you can pick out a thank you card and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq. You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services. It only takes a second and wouldn't it be wonderful if they received a bunch of these.

Please tell all your friends about this site!

This was my reply:

I love ideas like this, to be sure, and have heard stories from soldiers that are immeasurably grateful for these kind of supportive gestures. I don’t mean for a minute to discount them in any way. Please do participate. Send your packages and your love every chance you get. It’s the very least we can do.

That said, this is exactly that, the “least”. There is more we can do for these brave men and women that are dying in droves for our country.

What, precisely?

Hold our executive and legislative branches accountable for what is a horribly and incompetently managed war.

Whether you supported the initial incursion into Iraq or not, whether you believed the Bush administration had noble goals for the region, it is hard to argue, credibly, that these goals have been achieved. Instead, over 2500 of our best and bravest are dead.

Plans for troop reduction are being shelved and these magnificent people are being relegated to a police action in Baghdad. Our resources are tapped while the entire Middle East becomes more chaotic every day. This is not solely a political problem. This is not a partisan issue. Only the most strident, and least informed, supporters of this effort maintain that Iraq has, and continues, to go swimmingly.

You and I, us “regular people” know different, though don’t we?

How many military families need state assistance just to feed and house their children? The numbers are shocking (25,000 families are eligible), and rarely discussed on the likes of Fox news.

How many soldiers have been literally blown to bits for lack of armor and equipment? According to some, a significant portion (80% of dead Marines for example) of the total lost.

How many returning soldiers are being cut off from desperately needed medical and metal health services thanks to callous cuts to VA funding? Nearly too many to count without being left with nothing but rage and despair. ($25 billion in cuts were just approved by Congress, in fact).

Supporting our troops can be much more than letters, flags and yellow ribbons. In fact, these are all hollow, meaningless gestures if we continue to elect those that enable, if not actively support, the kind of disgraces mentioned above.

Contrary to what our President would have us believe, “Staying the course” is not a strategy, it is not an ideal, and it is certainly not logical. As children, we learn to vary our techniques when old approaches fail. We learn critical thought and assessment in the hopes of learning how to respond to a changing world. And when one method fails, another is utilized. “Staying the course” is equivalent to refusing to admit mistakes, refusing to acknowledge the rising tide of public opinion (you know, those pesky constituents our leaders are supposed to REPRESENT), and refusing to take responsibility for our choices and our reality. This is not a complicated concept. Who do we respect more, the stubborn and recalcitrant or the creative and innovative? America was built by the blood, sweat and tears of the latter, if we’ll recall our 8th grade history lessons.

As such, I beg:

Get your news from multiple sources. If you must watch Fox, balance it out with, say, the BBC perhaps. Visit aggregate sites like this one that provide access to news from across the world. Read alternative press. Read blogs. There is so much information right at our fingertips that even our crowded, hectic lives can no longer excuse limiting ourselves to traditional corporate media. And remember: History is always written by the winners, and the winners are not always right (or truthful). There is far more going on than what we’re shown on Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

Get up to speed on Congressional races in your state. Our voter turn out is generally deplorable in a Presidential election, much less a Congressional one. Where do your local candidates stand on the war? On VA funding? On foreign policy? The people you send to Washington DC are the same ones that approve the decimation of VA resources and services, that approve wholly inadequate budgets for equipment, the ones that refuse to exercise their most critical responsibility: to serve the people. If you have any objection to the actions of your President, on any level, consider who made his actions possible: the United States Congress. (Well, aside for those 750+ “signing statements” in which Bush told Congress to “go &%$^ yourselves”, but that’s another discussion for another day.)

It shouldn’t take but a few moments with Google to find out these answers regarding your local representatives. In the time it takes to watch the current “American Idol”, you can learn crucial information about the people that represent your voice in your government. If their individual websites do not clearly outline their respective positions, send them emails and ask questions. If their staffers respond slowly or not at all, consider yourself warned about the candidates’ concern for their constituents. At the end of the proverbial day, our voices are all we have in a democracy. If you give up that right, give up your chance to be heard, then you give up your claim of patriotism and abandon your civic responsibility. Whether or not you have a ribbon on your bumper means nothing against that.

Listen to what returning Iraq and Afghanistan vets have to say. Turn off Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and listen to the words of ACTUAL VETERANS. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Soldiers for the Truth are good places to start. There are an increasing number of veterans running for Congress in the upcoming election. That the majority of them are running as Democrats should tell you something.

We can always send letters, fly flags, and decorate our bumpers with stickers and ribbons. And these are nice things, absolutely.

However, if you want to genuinely HELP these magnificently brave and selfless individuals, do something really meaningful:

Get Informed.
Ask Questions.
Demand Accountability.
And VOTE.

Brilliant, Every Time

2006-07-28T15:36:00.000-06:00

If you're not reading One Pissed Off Liberal, you're missing some of the best writing in the blogosphere.

Seriously. It's folks like this that make folks like me think we might better just stick to our grocery lists.

OPOL's page at MyLeftWing

OPOL's page at DailyKos

God, I love this medium. It's encouraging to see ever-more jewels hidden in the rubble of what passes for political commentary these days. And without blogs, we'd miss most of them. Can you imagine Time Magazine ever having the balls to publish writers like this?

GOP Staffer Canned

2006-07-28T14:56:00.000-06:00

As you may or may not be aware, the Ohio Restoration Project is a real piece of work. If you ever need to cite an example of why lefties tend to loathe the Christofacist arm of conservative politics, look no further.

Bill Moyers, in his usual eloquence:

Let's take a brief detour to Ohio and I'll show you what I am talking about. In recent weeks a movement called the Ohio Restoration Project has been launched to identify and train thousands of "Patriot Pastors" to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement - the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus - casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between "the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell." The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won't teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the "secular jihadists" who have "hijacked" America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was "an avid evolutionist." He links abortion to children who murder their parents. He blasts the "pagan left" for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that "homosexual rights" will bring "a flood of demonic oppression." On his church website you read that "Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America's youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation."

The folks at Street Prophets have been keeping an eye on these wackos, so be sure to check out some of their entries if you're getting up to speed.

Beyond the sport of oggling at wingnuts, their existence is politically relevant due to their near orgiastic support of Ken Blackwell, Ohio gubernatorial candidate. And, as you're surely aware, Ken Blackwell is inextricably linked to the sickening array of voting problems in Ohio surrounding the 2004 Presidential election.

So, today, I'm skimming headlines and come across this from Raw Story:

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Republican Party fired a staffer Thursday for sending inflammatory e-mails about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland that Democrats labeled "gutter politics."

The messages, sent to GOP supporters, questioned Strickland's ministerial credentials, his toughness on child predators and his and his wife's sexual orientation.

Gary Lankford, a Christian school headmaster and former director of the Ohio Restoration Project, was let go over the postings, said Jason Mauk, the state party's political director.

The party hired Lankford to coordinate the GOP's outreach to social conservative groups. Ohioans for Ken Blackwell, the campaign of Strickland's GOP opponent in the Nov. 7 election, paid him $15,000 during the primary for "voter contact," state records show.

Ohio GOP Chairman Bob Bennett said Thursday he did not see Lankford's e-mails before they went out and that they crossed the line.

"I will not tolerate anything like that. That's not how I run the party," Bennett said. "Unfortunately, I was a little slow to react to this."

Democrats, who said they first learned of the messages through news reports, blasted Lankford's postings, which he encouraged recipients to forward to others.

"This is the worst kind of innuendo and gutter politics, like you used to see in the 19th century. It's sleazy," said Brian Rothenberg, a spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party.

Strickland called the firing appropriate.

"I would like to be able to take Mr. Bennett at his word when he says we ought to focus on the issues that are important to Ohio," he said. "That's what I've been doing my entire campaign."

He said the party should have been wary of Lankford, who had worked for the Blackwell campaign and the Restoration Project, a politically active, conservative Christian group. "He was not an unknown quantity," Strickland said. [Emphasis mine]

"Not an unknown quantity". Of course he wasn't. And I can't think of a single liberal that will be at all surprised that tactics such as these spring so easily from the loins of the ORP (or the GOP, for that matter).

Which leads me to wonder --

Given what we've seen from the neo-con religious right, when the FUCK are we going to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to ANY blowhard that claims to be a Christian? You know what? The legitimately pious people I've met in my life very rarely volunteer their religious affiliation, and instead, demonstrate what they believe by what they DO.

Since when did this kind of metric become passe? And worse, who the hell is falling for it? Not the religious people whose blogs/articles I read. They recognize shit when it's piled up and steaming at their feet.

One can only conclude that the voters supporting groups like the ORP are the worst kind of "Christians". You know, the kind that treat Sunday services like cocktail hour at a country club, who claim affiliation with no more gravity than that awarded to brands of peanut butter, and who cherry pick their way through the Bible looking for tools with which to oppress anyone they don't like.

This is hardly a ground-breaking analysis of far too many "values-voters" in this country. However, the assumptions we make about so-called Christians in politics is in virtual opposition to how they ACTUALLY BEHAVE. And yet, we see stories like that referenced in Raw Story, in which it's actually "news" when these ratfuckers reveal themselves for what they actually are.

If we're at all serious about throwing off the yoke of neocon fundamentalism in this country, how about refusing to assume that anyone claiming to be a "Christian" is automatically a good guy? How about assigning their religious affiliation no more significance that their hair color and get on with watching what they do and what they say?

These despicable people are only as powerful as we let them become, since we're the ones swallowing their bullshit with nary a blink. Wake up, people.

Investment in Ego

2006-07-27T15:54:00.000-06:00

For some time now, I've been suggesting that one of the possible reasons that Bush maintains some degree of support is due to the sheer ego of those supporting him.

They've not only invested their vote, their lone political voice in the process, but in defending this man and his policies, they've also put their own egos, their own reputations on the line. They've made firm, loud proclamations of what a "great leader" Bush is, even in the face of grand fiascos, foreign and domestic.

I don't think these folks are intellectually incapable of seeing the folly of their position. Instead, I think that their egos are fully and totally in control and will simply not allow them to admit they were wrong in their assessments.

Now, the tendency isn't so implicitly horrible, and it's certainly not limited to conservatives. It's a fundamental human trait, for better or worse, and we're all prone. Go ahead and try and tell Mommy that her 65 pound three-year-old is overweight and be prepared to hear a dissertation on what it means to be "big boned".

However, there comes a point in any responsible person's life at which they recognize the disconnect between their fealty and their reality, and if they've any sense of ethics at all, concessions are made in favor of what's plainly been established.

And herein lies the problem, as I see it. Bush's loyal fans have shown themselves to be plainly irresponsible. They don't care that his failures are nearly beyond counting. They don't care that he's surrounded himself with nefarious sycophants and abdicated the power of his role to some of the most greedy, corrupt and calloused human beings to ever sit in Washington.

Why such apathy? Because they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the grievous mistake of voting for GW, for sending a GOP majority to Congress, and for enabling the virtual destruction of American democracy as we know it.

Marc in KS picks up this headspace and helps explain it using an economist's frame, in discussing the "sunk-cost effect". Check it out.

Can I Get an Amen?

2006-07-26T12:29:00.000-06:00

Pastor Dan linked today to a post I'd missed a while back. I'm grateful. It's one you shouldn't miss.

Why don't ALL religious leaders have this kind of plain-spoken common sense? Imagine the kind of world we'd be living in, if this was how James Dobson spoke.

Nice Shades, Condi

2006-07-25T10:09:00.000-06:00

Is it just me?

Did you see the footage yesterday of Ms. Rice sitting at the long conference table with the Lebanese PM & the gaggle of assorted officials?

I don't know about you, but seeing the whole table full of terribly serious men in terribly serious suits, while Condi sat there with her sunglasses perched atop her head was just too much. She looked like she was waiting for someone to bring her a fucking daquiri.

Condi, listen up. I don't know what you were trying to convey at this photo op, but somehow "just breezing in for a quick chat on my way to a BBQ" is not what we need from the country's lead negotiator. Particularly during a visit to the part of the world that generally doesn't think too highly of women to begin with.

Put your shades away, comb your hair, and present yourself like a grownup before you're eaten by your own.

Update: Steve Soto found the photo I couldn't, and evidently agrees:

I’m sure we are all feeling more optimistic about things in the Middle East knowing that Condi has arrived in Beirut this morning for a set of photo op meetings with the Lebanese leadership, to tell them how concerned she is that the IDF is blasting the Lebanese infrastructure back to the Dark Ages. After this meaningless stopover today, she will fly on to Tel Aviv and tell the Israelis virtually nothing of substance, and the IDF will continue their campaign against Hezbollah and the Lebanese people unimpeded for as long as they feel necessary.

What impression do you think it leaves with the Lebanese people and the Arab world to see a Secretary of State who can’t be bothered to pull her sunglasses off the top of her head when meeting with a head of state whose country is being obliterated with American armaments?

(Emphasis mine)

But he answers his own question, of course; the shades are her tell. Ah, subtext. Such fun!

Saddles on Dust Bunnies

2006-07-24T12:59:00.000-06:00

Thought I was dead, didn't ya?

I can't blame you for the speculation.

For those interested in defenses, it's primarily been simple outrage fatigue. I mean, my GOD. How does anyone with an IQ over room temperature manage to watch one evening's news without feeling morose? To say nothing of what it does to you when you're like me, and read blogs intermittently every day. Christ on a kabob. It's enough to make you need meds. Seriously.

As for the rest, I've just had my hands full. Moving, getting settled, an increasingly active toddler, all make for just enough time to read, but virtually none for writing. I've tossed in a few smart assed comments at some of my favorite blogs, threw my two cents in Meta-discussions where appropriate, but beyond that, the most inspiring thing to flow from these fingers have been my
grocery lists.

That said, I'll be focusing on this cobweb farm more closely in the weeks to come. I can't promise every entry will be strictly political, despite my original intent. I'm just not newsie enough to maintain such a course, and seriously, it's not like there's a shortage of insightful analysis abundant on the Big Blogs.

So, to those of you still actually visiting, I thank you for your loyalty, however possibly misguided. Given that I can probably count y'all on one hand, maybe I should just make you contributors. I mean, as long as we're all here, might as well open the floor, eh?

Cheers.

2008: Which lamb to the slaughter?

2006-04-17T23:34:00.000-06:00

(this was originally intended as a diary elsewhere, but since this poor blog has been neglected for a while now, I thought I'd blow away the cobwebs and cross-post).

Like everyone else, I look across the gamut of potential candidates for 2008 and wonder who can possibly stand a real chance at election victory. I don't buy (and never have) the Hillary-as-Front-Runner thing, believing it instead to be primarily a RWM creation. I heard Biden on Bill Maher copping to his intent to run and responded with only a yawn. I see people like Markos nodding at Warner, but honestly, I've not done my homework enough to comment, or even react meaningfully.

I've generally been quite intrigued by Obama, but have been decidedly unhappy with his reponse to the censure resolution, so while I still have a belly-full of that particular Kool-Aid, it's lately given me a bit of heartburn.

I understand that Gore has a strong following, but I also see him denying the intent to run at every opportunity. Perhaps I'm being nothing other than stubborn, but I'm still pissed about Tipper and the PMRC, so I have yet to hop on that bandwagon as of today.

I'd vote for Feingold in a heartbeat, since he appears to be the only member of Congress that actually HAS testicles. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, however, but so far, there's nothing but wishful thinking from some corners of the blogs to suggest that he's considering a run.

So, while I peruse the actual and imaginary field of candidates, I have to wonder: Who will be our Golden Boy? My instinctive reaction is that there is no Golden Boy coming in 2008. Instead, what we're apt to get (assuming the GOP is defeated) is a Sacrificial Lamb. Let me explain...

I've come to believe, as I suspect many of you have, that the damage done by this administration cannot possibly be undone in the course of a single administration. BushCo's brand of destruction is so far reaching as to require, in my humble estimation, at least 2, if not 3, administrations to recompense. That it can be done at all assumes a great deal about the Democrats regaining control of Congress, but that offshoot is a whole other What-If diary better suited for more strategically savvy writers than I. Suffice to say, if we can pull it off, there's hope.

Regardless, though, even IF the Dems pull the majority this fall, whomever wins in '08 is looking at nothing but uphill, bloody, relentless struggles no matter what. Should the GOP be rendered back to opposition status, we better believe they'll put their every shred of time, money and energy into being exactly that, making every legislative proposal a truly Sisyphean task. They'll be bitter, they'll be resentful, they'll be spiteful. To expect anything less would be dangerously naieve. And that's if they LOSE the majority. Imagine if they retain it. We think they're arrogant now? HA! We may not be able to imagine the recklessness to come if they retain control of Congress. And that picture is just as bloody, of course. A Democratic president with a GOP majority Congress? Please. Talk about a ceremonial statehead.

These things being likely (and I'm open to alternative scenarios -- please, in fact, give 'em to me, this is a depressing line of thought and I could use some optimism), then if the Democrats are able to get one of their guys in the CiC seat, who do we offer up to such a meat grinder?

'Cause you know how he'll be painted by the vengeful GOP and the chronically unsatisfied Centrists:
He'll be blamed, in part, for every fetid pile of crap left behind by Bush that can't be fixed in a single term. He'll be the focal point for Congressional deadlocks, he'll be the one that didn't find the Middle East Magic Wand, the Health Care Magic Wand, the Defecit Magic Wand, etc ad naseum. It doesn't matter how good he is, how great his ideas are, how much support he garners from the grassroots, the netroots, the disenfranchised, and the fence-sitters. Because the GOP is going to be frothing at the mouth, and they'll want payback. Scorched-earth, dangling entrails kind of payback.

Imagining this, I very much don't want our best and brightest to have that unfortunate role. Any legislative vision he might have, any great prowess of leadership he might possess, any bold ideas he might offer will surely get devoured like so much red meat in the aftermath of these next two election cycles. It would be a near-Shakespearean tragedy to witness what might otherwise be the Great American Healer being desended upon by the wolves currently stalking about DC, don't you think? When our Golden Boy does get elected (and he surely will, goddamnit), I want him to enjoy two full, productive, transformative terms. I want him to enjoy a Congress populated by steadfast, intelligent, active support and reasonable, pragmatic opposition. You know, I want him to GET SHIT DONE, and if he has to compromise, I want it to be based on contructive proposals from the opposition, not nasty, back-biting partisanship.

On the other hand, it can be argued that ONLY the best and brightest can ever survive such a role. That the only feasible choice for what's likely to be a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't administration is the candidate that really IS in the game because it's NOT a game to him. One that doesn't care about the power, the acclaim, or the "legacy".

Of course, that's not the only problem we face. Because come '08, we're going to be looking for the presidential equivalent of the Rebound Boyfriend. You know, the one who's the antithesis of the guy you just broke up with. The one who's everything your last lover wasn't. Hell, that's WHY he's attractive. Because he's everything you thought you didn't get the last time. Except he's almost never the guy that's actually the right choice in the long run, now is he? Sooner or later, you roll over one morning, listen to that cacaphonous snore, trip over the dirty socks on the way to the bathroom, discover the toilet's unflushed, the cap's off the toothpaste, the goddamn TV's been on all night, and while you pour your first cup of coffee, you can't stop wondering WHAT THE FUCK WAS I THINKING??? It's nearly inevitable when the last lover was such a ratfink, isn't it? Well, we have President Ratfink right now. Rebound Boy is almost a fait accompli.

So, we not only have to find someone who's capable of just doing the job itself (a tall order all on its own), but we have to get past our hangups and resentments and rage over Bush in order to make an intelligent choice for his successor. One who's actually good for the country, who's not simply Not-Bush. One who will take one for the team, one who's willing to dive headfirst into the snakepit, knowing full well that he won't accomplish even half of what he could under better circumstances. We have to send a lamb to slaughter, and the lamb has to volunteer.

I don't know if we've even heard from him. Have we? Is there anyone out there willing to be such a political martyr? Can our political system even produce such a candidate anymore?

I don't know. Do you?

Proto-Pachyderms

2006-03-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

Interesting study, though perhaps the conclusions are fit for the "No shit" file.

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

[...]

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

h/t John

Is anyone surprised by this? It certainly seems possible to extend these conclusions into support for CW that shows us conservatives spring more often from the mid-west (less ethnic, religious and social strata) while liberals spring most often from the coasts/metropolitan centers (more layers than spanikopita). One doesn't last long in the latter areas while being "uncomfortable with ambiguity".

No doubt the Freepi will pound on this study as much as they bemoaned the "crazy conservatives" study referenced in the article. My favorite part is when they all spend a bizarrely large amount of energy impugning studies and their authors, all the while dismissing them out of hand as blindly biased.

Me thinks the wingers doth protest too much. I know, I know. A real news flash, that.

Georgia Speaks for Me

2006-03-21T21:00:00.000-07:00

"This is not my America".

Stunned Speechless

2006-03-17T21:09:00.000-07:00

Diary. Video.

For the 6,435th time during this administration, I don't have the words.

It seems that my cats

2006-03-17T15:25:00.000-07:00

are cheating on me with another blogger.

While I can't fault them for their taste, I am feeling a little miffed.

Lest it get too warm & fuzzy in here...

2006-03-15T21:59:00.000-07:00

Read this if you can take another reason to rage.

Need a Hug?

2006-03-15T16:26:00.000-07:00

Something Fun

2006-03-14T15:11:00.000-07:00

Take a break from partisan ire and grow.

Just a Small Point About "Enumeration"

2006-03-13T21:35:00.000-07:00

In the firestorm of discussions about the SD abortion law, a number of highly relevant questions are emerging about the precious few that might fall under the vaguely expressed exceptions.

From the bill:

[T]he physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.

In defense of the bill, supporters are claiming that this clause will allow for abortion when the woman's health is gravely endangered by any number of complications that can arise.

And it strikes me -- for a crowd SO eager to sing the praises of enumerated powers (especially those that aren't, like, say.... PRIVACY) they sure have played fast and loose with this so-called exception clause. They'll claim, in political circles, that various scenarios can easily be accommodated under this exception, but should this atrocity ever become functional law, they'll go on prosecutorial orgy when doctors abort for reasons they don't find "life-threatening".

A particularly good point was made elsewhere in a comment thread that the SD legislature likely thought not an instant about women whose pregnancies don't necessarily threaten their lives immediately, but for whom the long-lasting affects of pregnancy can significantly reduce their health if not kill them prematurely (cardiac patients, diabetics etc). Excellent observation, I say. How would Mr. Napoli respond, I wonder?

I can just see the efforts, a decade post-Roe, in which analysts start pointing to the increase in women's mortality in prohibitive states like SD. Given the GOP's embrace of global warming data, just how quick do you think they'll be to see this new connection?

Yeah. Right.

Sunday Nuggets

2006-03-12T14:15:00.000-07:00

My Amusement Park has an interesting discussion on the NYT "Brokeback marriages" article. I missed the original piece, and this was my first visit to the blog, so if you're in the same spot and would like something new, stop by.

From IddyBud: "If SD State Senator Bill Napoli's narrow-valued religious triumphalism had ruled the day, allowing exemptions for only freshly raped, impregnated "religious virgins" to obtain abortions in South Dakota, I guarantee you'd see a hell of a lot more rape charges going up against young South Dakota men and a lot more pregnant girls claiming to be "pious." Let's not push our young generation into this kind of false faith, fear, and judgement. It's ugly."

Molly rants: "For years, the women's movement has been going around asking, "Who decides?" as though that were the issue. Well, here's the answer. Bill Napoli decides, and if you're not happy with that arrangement, well, you'd better be prepared to do something about it."

Hooray for Feingold, very possibly the only testicle-bearer in Congress.

Great line: "Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bush's attempt to cover up his mistake with patriotism will ultimately discredit patriotism." Oh, sweet irony, you tenacious creature. The very party obsessed with the "sanctity of marriage" doesn't give a rusty fuck about the sanctity of patriotism, outside of its lipstick-on-a-pig function, that is. Another wholesome product from your friends at BushCo!

Greenwald. Flawless. As usual.

It looks like the inside of a snow globe here in Littleton, today. A perfect day for smokin a j, fixing some french toast, then soaking in a long, hot bubble bath.

I'll leave it to you to guess which I'm actually doing.

Bizarre Dovetail to Follow

2006-03-10T22:29:00.000-07:00

As evidenced in an earlier post, I'm ear-deep in a music jones. I'll spare you the existential ramblings as to why; suffice to say, it's a good tonic as I decompress after the move and settle into the "vibe" here.

Surely, constant readers, I need not remind you how regularly I assail the religious right. But here's something that may surprise you:

I think one of the most beautiful pieces of pop music produced in the last decade is Jars of Clay's "Worlds Apart". Get thee to your P2P client and just find a copy.

I really liked this band when I first heard them because of the the generous use of acoustic guitars and vocal harmonies. Some of you may recall "Flood" getting considerable airplay, along with its inclusion in some made-for-cable film or another.

Anyway, I knew that they were a big name in the growing genre of "Contemporary Christian" music, but I was a hippie before I was a self-indulgent, arm-chair pundit with a blog, and was bothered not whit over their topic of choice.

I ended up being pleasantly surprised there, too, because the lyrics are very personal. "I" and "you" get substituted for "me" and "Jesus" throughout, and several of them are simply love songs. If you didn't know what boys weren't talking about their girlfriends, you'd have no real reason to think otherwise.

"Worlds Apart" is clear in the object of its address, and is definitely not as ambiguous as some of its predecessors on the CD. However, it's only well crafted, mixed and performed, but the lyric is an impassioned prayer with such raw, tendor candor that I find it impossible not to be moved while listening to it. The lead and background vocals are sung at a velvety near-whisper, the last passage (as it breaks out of stanzas) more like a chant than melody. It's really quite something.

I am the only one to blame for this
Somehow it all adds up the same
Soaring on the wings of selfish pride
I flew too high and like Icarus I collide
With a world I try so hard to leave behind
To rid myself of all but love
to give and die

To turn away and not become
Another nail to pierce the skin of one who loves
more deeply than the oceans,
more abundant than the tears
Of a world embracing every heartache

Can I be the one to sacrifice
Or grip the spear and watch the blood and water flow

To love you - take my world apart
To need you - I am on my knees
To love you - take my world apart
To need you - broken on my knees

All said and done I stand alone
Amongst remains of a life I should not own
It takes all I am to believe
In the mercy that covers me

Did you really have to die for me?
All I am for all you are
Because what I need and what I believe are worlds apart

I look beyond the empty cross
forgetting what my life has cost
and wipe away the crimson stains
and dull the nails that still remain
More and more I need you now,
I owe you more each passing hour
the battle between grace and pride
I gave up not so long ago
So steal my heart and take the pain
and wash the feet and cleanse my pride
take the selfish, take the weak,
and all the things I cannot hide
take the beauty, take my tears
the sin-soaked heart and make it yours
take my world all apart
take it now, take it now
and serve the ones that I despise
speak the words I can't deny
watch the world I used to love
fall to dust and thrown away
I look beyond the empty cross
forgetting what my life has cost
so wipe away the crimson stains
and dull the nails that still remain
so steal my heart and take the pain
take the selfish, take the weak
and all the things I cannot hide
take the beauty, take my tears
take my world apart, take my world apart
I pray, I pray, I pray
take my world apart

I will probably always bristle at the imagery, but that's neither here nor there in this instance. But if every message I'd encountered from Christianity were as tender and nakedly honest as this one, I'd be a lot warmer to its leaders and followers. Of course, some of its followers are that tender already. I hope they get the seat at the table that's been hijacked by their ugly imitators, I really do.

In Praise of Small Cracks

2006-03-10T19:47:00.000-07:00

Having once before praised Leonard Pitts, Jr for several righteous turns of phrase, color me unsurprised that he's done it again. Go get some fabulous ass-kickery before you wander away...

After just listening to Joe Scarborough join the growing ranks of dissenters on the right by saying he's "embarrassed to be a Republican", I'm almost tempted to hope that comments like that and articles like the above are genuine signs that the cracks in the GOP facade of "family values" and "compassionate conservatism", or hell, just "competence", are finally becoming apparent to even the most strident Bush defender.

Naturally, there will always be a contingent of GW Junkies that will never give up the ghost. While I think they'd generally do more for the world as ground beef than as voters, I expect that the worst will be ruthlessly marginalized into obscurity for the pinheads they are. In the meantime, I take a distinct pleasure in seeing the Head Idiots of the GOP called on their bullshit in a highly vociferous and highly visible fashion.

And it's not just for the adolescent rush of self-righteousness (though I will admit I sometimes vacation there; the brochures are so tempting!). It's because I have to hope that this reign of feckless, imbecilic incompetence is about to end. This administration has pissed off far too many of the revered "moderates", (you know, that giant swath of voters in between the staunchly left or right that are hallowed as a candidate's road to glory) to recover without a debilitating limp.

I'm not about to haul out hackneyed pleas of "appealing to the center" since it's been done to death and I don't think anyone gets the concept anyway. Save for a precious few, our elected leaders seem to think this means pandering just inside the envelope of left or right (never mind that the positions they stake are on total non-issues). I don't pretend to be a strategist, but at some point, doesn't this become something of a no-brainer? No, you can't spread democracy across the globe at the end of a gun barrel, and no, you can't dismantle the military and redirect funding to pot farming (my endorsement of the latter notwithstanding). But there are a hell of a lot of options in between those two positions, don't you think?

Why the hell is it so hard to find a single inch of common ground? We can yell and scream about (insert your favorite pundits here), but the Malkins and the Dobsons pretty much just kick back and turn a profit on collective impotent, misdirected rage. They sell what we're buying, and as long as we eat it up like drippy ice cream on a summer day, they're going to keep ranting, keep fundraising, keep organizing.

Of course I'm biased here, I don't pretend otherwise. The radical fundamentalist right in this country have had their little bit of fun, but now it's time to stop. Now it's time for them to crawl out from under the rocks and understand that the spirit of domestic laws and foreign policy should not be punitive. That it is not their job to scold, cajole and bully the rest of us into doing things their way like obedient little lambs. Just because they could be brain-washed and indoctrinated into thinking gay people go to hell and that the earth is only 6,000 years old doesn't mean the rest of us are going to buy it, too. Pounding us over the head with fire and brimstone does not convert us, it repulses us. And whether you like it or not, "we" number in the millions, too.

If Bush and his groupies want to pretend that no one gets to disagree with them because they're right by divine proscription, they're perfectly welcome to do that. Just don't expect to maintain the slimy web of monopoly you've wrapped around our government, because even your own are begging for showers now. Maybe Scarborough will lend you the soap.

Yeah, What He Said

2006-03-10T10:55:00.000-07:00

Since evidently I'm on a "I read blogs so you don't have to" kick, please pay a visit to Oliver Willis and soak up "I Am A Progressive".

This should be the foundation of the Democratic party platform, shouted proudly from the rooftops.

What a Schmuck

2006-03-10T10:22:00.000-07:00

There's a woman in San Diego whose manager fired her on the spot after noticing the Air America bumper sticker on her car.

During the brief encounter, Laroca charges, the manager pointed to the bumper sticker ---- the only one on Laroca's car ---- and remarked that it was a new sticker and called it "that Al Franken left-wing radical radio station."

Laroca alleges in her suit that Fath then told her, "The country is on a high state of alert. For all I know, you could be al-Qaida."

Aside from being just a general waste-of-skin caliber idiot, this firing is recklessly stupid for its blatant illegality. This moron doesn't deserve to manage anything, anywhere.

And conservatives wonder why liberals slam them for being narrow-minded, bigoted and hateful.

<rolls eyes>

(h/t Ed Tracey)

The Lizard and the Monkey

2006-03-09T16:24:00.000-07:00

A monkey is sitting in a tree smoking a joint when a lizard walks past and looks up and says to the monkey, "hey! what are you doing?"

The monkey says "smoking a joint, come up and have some."

So the lizard climbs up and sits next to the monkey and they smoke a while.

After a while the lizard says his mouth is "dry" and is going to get a drink from the river. The lizard is so stoned that he leans too far over and falls into the river.

A Crocodile sees this and swims over to the lizard and helps him to the side,then asks the lizard, "what's the matter with you?"

The lizard explains to the crocodile that he was sitting smoking a joint with the monkey in the tree, got too stoned and then fell into the river while taking a drink.

The crocodile says he has to check this out and walks into the jungle, finds the tree where the monkey is sitting, finishing a joint, and he looks up and says "hey you!"

The Monkey looks down and says "fuuuuuuck, dude.... how much water did you drink?!!"

(h/t to Mark from a usenet forum)

CNN on Dubai

2006-03-09T15:19:00.000-07:00

So, I'm sitting here watching Blitzer this afternoon, and the hot topic of the hour is the announcement of the nuking of the ports deal. The basic narrative over the ensuing half-hour is roughly this:

1.) Port deal has been sunk, largely due to Democrats and the "American People".

2.) Business analysts then chime in to say that going forward, the UAE may want to "rethink" a number of alliances and deals with the U.S. now that we've rained on their parade.

3.) Military analysts follow up by adding, "Yeah! And our bases in the UAE are critical in the WOT!"

4.) Then, segment teaser asks whether or not Iran is the most serious threat to America these days.

The ease with which I can imagine the reaction of some of the Bushies I've spoken with over the past 5 years is shocking. They'd point to these three stories as evidence of Liberal Bias in the media, since each focuses on what they perceive as Bush Bashing. "See! People are just being big meanies to Bush and it's because the media is obsessed with criticizing him and everything positive he tries to do for this country!"

However, a different narrative was perfectly clear to me:

1.) Democrats can and will be blamed for the following:
2.) Killing this deal will fuck up the economy,
3.) Killing this deal will fuck up the military,
4.) Oh, and by the way -- Iran wants to blow up your family.

As Bush's apologists myopically focus on the individual stories, they miss that the entire presentation is a WH talking point.

Good for a Giggle

2006-03-09T11:37:00.000-07:00

Go check out PoliticsTV, hosted by the inimitable John Aravosis. Today's episode is a biography of everyone's favorite dog lover, Rick Santorum.

"Post Mortem"

2006-03-08T14:50:00.000-07:00

There's very little point in addressing an issue once Greewald's had a hand at it. Any attempt on my part would surely be tragically lame imitation. Make sure you pay him a visit for his commentary on the pitifully shamelful Senate Intel Committe vote.

No, it's "Pro-Birth", not "Pro-Life".

2006-03-07T14:14:00.000-07:00

Like we need another example?

Once again, the Bush demonstrates that his compassion for you hangs on whether or not you're one of the "unborn". This time, he's decided that funding for programs that support disabled children falls into the "unnecessary spending" category.

On a related note, should anyone be wondering, I haven't written about the sickening legislation coming out of South Dakota (or its twin working it's way through Missouri's state congress) because I honestly can't find the words. If you haven't caught them, there's some well articulated rage here and here.

Some argue that in taking the case, SCOTUS (namely Bush's appointees) would be seen as doling out payback to Bush, and since Roberts et al don't want to appear blatantly untoward, they'll decline... for now.

I desperately want to agree with those that believe, if the case should make its way to SCOTUS, that it will effectively force the court to come down on the side of choice, given the egregiousness of the SD bill in its current form. Such a ruling would serve to reinforce precedent; precisely what the ProBirthers don't want.

More cynically, however, I worry that every gloomy prognostication about Scalia, Alito and Roberts will come to pass, they'll take the case, and decide that the "undue burden" rule laid out in Casey and the "privacy" right laid out in Roe are frivolous readings of the Constitution and overturn the whole lot.

As for my rage that state legislators and their fawning sycophants apparently have no qualms whatsoever about codifing women as nothing more than chattle.... again, I don't have the words right now.

Instead, I'll simply ask these zealots to consider the scenario recently described by Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand:

If a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are going to be outraged," he says.

If this seems like a histrionic hypothetical, go ahead and visit any number of sex-offender registries available online and pop in your zip code. Then, imagine one of the worst of them paying a little late-night visit to your wife, daughter, sister, mother. Then consider that in some states, rapists can assert parental rights. This, of course, is to say nothing of their recidivism rate. What say you, if said rapist were also a pedophile? Are you so confident in your self-righteousness to dismiss the possibility that such an evil creature would NEVER attempt to, say, abduct the child? Or worse?

I saw somewhere (forgive my faulty memory) a gag on SD's Tourism Board's new ad: "Protecting Rapists' Rights since 2006!". Oh, and don't miss the new logo.

GOP: "Ports? What Ports?"

2006-03-07T09:47:00.000-07:00

The AP, surely to be derided once again by wingnuts as suffering from "liberal bias" reminds us today of just how shitty the GOP has been on port security.

--In 2003, House Republicans, on a procedural vote, agreed to kill a Democratic amendment that would have added $250 million for port security grants to a war spending package.

--Two years later, nearly all House Republicans voted against an alternative Homeland Security authorization bill offered by Democrats that called for an additional $400 million for port security.

--Senate Republicans stood together in 2003 to set aside a Democratic amendment that would have provided $120 million more for port cargo screening equipment.

--One year later, all but six Senate Republicans voted to reject a Democratic attempt to add $150 million for port security in a Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Feel free to recite these stats to any winger you encounter that is desperately clinging to the "Dems are soft on security" meme.

Oh, and in case you missed the original, here's a NYT article from February 2005 illustrating just how pathetic the Republicans have been on the issue.

The Department of Homeland Security has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to protect ports since Sept. 11 without sufficiently focusing on those that are most vulnerable, a policy that could compromise the nation's ability to better defend against terrorist attacks, the department's inspector general has concluded.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars has been invested in redundant lighting systems and unnecessary technical equipment, the audit found, but "the program has not yet achieved its intended results in the form of actual improvement in port security."

[...]

The audit results appear to support criticism voiced last September by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who complained in a letter to President Bush that the methods used to grant the awards did not make sense.

"Your administration awarded port security grants in the states of Oklahoma, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Tennessee," Mr. Lautenberg wrote. "While there may be some form of maritime facilities in these locations, I question whether, of the nation's 361 maritime ports, these locations are truly the front lines on the war on terror."

[...]

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in four rounds of port security grants, received $6.2 million, or 1 percent of the total grants given out through the primary port security financing source, according to federal documents.

When other New York-based government agencies and private corporations are added in, the grants to the New York City area rise to about $35 million, about 7 percent of the total. The port handles 12 percent of the nation's cargo traffic. Much of the grant money directed to New York went to profit-making oil terminal companies, like Sunoco Logistics Partners, to help them pay for security enhancements.

Go get the rest, including the "questionable projects" listed at the end. The GOP's record on port security is beyond-the-pale neglectful and shoddy, and evidence of it is easily found with the most cursory searches.

Turns out that biblical prophesy is fulfilled in the Republican party after all. Behold the feet of clay.

Politics and Geography [Updated]

2006-03-07T07:25:00.000-07:00

[Update below]

Some of you may have caught this story about a teacher here in CO that's come under fire for comments he made in a world geography class. The Denver Post's coverage is here and the audio of the comments in question is here.

I'm torn on this subject, really. While I agree with the teacher's political views, and find a great deal of merit in the points he makes, the fact remains that this was a geography class, not a U.S. government class or a world politics class. School administrators have responded by saying that the commentary fails to honor mandates for "balance" in curriculum, and despite my sympathy for and agreement with what he's saying, I can't pretend that there's any kind of opposing view presented.

See, here's the thing. We don't get to scream at the creationists for trying to inject religion into science classes and then just shrug our shoulders when a teacher tries to inject politics (and unabashedly leftist politics at that) into a geography class, for if we do, we jump headlong into hypocrisy and lose our credibility on the ID front and any other area in which we yell and scream about the "Rethugs" and their reckless application of double-standards.

Have a listen to the audio and see what you think.

March 7 Update:

The Freepers got their hands on a copy of the syllabus (thanks to Raven's View for the find).
In a discussion at another forum, I'd complained about the lack of the syllabus in local media coverage and hoped to have a look, thinking it would pretty much settle the issue for me if political topics were an element of the curriculum.

Well, what do you know? They ARE!

Course Objectives
1. Students know how to use and construct maps, globes, and other geographic tools to locate and derive information about people, places, and environments

2. Students know the physical and human characteristics of places, and use this knowledge to define and study regions and their patterns of change

3. Students understand how physical processes shape Earth’s surface patterns and systems

4. Students understand how economic, political, cultural, and social processes interact to shape patterns of human populations, interdependence, cooperation, and conflict

5. Students understand the effects of interactions between human and physical systems and the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources

6. Students apply knowledge of people, places, and environments to understand the past and present and to plan for the future

I find it delightfully ironic that they'd post a copy, since it pretty much demolishes their argument that Bennish's comments were totally off-topic for the class. Not surprisingly, they're gleefully responding with "I don't see the Bush = Hitler thing listed anywhere". You can expect more of the usual moronic hysterics in the comments, but this gem really jumped out at me:

The alarms should start going off when you reach "Critical Thinking." This is a code word that has everything to do with criticism, specifically of the status quo, and very little to do with actual thinking. It basically means placing a filter on everything you encounter intellectually (see "critical reading," the next entry down) that assumes that there is an oppressor/oppressed class dynamic that is inseparable from the ostensible message. When you hear somebody insisting "you're only saying that because..." you gotcha one right there.

Placing a filter on everything you encounter intellectually? Yes, Sparky, as possessors of, you know, brains, that's PRECISELY what we're supposed to do. Can you believe this guy? I don't know who told him that students (or anyone else for that matter) should just accept, in toto, whatever they're told, whenever they hear it, but I suppose this attitude really shouldn't suprise me. The Fellating Freepers are renown for their eager swallowing of right-wing propaganda and they've obviously come to believe such behavior should apply to our educational institutions as well. Kool-Aid... it's not just for zealots anymore.

Draft Reynolds

2006-03-06T20:55:00.000-07:00

Or, at the very least, read up here.

Just a (Musical) Diversion

2006-03-06T12:11:00.000-07:00

As I've probably mentioned in a prior post or two, aside from being a political loudmouth, I'm also a singer. Had I the ambition or appetite for a professional career, it would have been a possibility. However, I hate crowds, loathe the process of travel, and treasure my privacy, so talent notwithstanding, doing it for a living just didn't end up being in the cards.

Point is, this makes me an insufferable music critic, especially in regard to singers. Knowing how tough it can be to execute a good performance, I become incensed over sloppiness and lazy, derivative work. And don't even get me started on the (admittedly cliched) rant about how video killed the radio star...

Anyway, I suffer from just enough hubris to feel compelled to point out some good stuff you may not be aware of:

First, there's the "AcappelaU" podcast. Having spent my entire scholastic life in choirs, many of them a capella, I can attest to how challenging it can be to pull off well. If you're not familiar with this kind of performing, it's exclusively vocal, including the percussion. Simply put, it's a hell of a lot harder than you'd think it is, and anyone that can manage it is worth admiring. This particular show focuses on collegiate a cappella groups and shouldn't be missed if the genre does anything for you. (I'm still catching up on the posted files, but Episode 8 includes some particularly great tracks.)

Now, on to singers of note, but I must preface with a caveat.

I'm generally bored by acrobatic voices. I mean, sure, when Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey first came on the scene they were impressive, since outside of gospel, their kind of style wasn't all that common. Ever since, however, we've seen carbon copy after carbon copy of these vocal gymnastics and frankly, enough already. Think of it this way. Remember when triples were the new big thing in Olympic figure skating? Most attempts resulted in spectacular falls, and when someone nailed such a jump, it really blew you away? Well now, they're standard issue. You can't even get out of regionals if you can't pull a triple, much less get to the Olympics. Once impressive, now ordinary.

I'm sure you can think of other analogies, but I trust you take my point. Showy tricks are cool and all, but sooner or later, everyone learns how to do it and what was once special is now commonplace. This means that we eventually all come back to talent that is pure, unforced, natural. There's a certain quality in some voices that I can't describe well, but I can point out to you not only for sake of example, but because their work deserves every bit of attention it gets.

Jonatha Brooke:
Probably one of the most under-rated and under-exposed artists of the last decade. Not only is her writing complex and compelling, but her vocals are sweet, expressive and silky. Her tone reminds me a bit of Sarah McLachlan, but her songs are edgier and more textured. She uses a lot of alternate tunings on her guitar and is an excellent rhythm player as well. I recommend her "Live" CD and "10 Cent Wings". You'll hear, on the "Live" recordings, nothing short of perfection in terms of performance, and some more really great writing on "Wings". If you like acoustic guitar-centric tunes and graceful alto voices, you need to track this woman down.

Happy Rhodes:
Happy is one of those obscure club singers that enjoys a passionate, but small following. I've never heard her on the radio, I've never seen ads for gigs, but what I gather from her web page she stays mostly on the east coast. Hell, I think she even has a day job. Simply put, she is PHENOMENAL. Mariah Carey's four-octave range gets a good deal of press, but if you've noticed, she really only flirts with that so-high-only-dogs-can-hear end as a matter of flourish, not substance. Not Ms. Rhodes. Not only can she manage 4 (if not 5) octaves, but she's as comfortable in one as any other, and each one is exquisite.

I first discovered her when I saw a P2P song listing ("When the Rain Came Down") that was allegedly a duet between Annie Lennox and Kate Bush. Thinking I'd missed something pretty rare and amazing, I happily downloaded it. Not long into it, however, I realized that neither woman was on this recording and I went about hunting for the actual two artists who produced this impressive track. Turns out it wasn't two women at all, but one. Happy's tenor/alto range is richer than Annie's ever was (and I love her, by the way) and her soprano range rivals Kate's for its effortlessness. Now, her music can very fairly be described as avant garde, not for the instrumental arrangements, but for the melodies, chord structure and lyrics. It's not meat & potatoes music; it's more like filet mignon -- really spectacular, and best when savored on irregular occasions. Then again, I'm a hippie at heart, so my frequency preference is likely driven by my weakness for "wooden music". At any rate, if you want to hear a REAL singer, don't miss Happy. She'll blow your mind.

Eva Cassidy:
I wrote about her once before, but if you missed it, you can catch up here. Your collection is simply not complete without her work, and you'll miss one of the most captivating voices you'll ever hear.

Jessica Andrews:
I wouldn't say I'm a fan of country music, necessarily, but my love for acoustic music means that there are some country artists that get my attention when I'm in the mood. I stumbled across this magnificent creature one day while idly scanning through the channels while stuck in traffic. I haven't listened to country radio in a while, but at the time, her song "Who I Am" was in heavy rotation. Not only is it a great song and a lovely homage to family, what's truly impressive are this girl's pipes. And I do mean girl. I don't know if she was even 20 when her first single came out, but even then, she had a maturity and expertise that most women twice her age never even get close to. Reading up on her history, her producer was quoted at length about her ability to walk into the studio and lay down absolutely flawless tracks in a single take; a feat normally accomplished only by seasoned pros and rarely by anyone of such a tender age. Even if country isn't your bag, it's worth hunting down some of her music just to hear what a completely natural talent sounds like. There's not a single forced note, at no point does it ever sound like she's working hard, but what comes out of her mouth is amazing. Simply amazing.

Ok, that about does it for now. Get to downloading and I'll be back soon with our regularly-scheduled political smart-assery.

Cheers.

Asshole

2006-03-05T22:27:00.000-07:00

Go to Google.

Type "asshole"

Hit "I'm Feeling Lucky".

Laugh boisterously.

(hat tip to refinish 69 @ MLW)

"No One Anticipated", eh Georgie?

2006-03-01T17:30:00.000-07:00

AP's got a story about "confidential video" in which Bush and Chertoff were told, in no uncertain terms, that New Orleans was about to be obliterated.

Anyone want to wager on whether or not Mike Brown is the leak here? I can imagine quite easily that he's about had it with being the BushCo patsy while everyone else keeps fiddlin'.

And another thing

2006-01-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

I am absolutely all full up on the "lesser of two evils" voting methodology, such that anyone who espouses it in my presence will henceforth be heckled until made to cry. Or beaten with a shovel, depending on my mood.

There is no such thing as a "lesser evil", folks. A pig is a pig is a pig, and no amount of lipstick will make it any less of a pig. The same is true of any odious politician. The very concept that Kerry's total lack of charisma, poorly worded rebuttals to the mischarcterization of his voting record, and his obsequious appeals to the voters, could be forgotten in favor of booting out the maniac currently infesting the White House is just plain ignorant. I know many people preferred him, to President Bush, but the overriding approach seemed to be "not Bush" as opposed to "what a great candidate!".

And that is a fundamental flaw in our system. Among the millions of intelligent people inhabiting this country, we can find two--TWO!!--people capable of being President? Small business owners, corporate chiefs, doctors, lawyers, economists, historians, and myriad other educated persons abound in this country, but we'll never meet them. Instead, we'll be remorselessly flogged by the bought and paid for political class for our money, our votes, and our trust.

We need more of the parties to have access to airtime, to get their message out. We need to tell the media companies, with our purchasing dollar, that their ads will not be seen if EVERY candidate is not allowed to address the people. Remember, the only ones that will be at issue are those that managed to generate enough signatures to get on the ballot. If they had that access, then the American people (or those folks with the wit to look beyond party) would be better informed about their choices. And, yes, I know that no few people in this country prefer to get their data summarized in easily digestible, brief, and factually ambiguous 15 second sound bites. This, however, should not prevent us from finding the candidate that most aligns with our beliefs and voting for them, regardless of gender or political party.

And regardless of who you vote for, you absolutely MUST VOTE!! Those of you who don't are beneath contempt. There is no nobility in not committing, with the one tool at your disposal, to the guidance of this country. Save your whining about "one vote makes no difference", because the fiasco in Florida laid that particular meme to rest. My most virulent response, though, is to anyone who tells me that I wasted my vote when I voted for a Libertarian in the very tight 2000 race. This was a very old and good friend, and I very much wanted to throttle this person with their own intestines. (Graphic, I know, but that just made me crazy.)

I researched the candidates, compared their views with my own, and their goals with my impression of the direction this country needed to go, and then made my choice on my interpetation of the evidence. I voted my conscience, and had not one single regret for having done so. As a result, I was deeply pissed when this person blithely ignored all that to tell me that my conscientious choice was invalid because it deprived this person's preferred candidate of my vote in a close race. As if I was obligated to choose A or B, instead of C. Too bad. Life is about informed choices, and no one is qualified to determine that my choice is a waste of my vote.

A comment to the DNC (crossposted the the DNC)

2006-01-24T17:09:00.000-07:00

To whom it may concern,

By which I mean the American people, I am an avowed Independent, and vote as such. I have done so since my enlistment in the US Marine Corps, because, while I am flabbergasted by the drivel I hear pouring from the right, I don't see anyone on the left (aside from noteable, and recent, individuals like Barak Obama and Paul Hackett, and Mr. Murtha) who has the will to stand up and say anything remotely meaningful about the state in which this country finds itself.

Zell Miller is permitted, with little criticism, to be a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention and deliver some of the most vile rhetoric in furtherance of the criminal policies of this government. On the other hand, respected members of Congress, like Jack Murtha, are painted by members of the House as a coward, and the indignation seems limited to the House floor. Where is the support for his rather modest proposal to establish an exit strategy in real terms? Not an abandonment of the Iraqi people, for God's sake, but a furtherance of the policy that they step up for themselves. Yet Mrs. Pelosi acted as though she could simply brush this aside as the natterings of a "fringe Democrat", I assume because she felt that her constituents were far more interested the continued blood-letting in Iraq. Of course, that was proved profoundly wrong by the Town Hall she conducted in her district a few weeks ago.

I am sick unto death of watching some of the senior members of the party stand up and try to reasonably explain some fine point of procedural rules to the cameras, while trying to appear above the fray on so many critical issues. Medicare is floundering, the war in Iraq and its reconstruction continue to be bogged down in security concerns; billions of taxpayer dollars went missing; energy expenses skyrocketed heading into Christmas; the housing market is softening as interest rates creep upward; the President authorized the NSA to data mine the American people before 9/11, and informed the nation that he would continue to do so without a warrant; millions live in poverty; and there is credible evidence that the voting machines in Ohio were tampered with by a company whose CEO swore he would bring it home for Mr. Bush.

This barely scratches the surface of the problems and criminal behavior, the resolution of which is the reason Congress EXISTS!!

Yet you seek to restrain Mr. Dean, and others, because he speaks the truth in a manner which the right finds offensive? After the VP of the United States had the temerity to order a US Senator to...perform an act upon himself that was flatly impossible? I am so far past caring what the far-right, neo-fascist, pseudo-religious, mysanthropic, homophobic, and misinformed far right "religious" fundamentalists are offended by, I can't adequately express it.

If you do not mobilize the voters, the bloggers, and the independents like me, largely by taking the simple step of shouting the friggin' truth from the rooftops, you will be rendered a bit player in the drama currently unfolding here in the United States. We are in a Constitutional crisis, brought on, once again, by a Republican President, and your supine position on the issue of civil rights, Presidential authority, choice, taxes, the Patriot Act (which you flatly voted for in an effort to keep your seats), and the AUMF (which was also a blatant effort to not be seen as weak on defense) has taken us not one single step toward turning the tide.

Get a clue, folks, or get left behind.

Ditto.

2006-01-23T19:43:00.000-07:00

Well, there's probably no need for me to ever bother writing again, since the boys at The Beast have said nearly everything I ever wanted to.

While I wallow in my inferiority and mourn the fact that I'll never be both as witty and concise, have a look at their 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005.

Oh, and for those of you dying for an update: I still have yet to hear from the movers, who I hope (pray, wish, beg) will be here on Friday or everything turns to shit.

While the "Uproot Your Life in 10 Days" adventure is going relatively ok, Mr. Bitch and I are rattled and only marginally in touch with the mechanics of sane conversation.

Here's an exchange we had about ice cream (referred to as "Phish") just the other night:

Q: Do you want your ice cream now or later?

A: Yeah.

Q: That was an "or" question.

A: Phish.

Meanwhile, Baby Bitch says "bye bye" every 4 minutes or so.

We should be on a plane Saturday. If not, you can find me in a little room, rocking back & forth and wearing a little canvas number with really long arms.

Pic of the Day

2006-01-19T13:21:00.000-07:00

Just something sweet in case your day hasn't been.

Personal Drivel, or "Where the Hell Has She Been?"

2006-01-18T07:14:00.000-07:00

I figure it's high time I poke my head in here and at least pretend I have something to do with the goings on of this blog, eh?

Things at Casa Bitch have been moving at something of a fever pitch for the last couple of weeks thanks to some stellar news: Mr. Bitch has accepted an offer he (we) couldn't refuse in lovely Colorado and we have to effect our transplant in a mere two weeks (er, 10 days, now). Thankfully, Big Company is paying for the move and coordinating the beefy mover dudes, but all other logistics fall to moi, Domestic Engineer of the Bitch household.

I'm of two minds over this task allocation: my anal retentive half is perfectly content to have my fingers in nearly all the pies, since "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself". (Yes, I have trouble delegating in a corporate environment. You have a problem with that?!?) My lazy hippie half wants to whine about not having it all magically attended by the moving fairy and is steering my packing procrastination a bit starboard. No doubt this schizophrenic approach to such an upheaval is more interesting to actually watch than read about, but should any particularly comic results manifest while I crumble into a pile of panic and sloth, I'll be sure to pass them along to you, kind and loyal readers.

The end-of-the-rainbow element of this move means that after nearly 7 years, Mr. Bitch will finally stop traveling for a living and be home every night of the week. This is of increasing importance as Baby Bitch enters his 2nd year and is a heartbeat away from pleas of "Daddy, don't go". As my husband so delicately put it, however, the Elephant in the Living Room is "what happens if we don't actually LIKE seeing each other every day?" In my mind, this leaves us with a few interesting options.

A.) Banal hobbies. He might find some belching poker party to attend or I might try to explore some Cassarole-of-the-Month Club or something. Green beans and peanut butter, anyone?

B.) The night shift. I was a stellar bar tender. Charming, witty, flirtatious. I can seduce you into buying far more drinks than you intended to consume and then kick you out at closing in a way that makes you feel like I can hardly wait for your return. My tendency to linger after closing and get sloshed might be a downside at this point, however.

C.) Back yard burial. Mr. Bitch is insured. I know where he sleeps. And the silly man lets me feed him all the time. Hey, accidents happen. People disappear all the time.

Chances are good we'd opt for A in the event claustrophobia sets in, but in all seriousness, the good news is this: Mr. Bitch and our devil-spawn are pretty much the center of my universe and for good reason; their company is impossible to beat and most days, I love them so much it's hard to breathe.

I'll do my best to pop in here over the next couple-three weeks and regale you with amusing moving tales (assuming such animals exist), but if I don't, I trust you'll understand. I've only been half-watching the news/reading the blogs and all the State of the Nation garners is an eye-roll and a surge of bile. Commentary is plentiful on my blog roll. Please avail yourselves of it if you haven't yet. My continual thanks to Lily for keeping the cobwebs at bay...

I'll resume the regularly scheduled snark once we're settled in Colorado. It's a red state, you know. Thankfully, blue counties are plentiful and Boulder (Hippie Heaven) is less than an hour away from our would-be abode. <whew>

Cheers.

A Little-a-This, A Little-a-That

2006-01-03T18:33:00.000-07:00

I swear, my two-year-old is running my ass ragged. By the time I get a breather at night, I have all the wit of a goldfish.

Many thanks to those that posted New Year's wishes -- greatly appreciated. And a special thanks to Disgusted in St. Louis for the photohop magic -- you ROCK!

If all, what, 4? of you show up tonight, treat this as an open thread.

Here's a few morsels for ya:

Does Digby ever have an off day? Somehow, I doubt it.

Fasten your seatbelts. The press is surely under tremendous pressure from the Republicans to report this as a bi-partisan scandal and they are already buckling under. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a GOP operation from the get --- and they know it.

[...]

This characterization of the scandal as being "bi-partisan" is typical bad mainstream journalism, particularly the emphasis they are placing on the very small handful of Democrats who've even been mentioned (much less included in any legal procedings.) Not only are they creating some equity and illegality where none exists, by doing it they are missing the real story, as usual.

This isn't a story about power corrupting or about a few bad apples. This is about a corrupt political machine --- a system of money laundering and public corruption on behalf of one political party. It's about a party that has used every tool at its disposal to legally and illegally enrich itself and enhance its power. It's right there. It's unravelling before our eyes.

Fucking brilliant: You don't have to a sociopath to be Republican, but it helps. (hat tip C&L)

I'm seriously thinking of ordering this as a bumper sticker.

In case you missed any mentions of it, turns out Mel Gibson is something of a dolt. Oh well. I'll probably still see The New World.

If any of you have had the displeasure of speaking to a wingnut that cites publications like World Net Daily as gospel, you'll like ConWebWatch. When I'm in such a revolting position, the amount of crap contained in such "references" is enough to make my hair hurt and I honestly can't be bothered to reply in detail about why virtually every sentence is wrong. Thanks to these nifty Internets, I (we) have a little help in that area. Enjoy.

10...9...8...

2005-12-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

I can't honestly say I'm one of those whoop & holler types when it comes to New Year's. I loathe champagne, find noise-makers highly unpleasant, and generally don't give a damn about a dropping ball or Dick Clark (no offense, Dick).

Still, in an effort to be magnanimous, I'm trying to stir up a degree of enthusiasm for the annual calendar-morph this year. Why? Well, beyond "why the hell not?", it's beyond obvious that if we all need a change, it's now.

Had I any photoshop skills at all, Baby New Year would have had Fitzgerald's face pasted in, so you'll just have to imagine that for yourselves. And, I must confess that the rumors of Abramoff's plea deal being announced "as early as Tuesday" fill me with an anticipation akin to that normally felt by kids on Christmas Eve. And it's not pure schadenfreude, incidentally (though that is part of it, I can't deny). I'm simply in the mood for a reckoning, plain and simple. I want the karmic wheel to spin around and serve us up a hot, steaming pile of justice. A naive desire? Perhaps, but mine nonetheless.

Eons ago, I studied the fluffier things in the world like astrology, tarot cards & numerology (it's ok, you can snicker, I won't hold it against you). It was fun, it was intriguing, and like anyone else searching for the Big Why, it provided equal parts relief and bewilderment. I took all of it with a grain of salt, much like I do all things "metaphysical" or "religious", and from time to time, I let my imagination wander back that way, if only in search of a diversion from the sea of Legos, Sesame Street, utility bills and dirty laundry that I'm surrounded with each day.

So, putting on my cob-web covered numerologist hat (and my apologies in advance to those more "serious students" that object to my half-assed, and arguably incorrect, methodology), I contemplate the coming year.

The basic rules are this: To find the "vibration" for a thing/person/event, you add the individual digits together until you reduce to a single number. If we were going to use my birth year for example, we'd add 1 + 9 + 6 + 8. That yields 24. Then we add 2 + 4 to yield 6. If we wanted to explore the numerological significance of the year I was born, then, we'd look up 6.

So, let's do the same for 2006. Easy peasy. 2 + 6 (obviously the zeros don't count) yields 8. My rusty memory chirps up to tell me that 8 is a number of transformation, and given the impending elections, this strikes me as rife with potential. Some say it's also a number of justice, of authority and strength. It's also alleged to represent intensity, so if any of this means a hill of beans at all, it sounds to me like the coming year may be quite a roller coaster ride, indeed. Following along, 2007 will be a "9" year (last in a 9-year cycle) and 2008, just in time for the presidential election, will put us in the lap of a fresh "1" year, that of new beginnings.

Naturally, it's as likely as not that all of this is pure poppycock, but for the moment, it's a thought I like to entertain. Some people pick up their Bibles, some people read their horoscopes. Institution and tradition aside, we all search for the same thing: A reason larger than ourselves, a cause larger than our own tempestuous wills, a purpose larger than the screaming of the id.

I'd like to believe that this year will herald the change we, and this country, so desperately need, since the alternatives, to me, seem dire and bleak. Focusing on the latter is apt to do little more than lead us all to drink heavily and carry weapons in our cars, so even if our inspiration comes from something as questionable as back-of-the-napkin numerology, that's alright by me.

So, raise a glass to a better world, no matter how likely you are to find it. Barring insanity, optimism is really our only option.

Blessings to you and yours, and thanks for reading.

Tough Read

2005-12-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

but worth it. "Meet Specialist McCoy"

I Wonder How the Easter Bunny Rates

2005-12-29T13:16:00.000-07:00

From a recent Harris poll:

About 22% of U.S. adults believe Mr. Hussein helped plan 9/11, the poll shows, and 26% believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. Another 24% believe several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi...

So much for an informed electorate.

Working My Way Back

2005-12-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

So, I've been in this bloggy fog lately.

(as if it's not been totally obvious, right?)

Not that the news inspires any less rage than it ordinarily does, of course, but as any other blogger will tell you, sometimes the urge to blather on about it wanes considerably. Now that the holiday craziness is starting to wind down, I'm trying to get my noodle in gear and get back to providing you dear readers (all 3 of you) with the snarky commentary you've grown to love.

Until the hamster in my head gets up to full speed, let me point you at some of the more interesting things lurking in my bookmarks:

James Wolcott provides one of the best descriptions of right-wing bloggers (and commenters) I've seen yet in "Headhunters". I love that man.

Some of you may have heard about a UCLA "study" that "proves" the MSM suffers from the ever-dreaded Liberal Bias. If you can stop laughing about that long enough to click the mouse, Media Matters decontructs this study beautifully.

Here's a couple of interviews from some of my personal heroes, Phil Donahue and Bill Moyers. Don't miss either.

Here's a good Rolling Stone article on Bush's Propaganda Boy, John Rendon. A must read for those of you interested in the myriad of Whys behind the Iraq clusterfuck.

And, just to round out such heady subjects with some Point 'n' Laugh levity, be sure to pay a visit to Fundies Say the Darndest Things. It will amuse, disturb, perplex and tickle you. (you might want to drink heavily while reading, incidentally)

More later. Hope everyone had a good holiday. I now have more little multi-colored plastic things in my house than should be allowed by law. And wouldn't you know it? My son is far less interested in the Legos than he is in wearing the clear plastic container over his head like some kind of Space Helmet by Hasbro. Go figure.

Any exciting New Year's plans? I hope for inebriation, but that's about it for the time being.

What a thrilling life I lead.

Dover, PA: ID Trial Ruling

2005-12-20T09:55:00.000-07:00

December 20, 2005

Judge rules for the Plaintiffs! Hallefuckinglujah! Personally, I didn't expect anything else, but good news is good news, no matter how well anticipated.

Screw you, Discovery Institute. Go peddle your pseudo-scientific nonsense somewhere else.

And if you do, we'll look forward to seeing you in court.

Lily's BitchPOD Challenge

2005-12-20T05:49:00.000-07:00

The holidays are in full swing here at Hydrogen and Stupidity!
Ok gadget sluts: listen up. I think I have the perfect Holineutral gift idea. My new bitchPOD. Does it shuffle your favorite Dusty Springfield or secret stash of the Clash? No. Does it shuffle nerdy podcasts of "All Things Considered"? No.
What it would shuffle are a playlist of responses to Fundie freaks, thumpers, misogynist slobs,consumptive bastards, crazed rednecks, and stupid people on line behind us at the store that complain about the speed of the cashier.
And I propose a site to download quips, snark, and general bitchery for .99 a download. When the offender opens their stupid mouths, hit a button and spare yourself the aggravation. A little speaker will proclaim anything from your position on reproductive liberty to your angst about the holidays. And the beauty of it is this: you don;t even have to formulate your own view if you don't feel like it! Just download an opinion!
If you had this imaginary device, what would your shuffle include?????
Happy Holineutraldays! -Lily

Colored Bubbles Are Coming

2005-12-19T22:49:00.000-07:00

People tell me that I'm overly tangential, that its tough to see where I am going with things. That its a leap of faith, an investment on spec. Sometimes its worth the wait to know, but other times it amounts to a psychotic dead end. I'm not sure how my credit stands with you.
The point though is not to express my glee about colored bubbles, but rather to broach the subject of patents- because of course patents make profits possible. And profits get us talking about markets and policy matters, and so it goes.. back on the blognarrow track. Right?
Now in my post about automobile tracking devices, the subject invariably simmered down to what many of my rants simmer down to: the love/hate relationship with the long arms of legislation.
(My issues come from having a communist mom and a libertarian father, neither could cope with the fucking government)
At what point does the law play a role in personal responsibility, manipulating behaviors for some desireable, collectively good result? Like the seatbelt law? See, the subjects we talk about here: reproductive liberty, parental/spousal consent for abortion, obscenity laws, censorship, seat belts, patents, surveillance... have as a binding agent the question of this role of law and weighing its intrusiveness with its potential to protect. Even the hurricanes prompted discussion about the role of individuals,bureaucracy, and the roles of society in its organized multiplicities..
Much can be learned about our own views in reflecting on current events.
Take the bird flu and the push by politicians like Kucinich to ease patent restrictions. One side: public good, excessive profits disproportionate to investment, implications/costs of pandemic, role of government to interfere in markets for noble cause, precedent for interference in capitalism set by such noted commies as Reagan... (yeah, I said Reagan-recall the Air Traffic Controllers?)
Other side: Fucking around with patents can be equated to intellectual genocide. Nobody will work on innovative pharmaceuticals if they are robbed of the future rewards of cashing in and those implications extend to other technological advances. While the short term goal of serving the public interest might sound compelling, how many future lives will be taken because potential treatments were not wholeheartedly explored? Patent protection should be upheld for the public interest, or weakened?
Next: Blackberry and the patent lawsuit from hell. This begs a different question: if you have a patent, should you be compelled to use it? Is it fair to simply own the rights to an idea and forbid anyone from bringing it to fruition? One side: thats the beauty of the patent, the right to determine its use or lack of. Other side: what about the customers who will be essentially victimized by the demise of Blackberry? How much is a market worth? How can we extract the value of technology from the subsequent post-theft marketing?
Katrina: Can a citizen sue the government because they were negligent or ill equipped to handle a natural disaster? One side: Its bullshit, people primarily have an obigation to solve their own problems and natural disasters are faultless acts. People should stop looking to government to do for them. Get your own water!
The other: The purpose of government, at its core, is to 'provide for the general welfare' of its citizens, especially in cases of large scale interstate manuevers like disaster response, or less acute examples like trade and currency. To be that bureaucratically incompetent is like having an emergency room without a doctor. There is a reasonable 'presumption of care', a contractual covenant wherein taxes are paid and public officials are paid for stated purposes and that egregious failure to assist is negligence.
Certainly there are other recent cases: Smokers or big tobacco, who's at fault? Spying on citizens- necessary for security or sodomy by Big Brother? Google- autonomous company permitted to archive your search behaviors (and if you don't like it don't use google) or an example of information abuse?
Colored bubbles are coming, but why? That brings me to the last question: do we patent and create what the market asks for and demands, a responsive market...or do we create needs and wants and set about convincing the public via marketing? And how much of our wasteful economy can be traced to the answer? -Lily

Big Google is Watching

2005-12-18T20:49:00.000-07:00

I was trying to ignore the articles in my inbox from my well meaning friends about internet censorship because-truth be told- I really do not want to wrap my brain around the implications of that right now. But as an admitted insomniac I seem to have plenty of sleepless down time lately to infuse my wakeful hours with the remnants of my nocturnal paranoia fest. I used to think that if I purged my angry brain, elusive sleep would tap the peaceful void... but its like an exponential eradication...the more I vent, the more bubbles to the surface, and so it goes.
So my mind goes to the blogosphere, this quiet corner, the good folks that rant and read and share like little bics at an Elton John concert during "Candle In The Wind" before it became "English Rose". Contrived smart-ass flickers- at times. But they are little boxes of conversation. Good,bad, stupid,profound.
What does this freedom mean to us? Anything?
To me, they represent yet another form of dissent. One whose days could be numbered like so many other things. One cannot help but think about the recent news about internet censorship without getting the creeps. Its nothing new in other countries, and tech saavy folks know that search engines are manipulated all the time. Simultaneous searches in different countries, after all, yeild different results. How long before anti-war or anti-administration search terms get puched downward, before the internet goes the way of MSM?
I heard a story on public radio about google. Maybe some of you caught it. Now google has no difficulty in admitting that it keeps and archives ALL transactions. Your searches, your emails, your deleted messages, your porn, your personal chatter. Now consider how fast and efficient searches have become, and consider an internet with a matrix of behavioral formulae and couple that concept with a near limitless capacity for storage and VOILA- big brother is watching. And recording, and archiving, and profiling. With no limit in sight on its use. No discussion about ethical dilemmas. No outrage.
Now it used to be that collecting data on citizens was too long and impractical to merit use of the time required and the energy. Paranoid radicals that believed that they were being monitored were accused of grandiosity. Who would track harmless hippies? But now that the machinery is in place, such tracking is effortless. And it has seeped into our culture slowly, on cat feet. And there is no need to be discerning with its use or stingy with its scope.
We are all used to supermarket cards and EZ Pass to get through tolls quickly, all tools that can track ordinary citizens. We are used to the erosion of our civil liberties and the forfeit of our privacy in the name of security. And now we hardly blink when we consider the meaning of google's position. How long before the search records attributed to your traceable ISP are fodder for the courts? Subject to subpoena? Subject to spying? How hard would it be to do a search in this massive google archive on redhaired crazy women that hate Santorum and buy soy chai?
This is bad, folks. This needs our notice.

Click,Clack, and Tattling Cars

2005-12-17T21:22:00.000-07:00

My love for NPR's "Car Talk" remains one of my quirks, along with a fondness for Cuban conga cds and orange tic tacs. Just some of the things that I like without examination. Who knows why?
Now TMPO can relate to this: I also like to drive other people's nice cars. I know, I know. I'm not a materialist and car appreciation is a guy thing, right? (joke)It goes against who I am. Really. But even hippie chicks have some weaknesses.
Once I drove my mom's beamer with Maria Callas, along a fifteen mile stretch of double ocean views on a Long Island inlet, and had to admit: I had love for a damned machine. It was smooth, it was beautiful, the sound was amazing. It's a car that I would never buy,and quite frankly my desire for it was astonishing, but humans are full of contradictions. At least I am. Sadly.
What does this have to do with politics? Or NPR?
Well it is common knowledge that BMW and other cars have technology that communicate via satellite about the status of the car. This is a value added feature, like so many other devices on these vehicles.Some people are familiar with OnStar and other such features that enable cars to interact remotely. Anyway, a caller to "Car Talk" asked about a device installed on her car as part of an insurance company research program. The insurance company had asked her to participate, and she wanted to know what types of information could be recorded from the various components of the typical dash. Interesting.
The answer? Everything. Speed, seat belt use, nature of starts and stops, acceleration. At this time, the tattling car would reveal patterns for research purposes only. But how long before Auto Insurance companies get such tracking devices turned into standard equipment? To track your behavior and adjust the rates accordingly? To see how safely and responsibly YOU interact with the item they insure. Yes, your car would be able to potentially tell them how badly you treat it. And if you obey the law. It would be able to tell your insurance company what you do even when you are not caught doing it.
Now one brother at "Car Talk" said it might not be so bad. There are crazy people.
It forces me to ask: Would such a device function as a deterrent for the crazy driver? Again it comes down to the question of balancing rights with societal good. What if tracking driving habits led to a ten percent reduction of fatalities per year? If it forced parents to buckle up babies or risk a rate hike? Would it hurt some populations more than others, say, families that share cars? Would you feel violated, watched, spied on, tracked like a kid? Would you buy a car with this if your rate were to be cut by 50%?? Would you buy into this idea?
What happens between a car and a woman is nobody's business, I am inclined to say.

Pic of the Day

2005-12-14T09:10:00.000-07:00

Just for Bill O'Reilly.

Not Dead, Just.... Juiceless?

2005-12-14T09:05:00.000-07:00

In case any of you have been wondering where the hell I've been....

Dealing with the mundane, mostly. Kid, family, house, work... you know, all that stuff that happens between blogging. To those of you still checking in regularly, thank you. I see Lily's been posting and for her continued contributions, I'm grateful.

As for me, I'll get back in the swing of things here, soon enough. I think my little brain has just needed a bit of a break. Enjoy the pre-holiday business and all that.

If I forget to post something in a more timely fashion, here's wishing all of you a warm and wonderful holiday season (yes, I said "holiday". Neener neener).

The Day The Music Died

2005-12-07T22:20:00.000-07:00

October 9, 1940 - December 8, 1980

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us,
Above us only sky.
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too.
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can.
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

News Junkie

2005-12-05T07:54:00.000-07:00

At another blog, a blograde was lamenting the quiet news week. "There isn't much to write about these days."
Slap me senseless and call me Paris, but huh? Perhaps because I am a certifiable news junkie I hardly ever feel that way. I decided to dig deeper. One thing I love about CB here is her ability to wade through the swamplands of MSM and save me time because I simply cannot get to it all.
Nothing to write about? What did this chick mean? Why did I care? Why didn't I just go warm my feet at My Left Wing? Turns out that what she meant was that there was an absence of sensational stories, an absence of Schiavo-like sparring, an absence of scandal. There were no stories with which to catapult her pet topics, no venue for her commentary. No little Mclaughlin party, just for her. She did not want to reduce herself to Hollywood news. Did not feel like researching ConRice's remarks on torture. Did not feel compelled to follow the Global warming conference in Canada. Where is the news that everyone is talking about???
If everyone is talking about it, we don't need to. I think its a given that several billion people are more capable than I am. I ask about conformity and suggest that we can write about more of the under reported things, one of the compelling reasons to read a blog is to get a broader perspective. When I go to ten blogs and eight of them are saying the same thing, I feel kinship, which has its place, but I also find many have lifted their content from some of the others like a big bloggy bandwagon. Everyone wants to be the next Kos. Can't blame them.
"I'm not like you, I can't masturbate to NPR, with more boring opinions and criticisms than my little typing fingers can carry." she snorts. ouch
But the beauty of the blogosphere is that nobody has to agree with what I think is important. There are so many blogs- truly there is a niche for everyone, whatever your political persuasion or your recreational leanings. Some people feel strongly about an issue and see it as counterproductive to dilute their energies into dozens of topics when they can stay on top of some key developments on matters they feel able to speak to. Perhaps it is a matter of understanding product. And as neighbors, we need to see the value in millions of little soap boxes, good or bad, shitty or brilliant, critical or compliant, recipes or rebellion.

Oh, For the Seduction of Organic Hysteria

2005-12-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

Ever hear of the Nuremberg code? Many have not. Some think its about Nazi behavior. It is. Sort of. Any parallels expressed or implied are completely coincidental. Check back here later to read it. Moving on...

Organic Consumers Association is an organization that sends out periodic consumer alerts, worth a plug. Now before you groan and say "oh great, a granola head in our midst" I just want to let you know that despite my penchance for histrionic fact collection, this latest has me pacing around in spite of the whispers from the CB-like muse on my shoulder that says "beware hippie hysteria". I've been following this for a while, though. Its evil.

(Sigh) I know that I rant off the cuff and that I have more than one grassy knoll post under my belt. My suspicions are often fodder for mockery, I talk about 'feelings' and diversity... my angst has been the subject of attacks by even those in close blogmind proximity that do not know of my personal real-time work, that assume that I regularly whore and hack for Democrats, Chomsky, Guthrie, Phish, or the Bonotypes... whatever...reading "Mother Jones" all day lamenting my apathetic mind. Yeah, I suck at contriving posts that are snarkaliciously juicy. A pit bull, I'm not. I have a kid named after the weather, after all. I am an emotional train wreck and this impedes my clarity. I don't blog to win.

What can I say? BUT- being a stereotypical liberal does not mean I bleed marijuana or cannot speak to truth. I am about awareness, not making a sport of being a contrarian. Sometimes a clumsy heartfelt post is all I can manage, sans the linkopedia. But I offer my rant here regardless, because it involves testing on children. And ok, I'll throw in some links.

Per OCA: "Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, without exception. But the EPA's newly proposed rule is ridden with exceptions where chemical studies may be performed on children in certain situations like the following: Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns, may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable. "

Yes, it does suggest the convenience of utilizing abused children, such expedient permission!!! And the spectre of institutional abuse, a staple of American progress!

Now in an earlier thread, we touched briefly on the theme of "The Constant Gardener" and pharmaceutical testing in Africa. While this is fiction (and I am digressing, see the problem?) there have been many documented cases involving pharmaceuticals, HIV, TB, and opportunistic infections on African populations. This is not a new topic in some circles. But it is arguably a new topic in mainstream America because until recently little attention has been paid to chemical testing in general- not among our military, our children, or the world's children.

Last year when the media began reporting proposals to test chemicals (pesticides, etc.) on American children for modest compensation, groups got on board to campaign for congressional intervention to reign in the EPA. Citing discrimination against the poor, and legal challenges- they forced the EPA to revise their standards. "Revise"=key word:

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

Now according to the OCA:
"Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects as "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed. "

Read the EPA request for public comment, and learn more about the EPA's perspective here.

Read the National Academies Press Response "Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes: Scientific and Ethical Issues" and the NRDC statements here.

For information about the Snopes entry, which was actually not directly related to this alert, read the response here.

Whether it's testing of pesticides, medicine, immunizations, MKULTRA, exposing innocent people to white phosphorous or depleted uranium, I believe that we need to take a stand against the exploitive use of 'disposable' or 'ass-owned' populations. While I can support PETA and groups defending humane treatment of animals, lets see Hollywood come out for children who cannot speak out against the use of their bodies, who must rely on the sanity of adults and the scant protections afforded by law. Lets see Americans valuing children, not reducing them to test subjects. Lets see parents get involved, not try to make a quick buck on exposing their kids to pesticides. Lets see Veterans and military families rage about the injections, exposures, 'lost records', babies born to Gulf war vets with chromosomal abnormalities... Lets see bloggers pause from sparring about the President, the neocons, and the war for five minutes to consider the prospects of these children. How 'bout it? Humor the hippie?

Well, This is Disturbing

2005-11-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

Remember hearing, years ago now, that Los Alamos was suffering from "accounting problems" with its plutonium? Well, evidently those problems still lack a solution.

From the SFGate:

Enough plutonium to make dozens of nuclear bombs hasn't been accounted for at the UC-run Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and may be missing, an activist group says in a new report.

There is no evidence that the weapons-grade plutonium has been stolen or diverted for illegal purposes, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research said. However, the amount of unaccounted-for plutonium -- more than 600 pounds, and possibly several times that -- is so great that it raises "a vast security issue," the group said in a report to be made public today.

(snip)

UC spokesman Chris Harrington said Los Alamos "does an annual inventory of special nuclear materials which is overseen by (the Energy Department). These inventories have been occurring for 20-plus years. Special nuclear materials are carefully tracked to a minute quantity."

The report concludes that at least 661 pounds of plutonium generated at the lab over the last half-century is not accounted for. The atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 contained about 13 pounds of plutonium.

"The security implications . . . are extremely serious, since less than 2 percent of the lowest unaccounted-for plutonium is enough to make one nuclear bomb," the report said.

How comforting to know that such progress has been made. If this stuff is tracked "to a minute quantity", one has to wonder how 661 pounds is defined, exactly. Does this not fall well OUTSIDE "minute"?!? When I think of such small quantities, typically decimals are involved. I mean, that's a little more than a bookkeeping error, don't you think? It's not like rounding 0.6 to 1.00 because some bean counter forgot to format his spreadsheet properly. Now that I'd be willing to call "minute".

Even still, I'm no chemist, but I'm working on the assumption that even tiny amounts of plutonium (for fucksake!) are dangerous, and that it would be sloppy, at best, to "lose" say, just an ounce or so. But 661 POUNDS?!?!

I expect the story (should it actually gain any real traction in the press) will eventually be explained away by some Los Alamos rep saying, effectively, "Heh. Found it. Sorry... Never mind", but even if such a benign tale were true, that's a rather cold comfort, don't you think?

Abhorrent moral implications of nuclear weaponry aside, you'd think the very LEAST these guys could do is keep track of their materials.

Many years ago, while working for Wells Fargo, I spent the better part of a day tracking down $.06.

Yep, six measly cents.

Since the pennies involved were the net result of several million dollars representing several dozen transactions, it had the potential to be quite a pain in the ass. When I was ready to climb the walls after nearly 5 hours into the process, two other people got involved. We did finally find it, but we sure as hell weren't going to leave for the day until we did. And that was just $.06. Easy to write off with relative impunity, but it was the principle of the thing. When you balance out at closing, your totals should be zero. Everything accounted for. Every last penny. To miss such a basic benchmark would be shoddy work, and simply beneath us, to say nothing of required.

Are we now to believe that NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANUFACTURERS don't hold themselves to the same standards? One could reasonably argue that the accounting protocol for plutonium be just a tad stricter than the mundane rules of municipal bond processing. Then again, maybe I'm being a hard ass.

Maybe the staff at Wells Fargo should trade jobs with the boys at Los Alamos. I can at least vouch for the unyielding regulations of the former.

Love Note to my Blogrades

2005-11-29T21:15:00.000-07:00

(This spilled out of my head as a comment on another site, but after re-reading it, thought it deserved a spot here, for any of my fellow bloggers lurking in the audience....)

"Over the holiday weekend (while not much was happening on blogs), I wandered back into two usenet forums I used to frequent. Not surprisingly, the same ditto heads are still there, spouting their same vacuous bullshit (global warming is a myth, evolution is deeply flawed, torture is just fine, thank you) and like a moth to a flame, I've been responding to these idiots. All it's doing is raising my blood pressure and stirring my (formerly latent) insomnia.

Why? For the love of everything holy, WHY do I do it???

Well, not because I have any illusions of changing the minds of the especially dim, but rather for the benefit of the observers. I figure chances are, more than a few of them are "moderates" for lack of a better word, and the kinds that we all know are out there -- Too Busy With Living (bill paying, kid raising, etc etc etc) to catch anything more than soundbytes. And heaven forbid those soundbytes come courtesy of Faux News.

I wandered in originally while I was finishing school. The arguing was good for my paper-writing and I always like a chance to work on my debating skills, no matter what the incentive or environment. But after a couple of years, I was frustrated blind by some of these people, to the point in which I could easily envision decking any one of them squarely in the jaw on our first encounter. So, I split. I don't need that, my son and husband don't need that. Hell, my PETS don't need that. Mommy really doesn't want to SEEK OUT Xanax at this point, you see.

Morbidly curious on a slow holiday weekend, my resolve faltered. (Forgive me father, for I have sinned)...

Maybe my recent return had a little more to do with hubris than I'd like to admit [...]
...exchanges with adversaries does wonders for clarifying one's own perspectives and arguments -- I'd be lying if I didn't confess to taking sincere pleasure in really spanking some of the especially moronic with LOGIC and FACT (Wonder Twin Powers Activate!). I was smugly satisfied watching them try to change the subject mid-thread after a particularly sharp & substantiated lobby from me.

But, the victory was hollow -- it always is. I walk away from those exchanges so disheartened, so disappointed, so demoralized... And I'm reminded why I finally got off my ass and thought "I should go find out what this blogging thing is all about". This is not to say that I'm content to live in an echo chamber (my ego isn't THAT fragile), but seriously, getting to read the contributions from Genuine Progressive Citizens on a variety of leftie blogs has renewed my faith in people. I hate to sound schlocky, but it's true.

I LOVE you people.

An Eloquent RSVP

2005-11-28T18:55:00.000-07:00

Don't miss this.

Where's the revolution? (Part 2)

2005-11-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

Over the last several years, largely since the Right assumed control (a nicer thing to say than outright ownership) of all three branches of the Government, those on the left have been positively inundated with two terms: "We won, you lost, the majority has spoken" and various forms of "The robed Oligarchy". While folks with a higher IQ than that of your average brick believe this be pure crap, we are sometimes hard pressed to explain why neither term has merit. So, I'm going to give it a shot.

This whole majority thing has puzzled me for years. We are constantly told that not everyone of voting age registered to vote, though the increase in registration during 2000 and 2004, and not all those who registered actually voted. So I wanted to find out what this majority consisted of, and what it amounted to.

The population of the US, according to the Census Bureau, is around 298 million people. Of this population, 197 million are citizens of voting age, which represents 66% of the total population. Of those citizens capable of voting, 142 million of them are registered to vote, which represents 72% of the voting age population and just about 48% of the total population. At this point, it becomes pretty obvious that a "majority" of people CANNOT vote. But, lest we dilute the stats, let's move on to those who actually voted. According to the Census doc linked to above, approximately 126 million registered voters actually voted. This represents 88% of those registered and 42% of the total population. Wait, it gets worse. Wikipedia asserts that around 123 million people voted for president, which represents 97% of voters (sounds good, right?), 86% of those registered to vote, 62% of voting age citizens, and 41% of the total population.

And President George W Bush, the man with the mandate, acquired just over 50% (50.77% according to Wikipedia) of that presidential vote. So, he got 62 million votes, or thereabouts. That amounts to 43% of registered voters, 31% of voting age citizens, and 20.8% of the total population of the country. That's not a majority, that's not a plurality, that's not a mandate for jack shit.

Now, I'll be a lot more concise about this whole judicial oligarchy meme. There are 535 members of Congress, 9 Justices in the Supreme Court, 15 Cabinet positions, The President and The VP, to run the country. 542 of those positions are elected, the remainder are appointed or hired. Knowing that all the Federal power in this country is concentrated in the hands 0 .000001% of the country's population puts a different complexion on the whole oligarchy thing. As if that wasn't enough, according to Heritage.org, incumbents enjoy an overwhelming advantage in their re-election campaigns in terms of name recognition, access to party money, and contributions from "business interests" whose positions they support. They also tend to get re-elected more than 90% of the time. In fact, the leadership of the both party's tend to retain their seats for DECADES, and achieve seniority positions on committees that control how the government functions. They appoint judges, particularly to the Federal bench, to LIFETIME appointments.

Yeah, there's an oligarchy all right, but it goes much deeper than the incurious parroters of the current "majority" talking points can begin to believe. You know the key difference? Legislators make the law, but judges are bound by it. They are reliant on precedent and on established law, which naturally curtails the lengths to which they can go. Not so the legislators who can create law with a single person as the target (Terry Schiavo), can abridge the rights of a minority in egregious ways (homosexuals), and can overreach their offices in the most ridiculous of ways by legislating sentencing laws. I don't care to have judges in charge any more than I do politicians, but I can't help viewing those in the "unelected judges" camp with the same mild pity I view Intelligent Designers, Young Earthers, and the Heavens Gaters.

"Evolution Site Under Fire"

2005-11-27T18:36:00.000-07:00

:::banging head on desk:::

Via Yahoo:

California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the Caldwells contend the site is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true."

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" — a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence — but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

The site is run by UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology and paid in part by a $400,000 grant from the National Science Foundation. Two university scientists and a foundation official were named as defendants.

An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea.

And who are the Caldwells? Are they scientists? Biologists? Geologists? Armchair palentologists? You know, are they, in any way, qualified to assess the veracity of the Berkeley site's information? Good question. Then again, like that matters, right? After all, the fundamentalist Christian meme is "teach the controversy", totally ignoring that science is not now, nor was it ever, democratic.

(This is the most egregiously twisted spin of political correctness in this whole "ID" mess, by the way. And to the moderates that are falling for it -- Pull your heads from your nether regions, please. You're being had.)

Apparently all you have to believe is that "evolution is flawed" to get your day in court, expert consensus to the contrary be damned. I mean, it's not like our court systems aren't already crowded with frivolous lawsuits, right?

The Mercury News article elaborates in further detail:

The suit, which was filed last month, specifically objects to portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site that deal with the interplay of science and religion. For example, it challenges the site's linking to doctrinal statements from a variety of religions to demonstrate that "most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with evolution.''

That amounts to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others, the suit contends, and is an effort "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true.''

An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the lawsuit makes a variation on an argument that courts have repeatedly rejected -- that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea.

"The courts in many cases have said evolution is a scientific idea and there is no prohibition on the government teaching a scientific idea even if it conflicts'' with some people's religious beliefs, said university counsel Christopher Patti.

Larry Caldwell, who has two children in Roseville schools, also has sued administrators in the Roseville Joint Union High School District in an evolution-related controversy. The suit stems from his efforts -- which he says were frustrated by the district -- to persuade the school board to give students material challenging Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento non-profit that focuses on religious freedom and parental rights, has joined Caldwell in preparing both lawsuits.

Not surprisingly, the Pacific Justice Institute looks like another JDs-for-Jesus outfit. As some of you may recall, the defense firm in the Dover suit actively sought out a school board willing to insert Pandas into the curriculum and hit paydirt with Bonsell et al out here in Pennsyltucky.

Hopping aboard the Wanton Speculation Express, I'd say that I won't be the least bit surprised if the PJI heard of the Caldwell's earlier suit and "invited" them to file this grievance. "And we won't even CHARGE you!" Hey! What zealot could refuse that deal? A little press, a little lawyering, all for the low-low price of sacrificing a 4th graders reading of the 1st Amendment. Woo hoo!

In Case There's Still Any Doubt

2005-11-26T12:43:00.000-07:00

Exhibit A:

Brushing aside international criticism of the CIA-run prisons set up in eight countries, Bush said that the nation is at war with an enemy "that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we'll aggressively pursue them, but we'll do so under the law." Bush, who spoke to reporters during a brief visit to the capital of Panama, also asserted, "We do not torture."

His comments followed efforts by Vice President Cheney to lobby lawmakers to exempt the CIA from an amendment that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The exemption would cover the secret prisons.

Exhibit B:

Al-Jamadi was captured by Navy SEALs on November 4th, 2003, and after a "roughing up" (in which six of his ribs were broken), taken to Abu Ghraib and handed over to the CIA. Guards under the direction of Mark Swanner handcuffed his arms behind his back to a window five feet above the ground - a technique known as "Palestinian hanging" (a variant of strapado which causes intense pain possible dislocation of the shoulders, and eventual death by asphyxiation, in much the same way as crucifixion). 45 minutes later, he was dead. The guards called to assist when he stopped responding found him hanging with all his weight on his hands and wrists; one noted that he "had never seen anyone's arms positioned like that, and he was surprised they didn't just pop out of their sockets."

When the body was lowered to the floor, "blood came gushing out of his nose and mouth, as if a faucet had been turned on". Attempts were made to surreptitiously dispose of the corpse, and some evidence (including the bloodied hood that had covered al-Jamadi's face) was destroyed - but the body was eventually autopsied, and the death labelled a homicide. The pathologist performing the autopsy was not told of the circumstances of al-Jamadi's death, and judged that he had died of "compromised respiration" and "blunt force injuries". But experts approached by the New Yorker are clear; while al-Jamadi's beating was a contributing factor, the cause of death was asphyxiation caused by the way in which he had been hung. The man had been tortured to death.

Exhibit C:

Are we clear now?

Pic of the Day

2005-11-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

(really hoping the copyright gods don't smite me, but this was too good not to share. Source)

Harvest

2005-11-23T12:01:00.000-07:00

If Thanksgiving is a time for gratitude, then it must be preceded by an accounting of what we have, what we have lost, what we have yet to achieve.

To this end, I suggest you read Andrew C White's diary "I've been thinking a lot lately about war".

A Note to Seeman's Critics

2005-11-22T19:52:00.000-07:00

Jeff Seemann, Democratic candidate for Congress (Ohio, 16th Dist.) is doing something I think is quite remarkable period, much less for a would-be politician.

From his own diary of last Friday:

Most people do not understand the difficulties that our neediest Americans have each and every day. It's hard to fully comprehend issues until you've personally tackled them...and that's what I intend to do.

[...]

In two days, I'll be going homeless. I'll be out on the streets for 100 hours, learning the harsh lessons that countless people go through every day of their lives. I believe that this is the best way to represent people...by walking a mile in their shoes.

Starting this Sunday, I will spend 100 hours homeless in Stark County, Ohio. From Sunday afternoon until late Thursday evening, I'll disappear into the city. No cell phone, no hot shower in the morning, no evenings with my girlfriend, no money in my pocket, and no Thanksgiving dinner with my family. I believe I need to immerse myself into the life with no cheating. If I want to understand what homelessness is like (and how to confront it legislatively), I need to experience it for myself.

Every day, I will make one phone call so I can check in with one friend. That friend will post my experiences online, and I will personally post a recap at the end of the 100 hours.

I will NOT be notifying the local media of this experience until it is complete. I do not view this as a photo-op or a hot story, and I do not want any reporters looking for me while I'm trying to learn from experience. Also, this is no joke and I am not trying to gain anything from the plight of homelessness, except an understanding of what it takes to survive...

Evidently he's checking in by telephone (with change he manages to scrounge up off the street) with his friend Michelle, who's been relaying his experience on several blogs (dKos links here, here and here).

Generally, most of the comments from readers are supportive, and rightfully so. It's one thing to work on behalf of charitable organizations, but it's another thing altogether to actually walk in the shoes of those you wish to help, no matter how temporarily. His exercise is clearly one of perspective-broadening, with the intent of bringing that viewpoint to bear on his future work as a legislator.

The reason I mention it here, beyond simply bringing it to your attention, is to scold the (admittedly small) number of people that reply with any number of ridiculous comments -- that he's going this primarily as a fundraising exercise, that he's just trying to evoke sentiment from the bleeding-heart-liberal crowd, and that he can't possibly ever REALLY know what it's like to be homeless what with a finite cap on his tenure on the street.

The first two claims sound like dismissiveness run amok, and while the third may have some merit, I have to ask this: Could you imagine, say, Tom Delay getting out there and doing such a thing? How about Hillary Clinton? Bill Frist? Nancy Pelosi? Sam Brownback?

HA! Never. Never in a million years. Not if their very re-elections depended on it.

But just imagine if they did. Imagine that, in a parallel world, every member of Congress were required to do something like this before taking office. How much attention and effort do you then think they'd put into addressing the multitude of problems plaguing our social services? Do you think their detached apathy would last beyond the first night? Do you think any of them would have the nerve to suggest that people ever CHOOSE to be homeless? Do you think they'd be so eager to cut support program funding at every opportunity?

Back in the real world, where such Congressional passage rites don't happen, these critics need to pull their heads out of their asses for a minute and consider this:

You don't get to bitch, moan and whine about how out-of-touch politicians are, and then condemn their efforts to get IN touch. You don't get to piss all over an effort like Jeff's when you've been screaming incessantly about the chronic ambivalence of career politicians.

Get it?? You can't have it both ways, kids. Grow the fuck up and understand that, especially now, ANY candidate that shows an interest in walking his talk should be supported, praised and respected, without reservation. Period. Full stop.

Reform Judaism’s Leader Criticizes Religious Right for Intolerance

2005-11-22T11:06:00.000-07:00

:::Standing Ovation:::

We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the Religious Right is the voice of atheism. We are appalled when "people of faith" is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?

More after the jump...

So we ask our neighbors on the Religious Right to take note: We are religious Jews, gathered in Houston to study, pray, and commit ourselves to God. And yes, we are generally liberal in our politics. But our liberalism flows directly from our religious commitments.

And we worry that you don't understand what this means, or what it means for anyone to be a liberal religious believer.

What it means is this: that we bring a measure of humility to our religious belief. We study religious texts day and night, but we have no direct lines to heaven and we aren't always sure that we know God's will.

It means believing that religion involves concern for the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it just feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy.

It means that "family values" require providing health care to every child and that God cares about the 12 million children without health insurance.
It means valuing a child with diabetes over a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic, and seeing the teaching of science as a primary social good.

And it means reserving the right for each person to prayerfully make decisions for herself about when she dies.

It also means believing in legal protection for gay couples. We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way. But we cannot understand why any two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other should be denied legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society. We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. And today, we cannot feel anything but rage when we hear about gay men and women, some on the front lines, being hounded out of our armed services. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry.

More here and here.

Hat tip: BiMP

"Army Admits It Dumped Tons of Toxic Poisons..."

2005-11-22T06:43:00.000-07:00

I feel like I should be suprised by this news, but I'm not. In fact, I'd nearly presume it's par for the course.

In an alarming piece of news courtesy of the Newport News Daily Press, we find that the Army has been dumping chemical weapons at sea for decades, and some of it is now a toxic sludge that is poisoning all of us in more ways than we can imagine. Even though a select few have known for years that the Army was disposing of chemical weapons in ways not healthy for any of us, we are told that "records obtained by the Daily Press show that the previously classified weapopns-dumping program was far more extensive than had been suspected." The Army now admits it dumped 64 MILLION pounds of nerve and mustard gas agents, 400,000 chemical filled bombs, landmines, and rockets, and more than 500 TONS of radioactive waste into the seas. This is a disaster beyond description, and affects every living thing on Earth.

Catch the rest.

Pic of the Day

2005-11-22T06:21:00.000-07:00

Here's wishing you and yours a yummy holiday.

This should be a good occasion for me to pontificate a bit on the nature of national holidays and/or thankfulness, but honestly it's not in me today. Suffice to say, be grateful that 2008 is just a little bit closer than it was last Thanksgiving.

Instead, I'll direct you to Robert Jensen's "A National Day of Atonement" over at Greenlily's Lose the Noose. It'll serve as a sound helping of iconoclasm if you're weary of commerical cliches and mental gluttony.

Enjoy.

"Blame the People"

2005-11-21T10:24:00.000-07:00

Creeping back incrementally from his recent hiatus, Michael Reynolds replies to Cheney's latest blame-dodge. As is his norm, it's succinct, to the point, and very well done. Enjoy.

AFA Claims Palmdale Parents Eat Their Young

2005-11-21T07:56:00.000-07:00

Ok, well, not really, but they might as well. Their recent fit is equally silly.

During a brief visit to a forum I used to frequent, I came across this post. It's an email from that wonderful group, Champions of the Narrow Mind, the American Family Association.

I'm reminded, once again, that these people don’t give a rusty fuck about actual details or facts. What they are interested in, however, is invective and fear-mongering. To wit:

Activist Judges say they, not parents, have final say in teaching sex education to our children

Activist Federal Judges Strip Rights From Parents

As shocking as it may seem, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that courts--not parents--have the final authority on when and what to teach children about sex education.

In their ruling, the Court determined that parents DO NOT have a fundamental right to control when, where and how their children are taught about sex. Rather, the Court ruled, that right belongs to activist judges.

I know you probably aren't believing this, so I have provided a link to an article on the recent ruling written by Kathleen Parker, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Click here to read the column.

This is simply another encroachment by activist federal judges to take away the rights of parents and turn those rights over to the judges. These liberal activist judges feel they know better how to raise your children and grandchildren than you do!

It is time for parents and grandparents to tell activist judges to back off! Sign the petition. Forward the petition to your friends and family. We will forward the petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court where this case will eventually be decided. Hopefully, by then, Supreme Court nominee Justice Samuel Alito will have been confirmed and this crazy ruling by the Ninth Circuit can be overturned.

Click Here To Sign the Petition to the Supreme Court Now!

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

(I've stripped the above of its native links. I am not sending traffic to those yahoos.)

As you might imagine, curiosity got the better of me, so I did a little research.

Not surprisingly, the AFA’s problem isn’t “activist judges”. Their problem is that these judges weren’t activist ENOUGH. This particular suit was rightfully decided for a number of reasons relating to jurisdiction, scope and, well, “cognizability” of the plaintiff’s arguments. In short, the plaintiffs presented a lousy case.

Here’s a good case analysis, in case you don't have the time to wade through the 20+ page ruling:

In Palmdale, California, public school officials and a psychology graduate student administered a survey to students aged seven to ten. The parents had previously consented to the administration of the survey, but to their surprise, their kids came home and told them that the survey included lots of questions about sex. One group of parents found this absurd, intrusive, and offensive; they consequently sued the school district, claiming that the administration of the survey was a violation of their rights. The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the parents had not raised a valid claim under the law. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal, stating in their opinion that "there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents 'to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs'"

As you can imagine, this decision irked a lot of people, including some religious conservatives who immediately tarred it as another loopy liberal decision from the Ninth Circuit. This description is a bit off the mark: The Ninth Circuit actually refused to "discover" or "invent" a new Constitutional right, which is a stance normally thought of as conservative (or at least constructionist). To be fair, some conservatives did acknowledge this point.2 Others, however, were less calm. Teeth were gnashed, garments were rent, and the imminent death of society was predicted; the more excitable commentators fumed that "school administrators...[had] arrogate[d] to themselves the right to raise such topics with [a] child,"3 and that the state had seized the power to to completely override the parents' wishes in the matter.

That is not a correct interpretation of this decision. To understand why not, you first need to understand what a United States court actually does in a case like this. Conceptually, it's fairly simple: The parties to a case bring a question before the Court, which does its best to provide an answer based on precedent, existing law, and general legal principles. With some important exceptions, particularly at the level of the Supreme Court, the Court only answers the question it's asked and does not spontaneously volunteer answers to other questions. (Sometimes it drops hints, though.) In other words, there may be several valid claims that the parents could raise, but they--not the Court--must bring them up.

With that in mind, here is the question that the Court was asked:
1. If you are a parent of a child in public school, does the Fourteenth Amendment give you the right to be the sole provider of information about sex?
That sounds a bit less contentious and a bit more technical, doesn't it? Just to drive the point home, here are some questions the Court was not asked:
1. If you are a parent of a child in public school, does the First Amendment give you the right to be the sole provider of information about sex?
2. If you are a parent of a child in private or parochial school, or if you home- school, does the Fourteenth Amendment give you the right to be the sole provider of information about sex?
3. Shouldn't they have notified the parents that the questionnaire asked about sex?
4. Aren't these obnoxious questions to ask of a seven-year-old?
5. In fact, isn't this questionnaire completely asinine?

The answer to these questions could be "Yes" in every case, but the Court would still have arrived at the same decision. In fact, I have not researched the first two questions at all, but I suspect that the answer to questions three and four is "Yes." As for question five, the sex-related questions appear to come from the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (or the Young Children variant), which is in fact a published and well-utilized survey. I have never used this instrument and cannot speak to its utility at all. Frankly, though, I have my doubts: Seven-year-olds often have some pretty weird ideas about what sex is, and even if they do know, they're most likely to spend their time doodling gigantic penises in the margins of their answer sheet.

But none of this is really relevant--what about the question before the Court? To judge by the opinion (which is not always a safe thing to do), the parents' argument is extraordinarily weak. The basic reasoning goes something like this: Parents have the right under the Fourteenth Amendment to make decisions about their children's care, custody, and control. This right is not absolute, however, and can be regulated by the state to some degree, particularly with regard to kids in public school. The administration of a questionnaire falls well within the range of activities permitted to the schools and their regulators, and therefore there is no legal basis on which to restrict it. Likewise, parents have a right to privacy, defined here as the right to make important decisions about their child's welfare, but again that right does not allow--and has never allowed--parents to prevent schools from providing certain information to students. (I think this is a bit wide of the mark, since the survey was really asking questions instead of disseminating information, but that only makes the parents' argument weaker.) Thus, the Court unanimously--and quite appropriately--affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.

Does it end there? Maybe, but as I suggested earlier, the Court's dismissal doesn't mean that the parents have absolutely no case whatsoever. Perhaps I'm influenced by my experience as a researcher, but I think the real issue here involves informed consent. In almost every case, researchers must obtain the informed consent of the people who will be participating in a study (45 CFR 46.116). When children are the participants, as is the case here, their parent or guardian must provide informed consent on their behalf (45 CFR 46.408)4. Most of the time, participants must at the very least read a document explaining the study and sign a statement agreeing to participate.
The parents in this case provided informed consent for their children to participate. They could have refused--I strongly suspect that other parents did--but they did not. Questions of privacy and due process are rather irrelevant once consent is provided. You can hardly consent to something and then claim that it violates your right to privacy--if, that is, the consent process was adequate.

In my view, however, the consent process was not adequate at all. Federal laws and regulations state that the consent form must provide "a description of the procedures to be followed" (45 CFR 116(a)(1)), but they do not establish how detailed that description should be. The specifics are left up to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is a group of researchers, lawyers, clinicians, and ethicists affiliated with the researcher's institution. In general, IRBs maintain that the consent form should provide all the information that a "reasonable person" would want to know about the study; said reasonable people should not end up unpleasantly surprised by anything that happens. Along similar lines, California state law requires researchers to give participants a copy of the Research Subject's Bill of Rights, which states that participants have the right to an explanation of "discomforts and risks reasonably to be expected." Normally I loathe the vagueness of the "reasonable person" standard, but in this case it seems clear: I strongly suspect that nearly every parent, regardless of his or her political orientation, would want to be informed that his or her child would be asked questions about sex. In my experience, most IRBs would require language to that effect; your average IRB takes a very broad view of what "reasonable" means and generally insists on the fullest possible description of the study procedures5. The consent form's warning that "answering questions may make [your] child feel uncomfortable" doesn't cut it. Sex is different, and the consent form should have included specific language to that effect.

So the parents might have a case if they raised this issue--but then again they might not. The relevant law is far from clear, and there seems to be very little case law on this topic. What is clear, however, is that this particular case is mostly trivial; it simply reaffirms existing law, and it is nothing to get upset about in the slightest.

While I applaud the analysis above, naturally, I have some editorializing to add.

To me, the punch-line of the AFA’s reaction to this case has to do with one of the original plaintiff claims. From the ruling:

Therein, they alleged that their “basic constitutional right to control” their children’s upbringing had been “robbed” by the defendants’ actions. Their claim was denied and they subsequently filed a complaint in district court alleging four causes of action: (1) violation of their federal constitutional right to privacy; (2) violation of their California constitutional right to privacy; (3) deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983; and (4) negligence.

Did you catch that? However indirectly, the AFA, through their support of the plaintiffs, is now asserting state and federal privacy rights. BWAHAHAHAHAHA The religious right has been busier than one-armed paper hangers over the last 30+ years insisting that there IS NO right to privacy, but now(!), when such a right would actually protect their interests, suddenly it DOES exist??

What a steaming load of crap. The zealots at AFA are apparently unaware that one can’t have it both ways. And in insisting that they can, indeed should, have their cake and eat it too, by railing anew against the 9th circuit for it’s “activism”, they reveal what they’ve always been: small-minded hypocrites ready to throw toddler-esque tantrums when the courts refuse to abandon things like PRECEDENT to rule in their favor.

As for the zeal with which this was passed along to the aforementioned forum, it was a perfect example of the sheepish behavior of too many people that fancy themselves "conservatives". I'll be willing to grant that in forwarding such a message along, they truly believe they're doing something good. Problem is, these kinds of messages aren't meant to be vetted by the recipients, nor are the conclusions of the AFA meant to be questioned. Like those ridiculous chain letters that promise doom in varying degrees depending the number of people to whom they are forwarded, these "bulletins" are meant only to panic, inflame and invigorate the fear and loathing of the Scapegoat du Jour.

The 9th circuit has been the whipping boy of the Right for ages now, so the AFA's reaction here comes as no surprise. What never fails to surprise and disappoint, however, is the ready willingness with which people will just climb aboard the bandwagon with seemingly no qualms at all. It would be darkly funny if these people weren't VOTERS.

Geek Joy

2005-11-21T07:11:00.000-07:00

Just a tardy mention for your belated enjoyment:

I really sucked at chemistry as a kid. It was the math. Never could get my head around it. And as a result, after two tear-filled weeks in chemistry class, I gleefully transferred out to a benign and far more understandable earth-science class instead.

While I never mourned the loss much, every once in a while I'm reminded of just how shockingly much I don't know. The up side is that when I go poking around in various science-related sites, I'm like a little kid again, gasping with awe and wonder.

In hunting for a graphic for this site, I fell across this place. Not only does it provide some rudimentary explanations that I found, in some cases, fascinating, but it also has some dazzlingly wonderful graphics that are worth the visit alone.

So, for the geek that lurks below your surface, enjoy.

Like an Angel Passing Through

2005-11-20T07:13:00.000-07:00

(a little political respite for your Sunday morning)

Like many people, I like to listen to music while I work. And like any other geek, I'm still in a state of bliss over the invention of mp3s. Since I'm at this computer for a ridiculous portion of my day, having my cherished tunes right at hand is about as sweet as it gets.

Anyway, I finally moved all of the music from my old PC onto the new Mac and queued up some things I hadn't listened to in a while. Among the artists drifting through my ears was Eva Cassidy. Chances are, most of you haven't heard of her. She enjoyed relative obscurity while she was recording and preferred small-venue performances. That said, her music has been featured in TV shows and commercials, so you may have heard her without attribution.

I'm not a reviewer, and have no set of stock phrases to poetically describe Eva's music, so just humor me for a minute while I try.

While I understand she did write some of her own material, I've heard her described as an "interpreter of other people's music". I suppose this can be dismissed as an eloquent way of simply saying she did covers, but that would really understate what she did.

And she was a dearly gifted singer. No, she didn't have one of those acrobatic 5-octave ranges, or the lung capacity to make whales envious. Instead, her voice had a kind of purity you don't often find; a sweet, clear sound with absolutely no pretense at all, and an expression as nakedly honest as any you're likely to find.

And what she did with the songs she sang was simply amazing. She found a way to bring depth and grace to songs that you wouldn't think could be improved. Despite the quality of the original artists' work, her covers of Judy Garland's Over the Rainbow and Sting's Fields of Gold made those familiar versions sound like a half-hearted demos. And it wasn't just those two songs -- everything she did was like that. It was as if she could hear what the writers meant, but the performers could never quite do.

Every time I hear her sing, I'm inspired and moved to awe. As a musician and singer myself, I tend to be hard on other singers, knowing how easy it is to simply make noise, and how tough it is to be genuinely good. And in my book, Eva was flawless.

Wondering about all the past tense verbs in this narrative? Well, that's the tragic ending, of course. Eva passed away in 1996, at the ripe age of 33. It was cancer that took her, and as I understand it, she died just a few months after her initial diagnosis. So, knowing that, her music always makes me a little sad, since the loss of such a graceful, moving talent has left a hole in the world. My husband reminded me that at least she was able to leave something of herself behind, and he's right, of course. Sometimes I think people like this (the gifted ones that leave too soon) were really just angels passing through.

At any rate, if you have any love of music at all, you owe it to yourself to track her stuff down. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Big Picture Check: On Reproductive Choices - ALL of Them

2005-11-18T16:33:00.000-07:00

As is her usual, Shanikka has written a superb diary on elements of the "choice wars" that regularly get lost in the abortion din. A piece of the intro for context:

MediaGirl has written a comprehensive diary on the case of Gabriela Flores that is on today's recommended list at DailyKOS, as well it should be. In the comments, Moiv mentioned the case of Regina McKnight in passing. Someone else expressed surprise, saying that they did not know about the McKnight case. The rest of the discussion was more of the same old same old argument about Republicans, women hatred, pro-lifers, politics in the name of God, Casey's pro-life stance, and how the country is in the hands of a cult ever since the ascension of George W. Bush.
I admit that my reaction to all this was anger. Angry at the expressed suprise. Angry at the fact that we're still saying all the same things and spouting the same party lines, all focused on abortion. And angry that the only thing that even generates this much rage in progressives where women's reproductive rights are concerned is abortion.

When in fact Ms. Flores' abortion dilemma would likely not exist at all had we just gotten 1/2 as mad, 1/2 as determined, and 1/2 as dogmatic about Regina McKnight and another woman named Cornelia Whitner.

Her entry is long, but well worth the time. In it, she raises some highly valid points about the various manifestations of "choice", and includes case histories that some of you may be unaware of (as I was). As with so many good posts, it's hard to quote without losing something in the process, so get the rest, study up, spread the word.

A Little Levity

2005-11-18T15:22:00.000-07:00

Sent by an H&S reader. File under "oldie but goodie". Enjoy.

A major research institution has announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science - "governmentium." It has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 111 assistant deputy neutrons for an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons that are further surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like sub particles called peons.

Governmentium has no electrons and is therefore inert. It cannot be detected however since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. A tiny amount of governmentium can take a reaction that normally occurs in seconds and slow s it to the point where it take days, weeks, months and even years.

Governmentium has a normal half life of three years. It doesn't decay but "re-organizes", a process where assistant deputy neutrons and deputy neutrons change places. This process actually causes it to grow as in the confusion some morons become neutrons, thereby forming isodopes.

This phenomenon of "moron promotion" has led to some speculation that governmentium forms whenever sufficient morons meet in concentration , forming critical morass. Researches believe that in Governmentium, the more you re-organize, the morass you cover.

Partisan Eye Candy

2005-11-18T14:58:00.000-07:00

Pretty pictures.

Where's the revolution? (Part 1)

2005-11-18T00:31:00.000-07:00

Most of you don't know, and even fewer of you will care, that I wore the uniform of this country in the 80's, during a singularly undistinguished tour in the USMC. I didn't particularly care for the regimentation of the Corps, and they reciprocated by bringing my tour to an early end. The discharge was honorable, but there was no love lost between the Corps and I. However, I took my oath, and the principles of the Corps very seriously. Honor, integrity, duty to unit and country, and the rules of engagement were stamped on us, with serious consequences for those who chose to ignore them.

More after the jump...

It is against this backdrop that I see Senators trying to make law that will exempt "certain agents of the United States" from the rules regarding torture. I hear of an effort to strip the meager protection of a lawyer from the Gitmo detainees. Which fucking passed. (It's interesting to note that Graham, the halfwit author of the measure, misstepped something awful and called them "enemy combatants" instead of "illegal combatants".) What? I hear about "black sites" and the hand over of terrorist suspects to governments that use torture as a matter of course. What the fuck? Uzbekistan, an ally in the war on terror, has BOILED people in its custody. Look it up. Donald Rumsfeld hailed them as a staunch ally in February 2005, just months before their aid was pulled by the State Department for human rights violations, holding that human rights rights are only one "aspect" of the US-Uzbek relationship.

Some of the "evidence" obtained from suspects in the custody of these black sites wound up in Colin Powells presentation to the UN. "Evidence" he now says was in error, and sometimes deliberately misleading. Gee, I wonder how it could be that information obtained through torture could be in error, or deliberately misleading?

Dick Cheney fought a losing battle against the McCain Amendment to prevent the mistreatment of detainees, threatening the veto of a military appropriations bill that would provide money for the war effort in Iraq. This was followed shortly thereafter by his hillbilly meat-puppet of a President, in a moment of idiocy, if not insanity, opining that "We do not torture" when the CIA report of the black sites hit the airwaves.

He says we will pursue them under the law, while keeping the status of those detained at Gitmo's Camp X-Ray...murky. Nicely done, George, you fucking moron, maybe you could put down the fifth of Jack, and have someone read you the Fifth Amendment. (Those of you that believe in the God of Christianity should get down on your knees and thank your deity that this mildly sentient fraction of a man cannot be re-elected to the office of the President of the United States.)

We are signatories to the Conventions on Torture and the Geneva Conventions, and the beacon of freedom to the world, and we have a responsibility, a duty, to be better than the opponent we face. This has nothing to do with what other countries think of us, goddamnit, this is about what we think of ourselves!! And, while I know that references to Nazis makes people (hard line conservatives) go absolutely batshit, when you get on the path of government mandated, and funded, torture and murder, that's where that road ends.

My Pic of the Day: Conduits of Theocracy

2005-11-17T05:58:00.000-07:00

Last week in Narrowsburg, NY, I took this photo from the street.

It captures one in a series of banners created by more than 100 residents with paint on canvas as part of the community "Art in Democracy" project facilitated by poet/organizer Laura Moran in conjunction with JoAnn Moran of rePublic Art.

Ten banners were created to adorn the streets, depicting visual representations of the contents of the US Constitution. I thought that this one was particularly appropriate for Hydrogen and Stupidity readers given our dominant themes.

"The We The People" banners reflect the community's desire to revisit the Constitution as a relevant, live document. Beyond, they sought to articulate its role through images of community and symbols of society.

Bill of Rights : Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the crux of it, folks. Whether your pet issue is Intelligent Design, the Pledge of Allegiance, displaying the "Ten Commandments", or defining rights through inherently religious vocabulary - it is important for us to talk about this constant tension that stretches this document to the extent that tiny holes continue to appear- conduits for theocracy.

I do not begrudge anyone their religion or their spiritual path. I am not anti-affiliation or Deity X or Y. I am against that which violates the above, that which seeks to lay claim over my mind or my soul, via self-appointed authorities. Why not take a minute today and reflect on what the First Amendment means to you? How would you render its meaning for you, your family, your community?

Pic of the Day

2005-11-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

Just because Lily found the gorilla "disturbing".

Morality is the Botox of Our Society

2005-11-15T05:55:00.000-07:00

The previous Pitts-linked post of course echoes the sentiments of many of us who screech about deception, corruption, and a value bucket that hardly runneths over. We are right to ask these questions on torture, and we are right to call the answers 'bullshit". Questioning that which violates not only multiple charters and articles, but also our sensibilities, SHOULD be a priority of everyone in America. Challenge is the only enemy of corruption, culpability only comes from an assertion of truth. The media will continue to fail you, folks, and propaganda will prevail unless people speak out. Even if you do it here, or express it wearing a hat and sunglasses- now is not the time to demand purity of our dissenters. Speak with force or speak with futility, but say something. Anywhere. Urgency compels you.

We know that our history is riddled with both a distrust of the populace to which we also simultaneously owe our gratitude as much of what we credit ourselves with was bourne of citizen initiative. America must reconcile the paradox of "government by the people, for the people" and a detached, arrogant "representative system" that suggests these "mandates" on policy and direction- that suggests a blind trust and obedience to elected leaders who allege to altruistically and benevolently serve. But our founding fathers could not have foreseen the degradation of our social-scape. Did they envision a society so numb and disengaged that the checks and balances, the Constitution, would become so contested? Consider the conservawhores that are willing to publically state their scorn for the First Amendment! Hard to believe that people came here for freedom of religion when even our money proclaims our affinity for self contradiction. And inherent to contradiction is distrust in authority, right? Hypocrisy yields resentment? We've seen that play out. What is powerfully unique here is that fear cancels this out. And we remain in fear, our vulnerability has been shown in hundreds of clips from 9-11.

Election results do not constitute statements of consensus. They constitute elements of machinery that force people into 'issue camps". Many believe that Bush won re-election not because of the war or approval, but because the determination to prevent gay rights trumped everything in people's paths to the polls in some states. Is it not possible to mentally multi-task, America? Chew gum and hatemonger at the same time?

Is it not possible to consider innocent children being killed in Iraq while we contrive this "pro-life" agenda? Is it not possible to look at the fact that we have not had another 9-11 and suggest that maybe, JUST MAYBE, it has something to do with the fact that we have more involvement with these groups than we care to admit? We know that logic forces us to look at rampant incompetence. So how is it that we view Bushco as sources of safety, not puppetmasters? Because suggesting that we are that depraved is unpatriotic? Those that can protect in the face of incompetence must have more control than we realize. Logic: they are very competent but choose to ignore disaster and global problems. Or, they are grossly incompetent as evidenced by the responses we've seen and there is another explanation for why there has not been another attack even during vulnerable times. If they are so determined, why not then? These groups that are so hellbent? Are we supposed to believe our loose borders, chaotic ports, and intelligence" have saved our asses? You be the judge.

I might have thought so. But facts speak volumes over pundits and opinions. So many arsenals destroyed in the Middle East were easily read because they were in fucking English. Fact, not opinion. I want to know why we were able to use Bin Laden effectively against Russia, but to suggest an unholy alliance later amounts to treason? Speculation, but the relationship is based on documented fact. You see?

The question of American moral authority only exists in America (and Tony Blair's ass). Just like we view war in glossy sunrise photography, sans blood and limbless babies, we also have a glorified self congratulating sense of morality that much of the world cannot share. True, we have purchased some love and gratitude over the years. But we have no "authority". Pitt writes:

We ignore our lying eyes, I think, because we are afraid, because we saw what happened Sept. 11 and we never want to see it again. I'd never suggest we ought not fear terrorism. But we should also fear the nation we are becoming in response. We should fear the fact that we have abrogated moral authority, retreated from moral high ground, become like those we once chastised.

Becoming? Far be it from me to question such lucid commentary, but I maintain that we retreated from the moral high ground years ago. Morality has been the fucking botox of our society! A rationalization to police and dominate. We killed the native Americans, we dropped the bomb, and covered up intelligence failures resulting in massive death in Viet Nam. We turned our backs on famine, genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. We had children languishing in factories, boatloads of people brought to a life of servitude, rape, and inhumane treatment. Are these opinions?

Morality is a tool for the wicked- as touted by slave owners that claimed they looked after their slaves and 'gave them God'. Morality wants a girl to have her father's baby. Morality wants to define love, trust, law, and parenting.Morality supposedly brought us to liberate the oppressive Taliban and certainly the pipelines were just coincidental. Need I go on about mythic morality? Grin, America, and plump those lines with lies.

"A Betrayal of Our Most Precious Values"

2005-11-13T11:09:00.000-07:00

This editorial is getting a lot of blog coverage, and rightfully so. In case you missed out, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald cuts through the hyperbole on the question of torture and reminds us of (what should be) the obvious:

Well, I guess that settles that.

"We do not torture," President Bush said on Monday. Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu Ghraib. Never mind all those torture stories from Guantanamo Bay. Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that sought to justify torture. Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending detainees to other countries for torture. Never mind Dick Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA from rules prohibiting torture.

"We do not torture," said the president. And that's that, right? I mean, if you can't believe the Bush administration, who can you believe? No torture. Period, end of sentence.

But . . . What does it say to you that the claim even has to be made?

...Yes, Bush says we don't do that kind of thing but, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, who you going to believe, him or your lying eyes?

We ignore our lying eyes, I think, because we are afraid, because we saw what happened Sept. 11 and we never want to see it again. I'd never suggest we ought not fear terrorism. But we should also fear the nation we are becoming in response. We should fear the fact that we have abrogated moral authority, retreated from moral high ground, become like those we once chastised.

"We do not torture," says the president.

I can remember when that went without saying. (emphasis added)

Get the whole thing. There's been a head-spinning amount of commentary on the subject lately, but this is truly some of the best.

Hat tip: BIPM

Housekeeping Announcements

2005-11-13T08:02:00.000-07:00

Happy Sunday, lovely readers.

I've done a little tweaking of the sidebar, in case you hadn't noticed.

Of particular note are the addition of Feedburner links and a Feedblitz subscription link.

For those of you RSS friendly, please feel free to add this site to your Yahoo page or whatever service you're using. At the moment, I think I'm the only subscriber (ha!) so do your part to boost the esteem of the H&S team and get with the program, people.

If you'd like to receive posts via email, go ahead and subscribe. It's a handy way to get H&S content outside of a brower environment, if you're doing clandestine web surfing from the office or something.

And if you've got a blog that's not listed in my Blogroll and you're alarmed at this tragic oversight, please let me know. I'll be happy to include you.

Hope everyone's having a good weekend. As usual, some rants are in development, so stay tuned...

Sperm, Sugar, and the Baking of A Baby

2005-11-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

CB posted an earlier reference to Redneck Mother's post on the perspective of women as "machine like" baby makers. Because there were so many posts, I didn't really catch it until I went back to check it out. Indeed, as promised, it was a great post, for a variety of reasons. It was powerful, emotional- yet candid and direct.

And what I like about Redneck Mother, and what differentiates her style from many bloggers in that it does not have the arrogant preachy tone of many blogs. This entry does not come across as authoritative or absolute. She permitted the emotional aspect, which only added to the power of the piece-not detracted.

As some know, I have a fluid view on some elements of "life as a thoroughly modern Millie". There are complexities and challenges that require more airplay than we permit at times. And yet, in the subtleties are where I find the blogosphere to be the greatest asset. The myriad of voices- to be collectively informative, the writers that speak freely without pandering to an audience-the ones that resonate with me...I think its ok to give myself permission to say I am simply not one of the ALMIGHTY BLOGGERS that have every answer on the ready. I see little value if we cannot express what concerns us. Sometimes I am discouraged by the comments. What is it that we are trying to do? Pop in to give props and nods? Or digest what we read, participate?

I know, I ask annoying questions, I know. I say "tell me how you reconcile A with B" ...often at the risk of not appearing to 'tow the line' with my questions or comments..which couldn't be further from the truth. I do not think that expressing concern about one aspect weakens my posture.

This came up for example when I suggested that we fight more for availability of technology for abortion to be done earlier than the typical 12-16 week window. Put more force behind morning after pills and medications that impede implantation. I also suggested that we be well versed in the actual actions of these medications, on their implications for policy and the law, because such information on women's health is essential. If we cannot distinguish between birth control and a pill that induces abortion, how will we know what medications those that control our health will seize in the face of an overturn of our rights? Some pills in fact perform both mechanisms. But in the face of an overturn, one would be illegal and the other not. Seems prudent to know which.

Simple, right? This was construed as weakening the position on reproductive freedom somehow on a blog where the differences were debated. I look at it as a woman's health advocacy issue. One person emailed me to say that it does not matter what pills do, only that we can have them whenever we want, not to get bogged down by technicalities. Indeed, the technicalities will weigh heavily on our minds if the right have their way with us!

On earlier abortion, this provoked a lot of discussion that strayed from the original point which was the senselessness of prolonging pregnancy in some cases simply for convenience or preference (by providers, not the women) when alternatives are possible.I also pointed out that prolonging pregnancy is a right wing strategy for decreasing abortions. Where's the harm in suggesting that? Because it sprang from a thread on fetal pain? Acknowledging the role of fetal pain makes me less of a feminist? Who sets the agenda for all women? To me a feminist strengthens their view not by crushing dissent but by learning from it. Addressing it head on. There are even some blogs where anything short of agreement gets deleted! What is the role of the commenter? To say "Bravo' as they make their rounds? How does it help anyone's cause to disregard anything that adds an element of fuzzy gray? Who among us are so brilliant that they have nothing to learn?

Personally, what I seek in the blogosphere is not cheerleading and blind sisterhood, but sisterhood based on responsiveness to diversity and the range of views women are capable of. Not the pat lectures, but bloggers that can back up their remarks beyond the typical "my uterus, my way, no discussion" retort. It too closely resembles the neocon model of "no abortion, no exceptions,no discussion". A majority of us lie moving and scrambling in between these extremes, and are categorically discounted. You waver, therefore you are irrelevant. The right wing unite under a banner, and so too should we! At any cost! You are here, or there, and wishy-washers need not apply.

I like to think that we, as intelligent capable women, have evolved past "one tent" for all thinking toward a feminism of pluralities that are not perceived as weakness but something that makes a movement greater than the sum of its champions. I can have a mixed bag of opinions, and still be at home with my labels.

To me, modern feminism is fundamentally about choice- and not necessarily condoning all choices (I would not support the women who beats her child by CHOICE, for example) but the support of choice in the sense of autonomy, information, options, and a world conducive to the ways choices are manifested by individual women. As a feminist, I cannot say I am thrilled when somebody tells my an abortion will damn me to hell, but I can respect that they feel that way from their own perspective. Just leave me out of your perspective as I do not share your view.

As a person with a mixed bag of feminist thoughts, I notice that DIALOGUE often evokes a hostility of absolutes. I do not blog to cheerlead and make static commentary, with little room for learning. I blog because I genuinely want to know how other people support their stance. And in these exchanges, we learn more about one another and ourselves.

I think it is more important to be clear on the issues, and speak to truth, vs. slogan-slinging. I hold my ideals close to my heart too. But it seems to me that when we are unsettled by simple questions, we are seen as doing a disservice to a discussion. Why are some threatened by dissent, questions? Does this not help us tweak our points? Persuasion takes persistence, not force. Not bullying.

Now I posted the following at Redneck Mother- not because I disagree with her post (referenced above) which was every bit as good as the accolades suggest, but because I genuinely want to know how the question is received by the other readers.

Again I express a certain frustration with myself for not having the linguistic precision to rattle off a better-framed comment.

Well done. I can relate to some of what you describe so well, and appreciate your heartfelt (but no nonsense) comments.

So much of the discussion seeks to reduce us to machinery, from the predictability and controllability you describe to the notion of ownership and "say" over another as though that person has no capacity for self determination- all we need are some men with pencils and gauges. My trouble comes with the informed, reasonable woman- LOVING guys out there that quietly say "your view leaves us in the cold". That's when MY arm flailing starts- I'm with you sisters but find myself going..um...um...

So help me out here if you can.
The men who have busied themselves with explaining the dilemma not of spousal consent but their discomfort with having no say over their unborn have claimed (to me, at least) that women are the ones framing themselves as machines by reducing sperm not to half of a genetic makeup but to an incidental "input" easily dismissed and disregarded. Like sugar into a batter. And once procured, is rendered irrelevant for the purposes of discussion. Some tell me that the moment they utter a word about their sense of having a "role" (not to be read as "say") they are slammed as misogynists. It would be helpful to explore the concerns of spouses in ways that do not categorically diminish men as many are prone to diminishing us. Any ideas on how that can be framed? Do men have ANY say/role at all regarding the destiny of their unborn in your view? In saying they do, is it a matter of distinguishing what we legislate versus what is private? I disagree with spousal notification but feel that there is something to the argument that we often reduce men to irrelevant inputs WHILE they regard our uterus as something like a bread machine. But I'm just not clear on this role. The answer I often get is "men have no role, its my body, and nobody can tell me what to do with it.

There's the tough part for me- I agree, but can appreciate the sentiment that they are "reduced to inputs". But what's the answer? I am not willing to legislate your authority. But I do not seek to trivialize your dilemma. I hear that this dilemma is dismissed, but also know that many dismiss my rights as well. It makes me bitter and not want to be sympathetic at times, truth be told.

I see that many women on such blogs have very clear decisive answers and I suppose I am admitting that very often I do not. We want men involved as fathers, legally and socially, but then we say they have no role or say past conception, and no role in determining anything because of the logistics of nature- and to suggest anything else is feminist blasphemy to those that leave little room for exploration and consideration.

One said: "Give them an inch, they take a mile, never budge on your body!" That feels awfully machine-like, and renders all men with the same brush.

Humbly I ask those with thoughts on this to be informative, not patronizing and condescending. Share your wisdom, as women should be doing, and used to do in matriarchal cultures.

And perhaps one or two of you here can weigh in.

Who Knew John Cusack Blogs?

2005-11-11T21:19:00.000-07:00

I didn't. And I freely admit that I sat down to read for all the cheesy reasons -- I think he's a fabulous actor and an incredibly sexy man. Happily, and not the least bit surprisingly, he's also a terrific writer. Go look. Carving out quotes will blow the rhythm and won't do the post any justice.

I Heart Harry, The Sequel

2005-11-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

In response to Bush's pathetic speech today, in which he claimed that because Democrats got the same pre-war intelligence he did, and consequently supported the invasion, that they should pretty much just shut up now, Harry Reid fired off another glorious Fuck You in Congress-ese:

On this Veterans Day, the President had the opportunity to honor our troops, both those who have served and those who are currently serving, by laying out a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq. Instead, the President resorted to his old playbook of discredited rhetoric about the war on terror and political attacks as his own political fortunes and credibility diminish.

Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush Administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home. Americans seek the truth about how the nation committed our troops to war because the decision to go to war is too serious to be entered into under faulty pretenses. While the Bush administration continues to stonewall the Congress from finding the truth about the manipulation of prewar intelligence, Democrats will continue to press for a full airing of the facts. We stand with our troops when we ask the hard questions, and with their families when we fight to get them, their families and our veterans the benefits they deserve.

We fear Iraq has become what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists. We can no longer simply pledge to stay the course, we must change the course. The American people are demanding a comprehensive plan and the benchmarks by which to measure our success for the war in Iraq. The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families.

Reading it reminded me of what really might be the Best. Comment. Ever. and I didn't want y'all to miss it.

Posted in response to a thread discussing his earlier invocation of Rule 21, the relevant cluster of discussion turned into something of a caption contest. GOTV's hysterical contribution, and target photo, are below:

...Reid's announcing that Shumer and Durbin
have agreed to carry his massive balls.

Pic of the Day

2005-11-11T12:09:00.000-07:00

In homage to the "labels" discussion, this seemed strangely appropriate.

Perhaps the Best Ever

2005-11-11T08:45:00.000-07:00

Redneck Mother has written one of the most incisive and eloquent pieces on aborton politics I've ever read. Snipping quotes won't do it justice. Get the whole thing.

Oh, and Speaking of Loveable Curmudgeons

2005-11-11T08:09:00.000-07:00

Today is Mr. & Mrs. Bitch's 5th Anniversary. Never in my life have I done anything as spectacularly wonderful as marrying this man. His wit and intelligence never cease to amaze me, his generosity and loyalty reminds me of everything good in this world, and he's got an ass cute enough to eat ice cream off of.

If most people were just half as amazing as this man, this would truly be a perfect world.

Love you, Beastie.

Another Curmudgeon Worth Loving

2005-11-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

You know, I hear folks on the left slamming Jack Cafferty, and honestly, I don't know enough about the man's history to argue the point. But I do confess -- he's the only thing that makes "The Situation Room" worth watching. Thanks to the boys at Crooks & Liars, I often don't have to watch to gobble up some of his gems.

This particular segment made me chuckle and is a great example of why I'm a fan. Having left California before Aaahnold's term, and pretty much blocking the state from my memory altogether, I'm not well versed in what was on their ballot (short of what I've been told about Prop 73). However, it's not even relevant to my Cafferty love, it's just a fine example of Cantankerousness.

See, I've just got a permanent soft-spot in my heart for anyone in the MSM that makes absolutely no effort to disguise their eye-rolling dismissal of public figures (assuming they share at least some of my political persuasions, that is. HA!). And Jack offers up Sardonic Theatre at it's best. I want to pour him a scotch, feed him a steak and let him pontificate all over the dining room table.

Bitch, Interrupted

2005-11-10T19:55:00.000-07:00

CB will get a kick out of this story. Move on if you are easily offended. I sent a link to something on this blog, to a friend. The person sent an email asking why women are so infatuated with the word bitch when we have come so far in our liberation. She claimed that 'bitch' is a derogatory word, and using it only perpetuates verbal violence against women.

Whoa. Hold on. A word? True, words can hurt. But words can be transformed or "reappropriated", reclaimed so as to reduce their injurious tone to one of positive affirmation. It got me thinking about language and its power. Where does the power of a word lie? In its history, its context? The manner by which we utter it? Does liberation involve shedding the trappings of such nonsense, refusing to embrace terms defined by others? What is liberating about accepting a static view of language, viewing culture as repetitve fixed behaviors that endure throughout history? I think viewing the word differently over time is reflective of a liberated posture. What do you think?

Many feel a "bitch" is an assertive, rebellious, outspoken or strong woman. A woman unafraid to speak out or question. A woman that speaks her mind even if it is not what we want to hear. What's so wrong with that? Plenty, if you are an insecure man or an uptight traditionalist- hellbent on framing the status quo and hanging it on your mantle.

The question was raised over at Marginal Notes

There is considerable debate within various cultural groups over the reappropriation, or reclamation, of language. Some argue that, by co-opting or "flipping" terms that have historically been used against oneself, derogatory terms are deflated and given new meaning. The most well known example may be the now frequent use of the word "nigger" in hip-hop music. Similarly, many gays and lesbians embrace "fag" and "dyke", as some women do "bitch" and "cunt".
While the reclaiming of language has gained popularity, some warn that the process obscures the historical roots of terms, and the very real oppressive forces that they represent. In a sense, the danger is false consciousness.

And for those of you that are squeamish about the C word, there is an overview on reappropriating that as well here.

Oink Oink

2005-11-10T14:01:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson sends his love to Dover.

Show of hands: Who's shocked?

Pic (sorta) of the Day

2005-11-10T07:28:00.000-07:00

ANWR Off the Table!!

2005-11-09T20:39:00.000-07:00

From Richard Cowen at Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives abandoned, at least temporarily, a drive to open Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling after concluding on Wednesday the initiative was threatening passage of a huge bill to cut spending.

"ANWR and OCS will be out" of the legislation, said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican.

Hat tip: georgia10

I Do Not Have the Words

2005-11-09T20:15:00.000-07:00

for this.

"...How to Deal with Kansas"

2005-11-09T15:22:00.000-07:00

My Philosophy over at dKos has posted a fine entry on what the Dover school board change can mean for dealing with states like Kansas. It's not an argument you've never heard me make, but s/he presents it well and it therefore, bears repeating.

Imagine you are a young red-stater. You go to church every week, have grown up believing in your god and your parents religion. Other ideas are not intrusive on your daily life or routine. You are never exposed to any other points of view. These days, unless you go to an increasingly unaffordable college and take a philosophy course or a comparative religion course, you can go your whole life in Red State America without ever getting out of your philosophical comfort zone. Then, suddenly, in high school, you have access to a course where you can learn about Intelligent Design. But, you are learning it in the context of questions like "Does God Exist?" And you are learning about your religion in the context of other world religions whose beliefs are given equal time and weight (and as an added bonus, upcoming generations of Americans will have a much broader, firmer understanding of Islam than we do today...).

Can you even begin to fathom what this new philosophical diversity in our schools will do to fundamentalistic worldviews? Their ideas will be undermined simply by the fact that other religions are given equal weight and credence. Ideas about Intelligent Design taught along with debate on philosophical questions like "Does God Exist?" will undermine what fundies have been indoctrinated in their whole lives: an unquestioning belief in the existence of their particular deity and the truth of their particular creed. Knowledge of other religions promotes tolerance for other viewpoints and undermines the fundamentalists belief that their faith is the one and only true faith. Thus, by proposing Intelligent Design, fundies will in essence be sowing the seeds of their own world-view's destruction.

Hear hear!

"Whistling Past the Graveyard"

2005-11-09T15:01:00.000-07:00

An absolute must read.

You know, this is what the ardent pro-lifers conveniently and belligerently ignore: women will choose to terminate their pregnancies. They've been doing so for thousands of years. Whether or not we understand or agree with their reasons, they will continue to do so. And when legal avenues to this procedure are blocked by Bible-thumping idealogues, they will still continue to do so, at risk of their very lives.

But these choice-opponents don't give a shit. They pretend these women don't mutilate themselves, pretend they don't risk death, pretend they don't ACTUALLY DIE when their options are curtailed. And, thinking that everyone in America is a total moron, they deny the subtext: they believe, utterly and completely, that women who choose abortion DESERVE to die for their choices.

I don't have the language to express my contempt for these people. Nor do I have a way to express my disgust for those that vote these fuckers into office, donate to their causes, or patronize their businesses. And I won't spare my wrath from those that fail to support organizations, initiatives, candidates and charities that fight to defend the right of choice. To remain silent, or inactive, is to be complicit. Period.

White House White-Out

2005-11-09T11:57:00.000-07:00

This really shouldn't surprise anyone at this point. What is noteworthy, I think, is that the administration's attempt to cover their tracks is getting sloppier and sloppier every day.

Usually, the White House just puts words into Scott McClellan's mouth. Last week, the press office tried to wrench them into the transcripts of White House briefings provided by CQ and the Federal News Service. At issue: McClellan's uncharacteristically candid affirmation of a statement by NBC's David Gregory, set forth by CQ and FNS as: The White House heard it differently:

McClellan should probably just officially start working for The Onion now, don't you think? I mean, it's not like they've ever pretended to be straight with us either.

Pic of the Day

2005-11-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

In general agreement with the school of thought that says "political blogs should be reserved primarily for, well, politics", I've refrained from such fluffy entries as Tuesday's Pot Roast Recipe and CB's Dog Goes to the Vet. I'm simply working on the assumption that a.) my daily domestic life really isn't THAT fascinating and b.) I'm not Dave Barry and consequently, able to make hilarity of the mundane.

However, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for some occasional diversions. I mean, after all, there are some days when I simply can't be bothered to write another rant. So sue me.

Instead, I might as well start tossing you some of the pics in my vast collection. Some are funny, others are just eye candy, others may even be topically relevant to current events. Or not. Like you care, right?

Here's today's just because I like it. Do I need another reason?

Clearcut Context

2005-11-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

In case any of you were wondering, here's an example of what's being demolished near Lily's house.

Dover Board is OUT

2005-11-08T22:10:00.000-07:00

Challengers defeat architects of Dover 'design'
Dover CARES candidates opposed to the district's intelligent design policy appear to have won a sweeping victory over eight incumbents who backed the district's controversial policy on intelligent design. Although many candidates cross-filed in the primary, eight board incumbents won the Republican nominations, and eight challengers from the dissident Dover CARES group won the Democratic nominations. Final unofficial ballot totals show the challengers sweeping all eight seats from the pro-design incumbents.

Clearcut of the Week

2005-11-08T20:54:00.000-07:00

Now I know I am obsessing about this, and have posted it over at Lose the Noose as well. But see, this is what is going on next to my house. The builders clear cut the whole damn lot, and are busy working on a McMansion that will need to be landscaped to replace the trees that were ripped out.
Is it necessary to turn nature into a contrived patch of fertilized turf, surrounding a vinyl monolith?
As you honor the fallen this Veteran's Day, take pause and consider the path that brought us to Iraq. Our lifestyles are based on oil dependency, and our cities and towns are planned accordingly. Consider our greed, and our attitude about resources. Consider if the "American Dream" needs a reality check.

If 51% Was a Mandate...

2005-11-08T14:13:00.000-07:00

Then it looks like Congress should get busy. According to a recent Zogby poll, 51% of likely voters believe the impeachment of Bush should be considered.

Of course, we all know that the RW will now respond by insisting that 51% is not, in fact, a mandate. More Logical Inconsistencies brought to you by the GOP^®.

Like a kid at Christmas

2005-11-07T09:48:00.000-07:00

Woo hoo! I've just unpacked and plugged in my shiny new iMac.
Yes, I have made the Great Defection, having reached my limit of frustration with the PC. I bought a Sony Vaio just a year ago, and while it's generally been ok, it's become sluggish and sticky in the last few months, despite my concerted efforts at housekeeping, tweaking & optimizing.
My gloriously wonderful husband, actually, is the one that nudged me toward the Mac, probably as much out of a desire for me to stop bitching as anything else!
At any rate, I'm wandering around, getting acclimated and set up, so if I'm short on posting for a couple of days, please don't hold it against me. I refer you, as always, to the blogroll. Some of the smartest people on the web are parked over there.

:) Happy Monday!