The Itinerant Pedant

If You're A Jane Hamsher Fan, I Apologize But...

2010-05-07T12:06:00.003-05:00

This is some high quality snark from Matt Yglesias:

Yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont struck a deal with Chris Dodd and the White House over his “audit the Fed” proposal that allowed the measure to be adopted by the Senate. I saw last night on Twitter that this led to Jane Hamsher denouncing Sanders as a sellout, which I noted led to a bit of a credibility mismatch between a veteran progressive legislator and a media entrepreneur whose specialty niche is never taking yes for an answer on anything.

For those who wonder at the point, Jane (at Firedoglake) led a kill the bill effort...with Grover Norquist(!)...against the final version of HCR, under the rubric that anything less than "Medicare For All" made you functionally identical to George Bush...so if you ARE a Hamsher fan, I have to ask: "Why?"

Dear Pouting Rich People

2010-04-16T07:09:00.004-05:00

Via Jonathon Chait:

Rich conservatives are obsessed with this idea that they might quit their jobs. Ayn Rand wrote a whole book about this fantasy. Innumerable such threats accompanied Bill Clinton's upper-bracket tax hike, which was promptly followed by an explosion in upper-income growth.
Let me give you a hint, pouting rich people: We're not falling for your bluff. None of you is really going to quit your job and deny the world your precious genius because the Democrats raised your top tax bracket to 39.6%. That's because earning more than a quarter million dollars a year and having to pay a slightly higher tax rate than the average person is not actually such a horrible fate.

Will you chinless wonders just fucking Go Galt, already? Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

Conservative Catch-22

2010-04-11T21:09:00.006-05:00

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
--Joseph Heller, Catch-22

I have come to realize that conservatism is a mental disorder. Much like the sane reactions to insanity and the insane reactions to sanity that characterized Catch-22, conservatism is an insane reaction to sanity, to wit: fucking over your fellow human being is neither morally obligatory (Ayn Rand) nor morally praiseworthy (Ronald Reagan).

It came to me in a flash as an otherwise reasonable conservative of my acquaintance was talking. He asserted that he didn't mind helping someone who needed assistance to get back on their feet. He just didn't like paying for people's health care who had no intention of making anything of themselves. I asked how many he thought fell into the latter category. Most of them, it turns out.

In other words, he's perfectly happy to spend his money to help the deserving. As it turns out, the definition of "deserving" was functionally identical to "not needing any help."

If you don't need assistance of any kind then you're deserving and can get assistance. The moment you need assistance you are no longer deserving and shouldn't get assistance. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

It allows someone to consider themselves a kind, thoughtful, civic-minded sort without the messy inconvenience of actually, you know, putting your money where your mouth is. It's what allows a conservative, with no visible trace of irony, to declare that government should get out of everybody's business, and to hurry up with the ag subsidy check. See, if you're getting a subsidy, it's because you deserve the assistance, salt of the earth sort that you are. If someone ELSE is getting a health insurance subsidy check, it's because they are a dirty fucking hippy, sitting around taking bong hits and getting high.

No it's not (always) about racism, though that's often a contributing factor. Mainly, it's about not a) giving up any money, and b) thinking of yourself as a good person.

"Why didn't you point that out to him," asked the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant when I outlined my insight. Because there's no point. Comes from another quote I rather like.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
--John Kenneth Galbraith

Shorter Eric Cantor

2010-03-25T12:15:00.003-05:00

Democrats are being meanies or wusses or both, when they point out that they've been getting death threats from Republicans and/or Teabaggers.

And we're not even making the (obvious) linkage between Repub incitement and attempted arson. I can't even imagine how he'd behave if we did that.

Oh, wait, I've seen my two year old daughter throw temper tantrums, so I guess I can.

This Is Why I Was Glad We Picked Him...

2010-03-23T17:31:00.001-05:00

Some Things You Have To Read For Yourself

2010-02-18T15:56:00.003-06:00

Chris Jones profile of Roger Ebert for Esquire.

And the blog that he writes about. Roger Ebert's.

Go.

Because It's Wickedly Funny

2010-02-12T20:20:00.000-06:00

Our Insane Defense Budget

2010-01-27T11:52:00.004-06:00

From the inestimable Spencer Ackerman, a Defense Analyst of Excellence, a look at why we push so many $$ down the DoD rathole...

My favorite quote:

It’s only a slight exaggeration to say we don’t use combat aircraft in the wars we’re fighting. You have to come up with a baroque set of Michael Bey-esque geopolitical calculations by which we would use combat aircraft in any conceivable war. The U.S.’s area of combat-aircraft dominance is called Planet Earth. No Air Force is going to challenge ours. No actual U.S. adversary has an air force, and the list of real-potential U.S. adversaries that do starts with Iran and ends with North Korea, neither of which are remotely stupid enough to test us in the air. The most likely scenario for using combat aircraft in a U.S. war is an alien invasion.

and summed up...

But by all means, freeze spending on school lunch programs and Head Start and shit like that.

Dear MSM And Idiots With Whom I Argue...

2010-01-25T11:46:00.002-06:00

via Ezra Klein.

Can Democrats Govern?

2010-01-21T17:01:00.002-06:00

So asks Ezra Klein. I happen to agree with every word written here so I'll leave it at this:

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

Who Needs Ralph Nader

2010-01-20T17:07:00.004-06:00

So, Brown is in and Coakley out.

Running a campaign, in Boston, where you speak derisively of standing outside Fenway in January shaking hands? Stupid.

In my humble opinion, it is not the DSCC, President Obama, state Dems or anyone else that deserves the blame here. Coakley did NOTHING for 4 weeks while her numbers dropped faster than a mallet at a Gallagher concert. So much for that.

Now what? Health Care can still be done. There's one way only that it can happen. The House has to pass the Senate's bill, unmodified. And it looks like House Progressives are refusing.

Again, in my humble opinion, these idiots have doomed healthcare. These morons think that they can go back and pass pieces of the legislation one by one. My prediction? In 2010 the Senate will take exactly ZERO votes regarding health care. Nobody will so much as THINK about health care. They'll pass something, ANYTHING, that might get the unemployment rate down to maybe 9.5% by November. And people like this Rep. Grijalva, with bovine incomprehension, will blame Obama's lack of leadership for the problem. There are NO MORE bites at the apple. And closing their eyes and clapping their fucking hands is not going to make Tinkerbell any fucking realer.

In the end, if this hissy fit continues? It will be at least ten years, probably closer to twenty, before health care reform is taken up again. And by that time, if we continue to follow the curve of increasingly awfulness at every iteration? We'll be voting on how many times your health insurance company can punch you in the goddamn neck every time you file a claim, and limiting the number of inches they can cut off your dick if you have the temerity to reach your deductible limit and require them to start paying 50/50 on your covered bills (all two of them). And it WILL STILL FAIL.

Who the fuck needs Ralph Nader? I guess it's more fun to complain about the results of torture camps and endless war profiteering while credit card companies earn enough money to kidnap 13 year olds for snuff porn and still buy off the judges when they're caught than it is to compromise, yet again, to help ensure that we don't have another fucking eight years like the last eight we just lived through.

Fuck 'Em All.

So You Say This Is (War On) Christmas (REPOST)

2009-12-09T13:47:00.005-06:00

I just saw this today. Predictable. Fundie Christians. They run the fucking country and their self-image is so wrapped up in persecution they have to invent it where it doesn't exist.

So I'm reposting...but first, some context. This was written in December 2007, so there's references to all the various candidates (of which Obama emerged victorious, thank Bog) including the always good for an amusing Ayn Rand soundbite, Ron Paul.

So, as Rogers points on in the excellent post I Saw You Looking At Agnosticism's Ass, Christianity and Christians have been acting awfully needy lately. Co-dependant clingy needy. "Girlfriend you're really starting to think about dumping, if only because of all the neediness," needy.

Now, and work with me here, EVERY major candidate for President and the vast, vast majority of the MINOR ones...the ones who can say whatever the fuck pops into their pointy little heads because it just doesn't matter (I'm looking at you, Ron "Fiat Money" Paul)...spend a considerable amount of time dry humping an altar somewhere hoping that a photographer will come by and take a picture of them fellating the Jesus on a Cross so that they can establish their "Good Christian" bona fides. Somehow, I just don't think your average Atlanta-area Megachurch-goer is in all that much danger of having the place raided by preatorians and getting their asses thrown into the gladiatorial pits.

So why "War On Christmas"? Well, we can start with the rise of Faux News, who needed to fill 24 hours a day with conservative friendly drool. Telling people that they're wonderful because they hate taxes only lasts so long. A producer looking to hand red meat to the right wings can't help but notice that, first, despite the power they wield they LOVE to feel sorry for themselves, and second, a shitload of them self-identify as good Christian Churchgoers.

So once again, I have to sit here and listen to this self-righteous drivel from folks who reply to "Happy Holidays" with a pointed "Merry Christmas". Hey, asshole, if you wanted to SAY "Fuck You" at least have the balls to actually say it. I say Happy Holidays interchangeably with Merry Christmas (more on that later) for one reason ONLY. I am a LAZY asshole. "Happy Holidays" is just easier than "Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah, Happy New Year and a very festive crapload of minor holidays centered around the Winter Solstice for some suspicious reason."

Which leads me to why I, a notorious agnostic (what can I say, it's a really cute ass), have no problem with Merry Christmas. You want "war on christmas"? Here it comes. As far as I'm concerned "Christmas" is just the latest name for the Solstice Holiday, and any excuse to get together with family and eat myself round is a Good Thing (cf., Thanksgiving), but the lewt is bonus. Plus it's nice to be reminded that while there is two more months of snow and sleet and all other manner of white shit followed by a month of freaking mud and dirty slush, there will in fact be another summer. You've gotten your crappy religion all over my tasty solstice celebration.

Everyone is pretty certain that Christmas is simply the heir of the Saturnalia and various other pagan festivals. Let me suggest something FAR MORE subversive: Easter and Passover have their roots in pagan rebirth and renewal legends and celebrations. Christ is Dead, Christ Is Risen? The sparing of the Jews from Matt Damon...I mean the Angel of Death? Pretty standard really. Judaism isn't even unique in it's insistence that there is only one god.

You want war? The central tenets of your faith are eminently predictable sequalae of preceding cultural beliefs. Happy Holidays.

I Just Don't Know What To Say...Oh, Wait, I Do...

2009-12-07T17:27:00.004-06:00

MSNBC.com First Read on Friday had a post on the Unemployment numbers entitled "Liberal Blog Buzz, More on jobs #s".

Who did they list as the "liberal blogs"?

Andrew Sullivan. And then...

Megan McArdle. The woman who started blogging under the pseudonym "Jane Galt".

Jesus fucking Christ. Next I expect to see, "From the left leaning Cato Institute," from these brain fucking dead uber-moron mouthbreathers. That anybody is paid to produce information so misleading is infuriating. Now, Sullivan is at least not a right-winger. But he fucking well describes himself as conservative. McArdle, on the other fucking hand, has spilled so many pixels justifying her preconceived glibertarian positions with made up data that she might as well have been Karl Rove's enlarged prostate. Fuck me!

You want to know why America is so fucked up? Because too goddamned many people rely on these (and similar) twits for information. You might as well consult as a Magic Fucking Eight Ball for info...it might occasionally actually be right. Unlike these utter wastes of what would otherwise be useful proteins and amino acids.

I Will Only Say This Once

2009-11-25T14:11:00.002-06:00

Catholic bishops would be well advised to pay considerably more attention to where the priesthood are putting their dicks than where they're putting communion wafers.

Half A Loaf

2009-11-10T17:37:00.005-06:00

With regard to the current health care bill, I am sympathetic to frustration with the current process. Although misattributed to Bismarck, the quote, "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made," remains accurate. Would I prefer something else, with a robust single payer option, or even better something that freezes out insurance companies entirely? Yes. It is morally vile to make money off of human suffering and that is exactly what a stockholder in a health insurance company does.

This is unhelpful however. Though I'd love single payer, Steve Benen and Ezra Klein are right: Failure of this bill now does NOT increase the likelihood of a better bill (from my perspective), unless I am willing to grit my teeth and let the situation become utterly intolerable (or as a Marxian would have it, "Until the dialectic becomes obvious to the proletariat,").

Since the dialectic ain't gonna be obvious until you have LOTS of bodies piling up in a way directly attributable to bad health insurance coverage, and since I think that pile will be like an iceberg, most of it out of view, I cannot muster the cold bloodedness necessary to let thousands or millions die simply in order to stick it to insurance companies.

The current bill is far from perfect. The current bill is far from adequate, in point of fact. But it is more adequate than the status quo, and furthermore, it inserts into the public discourse the concept that health care, however inadequate to the actual need, however constrained by people's misinterpretation about what their personal Magic Sky Fairy wants from us, that Health Care is a right and not a privilege to be given or withheld at the whim of an employer or our economic status. We can build from that. We can't, no matter how much we think we ought to be able to, build from the wreckage of the current bill. Our pursuit of purity is why we have the current inadequate bill. It will only get inadequater if we scrap this one.

Better half a loaf and the principle that bread is a human right to a false sense that we'll get better bread if we drop the current version in a ditch and simply push harder later for a nice crusty sourdough.

Why Am I Not Surprised...

2009-10-30T12:17:00.003-05:00

That the Deciderator's NASA allowed the one satellite monitoring global warming to slowly die?

Step 1: Deny there's a problem, based on lack of data.
Step 2: Claim the science is muddled.
Step 3: Deny funding to any hardware or studies that might unmuddle the science.
Step 4: Deny there's a problem, based on lack of data.

They do this with medical marijuana as well.

Because Some Things Should Be Offered With No Further Comment

2009-10-08T17:16:00.001-05:00

Officials Warn Against Hoarding Manure.

I've Blogged Before, And I'll Blog Again...

2009-10-08T10:06:00.004-05:00

About guns.

Full Disclosure, I own, but am not currently in possession of, a 9mm Handgun, a .30-30 Rifle and a 12 Ga Shotgun (the Wee Pedant being who she is, I'm inclined to require unlocking procedures akin to nuclear weapons release before I bring them into my home). Having said that, I am highly ambivalent about unlimited gun rights.

Maybe I've run too many ranges, but the vast majority of my fellow citizens have no more business possessing firearms than they do possessing crystal meth. Too much potential for misuse. Allow a liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and eventually someone's kid blows his own head off. And now this.

Apparently open carry leads to, shall we say, serious consequences.

Soccer mom in Pennsylvania horrified fellow soccer moms by openly carrying a holstered pistol to a soccer game. She had her carry permit revoked then reinstated 8 days later. She's dead now, in an apparent murder/suicide at which her three children (now orphans) were present. Domestic dispute.

Which leads to my point. I will emphasize this for the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," folks out there. The presence of a gun in any highly emotional situation immediately raises the stakes to life and death. Instantly. Am I saying that the gun in this caused the violence? No. Did the gun make it lethal? You are fucking-A right it did. Were her fellow soccer game attendees unreasonable in being worried (batshit upset, more like) at someone carrying a gun to events that time and again in this country devolve into shouting matches or violence between coaches, refs and parents? Abso-fucking-lutely not.

So let's be honest about the bargain we make when we interpret the 2nd Amendment the way we've decided to. We are arguing for MORE accidental or spur of the moment homicides. Look at that chart again (or for the first time). Other than the District of Columbia (a special case...if you carved out any poverty stricken zone that compact in this country, you'd get that result), the top ten per capita (corrected for population size, in other words) firearms death states you get in order are Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Alabama.

(Bitter Sarcasm) Clearly the strong gun control laws in those states has led to poor defenseless citizens gunned down by rampant crime. (/Bitter Sarcasm)

As it turns out there's a high correlation between a shitload of guns, and a shitload of gun deaths. As Eddie Izzard says, "And the National Rifle Association says that, 'Guns don't kill people, people do,' but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, 'Bang!' That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…”.

So I own guns. I enjoy firing guns. I am comfortable around guns (the Army saw to that). But I DON'T FUCKING KID MYSELF about the implications of the firearms culture in this country. More people die because of it. Period. Either own up to it, or give up your guns, damnit. Quit blowing sunshine up your own ass about what you're doing...

This Caught My Eye

2009-10-06T11:22:00.005-05:00

Matt Ygelsias on the limits of the bully pulpit:

The arrow is "The Speech"...

Apparently, this is pretty much what happens everytime a President talks up an issue. Matt's claim is that it is pernicious to maintain the fiction that Presidential will alone determines this...the Green Lantern Theory.

Yglesias:

It’s not just that media commentary overemphasizing the president’s ability to shape opinion is inaccurate, it has a really detrimental impact on people’s ability to organize and effect political change. People are strongly encouraged to believe that the key to achieving policy change is to elect a president who’s friendly to their views. Then when that turns out to be insufficient they don’t move on and do additional organizing in House and Senate races. Instead, they tend to become frustrated with the president they worked to elect. But why blame the victim of congressional obstruction rather than the perpetrator? Well, people always seem to find a way to tell themselves, if only the president had fought harder he would have gotten it. He must have lost because he didn’t really care.

Three Levels In

2009-09-28T21:30:00.002-05:00

Via Wil Wheaton, Via John Rogers, from Cory Doctorow:

Is that enough levels of geek?

A Load Of Fatuous Crap

2009-09-16T17:50:00.004-05:00

"An armed society is a polite society,"--Robert Heinlein

See the title. Firstly, we're talking the gateway drug to Ayn Rand. And Ayn Rand is beyond fatuous crap. Heinlein has some redeeming qualities, whereas Ayn Rand specializes in telling pubescent pimply faced boys that the highest goal in life is to be a self centered asshole. Like they need encouragement in that.

But beyond that, the statement is demonstrably false. I thought of this post while I was listening to an NPR report on the way to work this morning about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is, not to put too fine a point on it, the NRA's wet dream of a society.

Damned near every Afghani has a gun, most of them have automatic weapons, and the majority of them either own or, in a pinch, could easily put their hands on a rocket launcher. Wayne LaPierre would LOVE it there. There are a lot of adjectives that leap to mind when thinking about Afghani society. Polite isn't high on the list. Polite isn't even ON the list.

Insular, tribal, violent, sectarian, vicious, dangerous. They are on the list. Polite? Nope. I'm not saying that Afghan society would be Nirvana without weapons. It wouldn't. Thousands of years of Afghan history make it the way it is. But Heinlein claims that the presence of a large number of weapon carriers makes a society polite. A priori, and regardless of culture. And he's wrong. What makes it worse is that he knew, or SHOULD have known, that he was wrong.

History is loaded with societies where an armed society is a violent society. The example Heinlein plainly had in mind is actually in contravention to his claim. The American West may have been "armed", but it requires rose-colored hindsight to consider it "polite". It was a lot more "Deadwood" than "How The West Was Won".

Here is what an armed society is: in thrall to the people most likely to use weapons to get their way. Most of whom are Ayn Rand's favorite type of person: sociopaths.

The fun part is, by carrying carbines to town hall meetings, conservatives are attempting to strongly imply they are the latter, whilst pretending to the fictional condition. Polite isn't what they're doing. Ask Tiller. Ask the kids at that Unitarian Church in Tennessee. Polite isn't on the agenda.

Maureen Dowd Goes There

2009-09-14T12:09:00.004-05:00

Normally, MoDo annoys me, but today she went there. When Maureen Dowd notices the problem that the GOP has with a Black man as president, the GOP has a BAD problem...

I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.

I tended to agree with some Obama advisers that Democratic presidents typically have provoked a frothing response from paranoids — from Father Coughlin against F.D.R. to Joe McCarthy against Truman to the John Birchers against J.F.K. and the vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.

But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

You follow the Southern Strategy...it leads right THERE. And it doesn't even take a detour.

Best Line Ever

2009-08-28T16:24:00.002-05:00

Another gem from Ezra Klein, about the need for both compromise and idealism, as exemplified by Teddy Kennedy:

There's been a lot of talk in recent days about how Ted Kennedy proved the greatest of the three brothers. JFK was an inspiring, but ultimately ineffective, president. RFK never had the opportunity to prove himself. But Ted Kennedy eventually learned an important lesson. At the beginning of his career, he saw things as they were and asked, "Why?" By the end, he dreamed things that never were and said, "How can that pass the Senate?" And that's the relevant question right now: It's not why we don't have a better system. It's how this deal can pass the Senate. No more regrets.

Why The Health Insurance Market Is NOT Competitive

2009-08-27T10:45:00.002-05:00

Via Ezra Klein (the policy wonk du policy wonk of Health Care):

Employees, in other words, don't worry too much about the cost of their health insurance because they think their employer is picking up the tab. Employers don't worry too much about the cost of health insurance because they know employees are picking up the tab. And so there's no real constituency for cost control. If either group were actually experiencing the full cost of health insurance, the constituency for reform would be a whole lot larger than it already is.

Is It Just Me...

2009-08-24T17:28:00.003-05:00

Or did superefficient, "outcompete that USPS dinosaur," FedEx just outsource delivery of my pants to...the Post Office???

On a side note, the "New Berlin Facility" in question is RIGHT NEXT DOOR to my office. So despite it being not 300 meters from me, FedEx needs the ever so outmoded postal service to get my pants to, you know, my door.

Required Reading

2009-08-18T12:41:00.002-05:00

From Josh Marshall at TPM.

At this point I don't know why we bother. These guys will keep going until there are lots and lots of bodies piled up. No one in the Republican Party will take any responsibility. And every time the Repubs are out of power, it will happen again.

I'm tired of it, discouraged that I wasted any time on serving this country, and candidly, I can't figure out whether we should encourage them to actually secede or "Go Galt" or whatever the fuck they call it THIS week, or if we should just leave.

The problem is, if I were Canada I wouldn't let those crazy-ass Americans in to wreck the fuck out of my country like they did theirs, no matter HOW liberal they are...

I Could Do This Guys Job Better Than He Does...Make Me The CEO Of Whole Foods

2009-08-17T10:25:00.004-05:00

I could use the seven figure income and I guarantee you I could avoid doing something this dumb...

Outlined by Matt Yglesias.

Shorter version:
When you're the CEO of a company that caters to liberals, it's really fucking stupid to go out of your way to piss them off.

The REAL Health Care Debate We're Having

2009-08-13T16:42:00.003-05:00

I want to be extremely clear about the implications of my previous post. There are two, and only two, possible outcomes from what's going on this summer:

1) We choose once again to maintain the status quo...likely for at least 3 or 4 years, or

2) We do something that makes the system at least marginally better than it is now.

You'll note I didn't say, "Make it worse." That's because there is no way to make the system worse than it is. The only way to even claim that it's possible is to hold to a Faith Based Free Market Tautology breathtaking in its inability or unwillingness to confront reality. As I said earlier, businesspeople are not inspired to give consumers their best. They might or might not ACTUALLY give consumers the best offering, but that is incidental to what they're actually doing, and sadly all too infrequent. In my time in the cubicle jungle I have to say that confusing, lying to, or ignoring customers seems to be considerably cheaper and as effective, if not more so, than actually providing superior products and services (aka, Ayn Rand gets bitch slapped by reality).

So let us be clear. Either something is done, and it's at a minimum a marginal improvement on the current system or we PRETEND that we're delaying things to produce a better plan, when in fact we're delaying things to kill the reform effort. I'd love to say to guys like Grassley and Baucus, "If you think the current system should be kept in favor of any reform, just have the fucking balls to say it...I'm sick and tired of the goddamned concern trolling you guys are doing."

Will the result be perfect? It's in the sausage factory. Of COURSE it won't be perfect. I'd like to see a public option at a minimum. But no matter what comes out, it'll be better than the steaming pile of dog's vomit we currently call a health care system.

Why Government Health Care Can't Be Any WORSE Than Private Health Care

2009-08-10T16:27:00.003-05:00

Via Kevin Drum, discussing a particularly Kafkaesque episode with his cellular service provider (in this case, Verizon), and the whole episode's tie-in to our current health care debate:

Frankly, my dealings with the government, on average, are better than most of my dealings with corporations. The government might sometimes provide poor customer service just because they lack the motivation to do better, but corporate America routinely provides crappy customer service as part of a deliberate and minutely planned strategy. I'll take my chances with the feds.

Yes, yes. I know. "DMV." "Lazy gummint workers." "Cell service is an exception." As is credit card service. And cable TV. And high speed broadband service (where it differs from CATV that is). As is petroleum. As is financial services. As are cars.

You know what? When there's that many exceptions to the, "Free markets are best for customers," rule then the rule is just WRONG. Get over yourself, business guys. You don't work that fucking hard to provide superior service. You work that fucking hard for an in-ground pool and vacations in Costa Rica. If you need to screw your customers to get the pool and the jungle tour, you just try to keep the mark on the gaff as long as possible.

The Theory And Practice Of DMing RPGs..."Working On The Railroad"

2009-07-24T08:36:00.004-05:00

So here I am with a CD disc full of every Traveller Sourcebook, game, adventure and supplement ever made. I have a pretty good crew of players...the chemistry is pretty good. So now I have to put it all together into an interesting campaign. The RMP may be interested in this as will Mellow Engineer, but other than that, unless you're morbidly curious you may wander off.

Problem, and opportunity, is that the Traveller adventures were written in a way unfamiliar to most modern DMs. Today, intro text is scripted and tactics are outlined for you ahead of time. These are not. A shocking amount of time it's hard even for a DM to figure out what the intended plot was. Luckily I am an experienced DM. Running a game is like being the leader of a jazz band. You may set the overall beat and melody, but you have to be ready to let someone solo. There are certain beats you HAVE to hit...those you set up so that nothing the players do short circuits it. (Sorry, any of my players that have been reading this...but sometimes you really ARE getting railroaded).

I knew in rough outlines, what I wanted to do. There were three modules I wanted to hit for certain: Research Station Gamma, Twilight's Peak, and Secret of the Ancients. But those would be maybe 7 to 10 sessions of gaming. Plus, there's the whole Fifth Frontier War thing in the background of the official campaign setting. I wanted to include that.

Finally, I wanted the characters to REALLY have an impact on events (something they've already done, it having been built into Twilight's Peak...they've wiped out a major clandestine enemy logistics base), and that means putting them into the mix militarily and politically. What was interesting was how this vague intention fed from the character generation.

Three of the five had backgrounds in Intelligence and/or commando operations. Maxine, run by our token female, started as a support type, but much to her players amazement, took serious left turn when she was commando trained, commissioned and retained an extra term. I remember thinking, hmmm, so she's going to be the team's trigger puller.

Next, Lesk, the Mellow Engineer's character, turned out to be a thief and a seriously strong psionic...which was the intent, but in a campaign where the military adversary is a race of psionics, useful. OK, so I can see some things I can do with that.

Then Chip, the scout, kept rolling "special" missions for his assignments. Looking over the list of skills for Special Missions (bribery, forgery, streetwise) I think we can all read between the lines about what "special" really means. This is a guy who keeps getting redirected into Intel operations (it helps that the Scout Service is where civilian intelligence resides in the campaign...basically he kept getting used for CIA missions).

Gerard is our high Social Status Navy guy. Not much there to meet the eye, but any group needs at least one person the local aristocrats will at least talk to. OK then. I'll find more for him to do...he just doesn't know it yet.

Malcolm was the last rolled up. Intelligence school so often he ended up an instructor. Specializing in interrogation. OK, so here we have an actual professional at the Intel game, someone who really was part of the Imperial Intel apparatus. That tore it.

I already have a preference for intrigue when I run a campaign, and here I had a crew of folks who were either black bag guys on either side of the law, or closely associated trigger puller types. Plus one knight/Naval Officer. I could work with this.

Now, part of my CD was a "campaign sourcebook"...The Spinward Marches Campaign. It's setting was post war, so I wasn't going to be using it, but it had a whole section on the course of the war, so I started looking that over. Depending on events the dates might change but the events wouldn't.

Therein I discovered the other main thrust of the campaign. The war starts off badly as a politically well connected Grand Admiral, promoted past his Peter Principle point, ignores valid intelligence by the normal Naval Intelligence and Scout Service agencies. Apparently, they'd embarrassed him in the past and he created a parallel intelligence office dedicated to telling him what he wanted to hear. That this plotline, written 20 odd years ago was an almost perfect mirror of the show we've had to live through.."Fun With Bushie"...is simply a bonus.

He was opposed by the Grand Duke, who retained his contacts with the Intelligence professionals, and who would seize control of the fleet during the war and effectively prosecute it thereafter. Now I could see how the group could be integrated...Malcolm would be of the professional faction, forced out for his affiliation; Maxine a junior officer protege. Gerard could be the political victim of the toady Commodore that took over intelligence duties for the Grand Admiral. Chip could work for the Scout service side, and Lesk could become a very valuable asset managed by the Scouts. (As it turns out, unwillingly...but I can work with that too, since he's hardly history's first unwilling intelligence asset).

Character generation and two paragraphs in a sourcebook and the campaign had its shape: "War, Mutiny and the Secret of the Ancients."

Without putting any spoilers in, the group has been seriously roped in on the Secret of the Ancients part, having in the process acquired a technology from the Twilight's Peak site: a set of teleport discs that frankly I made sure they have because I think it'll be fun to see what they think up to do with them. Every Ancient site is lousy with that kind of thing...should arouse their cupidity the same way +3 Flaming Swords capture a DnD player's.

Shortly, there will be a Star Trek-y section loosely based on the Leviathan adventure (which sucked as an adventure, but the ship, a Merchant Cruiser, was pretty cool). It'll go outside the Marches, so I get to generate a couple subsectors for them to explore while part of a larger mission. That'll also allow me to include a batch of the smaller (one nighter) premade adventures. I still haven't decided if they'll get the Leviathan or one of her sister ships (I'm leaning towards the Leviathan or the Decameron).

There's also some long term adversary stuff going on, but that's just getting started and I know that one of them at least reads this, so I'll save the spoilers.

Ultimately, they will determine whether the Duke succeeds at seizing the fleet and then discover exactly what happened 300,000 years earlier to the Ancients. And in the end save and/or destroy the Imperium. Since that's the end of this particular campaign, they really DO get to choose that one...

If Mark Twain Had An Internet Account And Reviewed Movies

2009-06-29T12:18:00.001-05:00

This archly wicked review might well be the result...

Carpe DM…Translation: “The DM is Whiny” (The Theory And Practice Of GMing RPGs, Part 2)

2009-06-23T21:37:00.002-05:00

OK. So as I was saying before with RPGs, I started DMing Traveller, or rather “Classic Traveller” (there’ve been a couple version since the original 1981 edits of the little black books), recently.

Back when I got the source stuff for the campaign, up to and including the CD-ROM, from Far Future Enterprises, I started making a mental list of the stuff I’d have to change. In the RPG parlance, I knew there’d be a lot of homebrew rules. I already knew two things right off the bat. Several more major things popped up in the course of my campaign prep and the first couple sessions.

I mentioned the unique character generation, where you start with a mature set of skills; the corollary there is that you’ve spent anywhere from 4 to 30 years in military or quasi-military occupations. With all the hazards that pertain thereto. The character generation system had a survival roll every 4 year term (later, one for every year-long assignment). Fail it and die.

In addition, it had the old hardcore character generation rules; roll 2 dice in order for Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Education and Social Standing. If you wanted to be Navy and rolled crappy INT and Social Standing? Better roll high on enlistment, buck-o, or you were out of luck. Actually there was a weird synergy there. You could “hunt medals” in your military career, taking penalties to your survival roll for bonuses to decoration rolls (decorations increasing your chance of promotion). Those of you with ruthless streaks no doubt see where this is going.

If you rolled a crappy character you’d get him into a risky profession, say Army or Marines, where you could take outrageous chances for medals. The dice modifier equivalent of stripping naked, gluing feathers to your butt and charging a machine gun nest with a toilet plunger while making “woo woo” noises. Then when probability caught up with you and you croaked, roll another character until you got a guy whose characteristics you liked.

Those two rules were going to have to go, replaced by roll seven times, discard the low roll and assign to your stats as desired method and a medical discharge roll rather than death roll. I added a chance of characteristic loss to go with a discharge, and the ability of the player to try and overcome medical discharge, to give someone who didn’t feel like they were “fully baked” yet have a chance to stay in.

Ok, so far so good. What else? Over the history of the game, Game Designers Workshop…the now defunct home of Traveller as well as other games including some very nice board wargames (read: hideously complicated games…I had weird tastes)…anyway, GDW released rules and character generation supplements over the course of the early 80s until they effectively abandoned “Traveller” for the “Twilight 2000” and “2300AD” RPGs.

The original 6 professions were Navy, Marines, Army, Scouts, Merchants and “Other”. Over the course of the game, expansion books greatly enhanced character generation for Navy, Army, Marines, Scouts and Merchants…you got WAY more skills over the course of a career. “Other” was expanded by another sourcebook, but not in terms of depth…instead it got broader. Instead of what seemed to be a generic roguish character, Other became Barbarians and Doctors and Hunters and Bureaucrats and Scientists, Pirates and of course, Rogues. But they all had the same low skill allotment.

When the supplements came out back in the 80s, Army and Marines were first (“Mercenary”), followed 6 or 7 months (and what felt like an eternity to me) later with Navy (“High Guard’) and an even longer eternity later by the Scouts (the imaginatively named “Scouts”). What happened was everyone stampeded to the cool Army/Marines careers, and there was a sudden dearth of ship based skills in most groups. And so it occurred, on down the line until “Merchant Prince” came out and allowed mercantile players to have some real fun buying and selling. So I had to homebrew some skill roll eligibility rules to ensure that all characters at the end of a term of service had had a similar count of skill roll opportunities (if not skills). I had to test that out with a few character roll ups. Seemed to work, at least well enough that the “Other” characters weren’t obviously disadvantaged. Enough so that one player picked Rogue, and his skill count had more to do with luck than anything structural.

What else was a problem? Well, although the Third Imperium background was considered the gold standard of SF RPGs it had some structural defects. The Imperium was huge and impersonal, which removed one common source of pride for PCs: that they were big swinging dicks in the universe making big differences in their worlds. Also, since the characters were “born” with a mature skill set, there wasn’t that “level up/always something new to do” pull for the characters.

So I had to fix that. I’ll cover the former point in my next, and last, post (concerning putting together a fun yet not obviously railroaded narrative in an annoyingly wide open universe); but one thing was obvious…there would have to be experience rules. Traveling takes time, a week and a half to two weeks per “jump” (a discreet distance traveled in a starship) so training of various types would and could take various amounts of time (3 months, 6 months, 9 months or a year per level, depending). I also needed a way to reach a point of diminishing returns to keep people from being the world’s foremost authority on Ship’s Tactics or whatever. Which I finally managed to put the finishing touch on recently.

There was one area that required little alteration. I mentioned that GDW was a BOARD wargame company? Their intensive combat rules were based on a board wargame. D&D’s original combat rules were clearly based on miniatures rules…move x number of inches per round, etc. Even back in the 80s, there just weren’t that many folks who played miniatures. I’m sure it surprises no one that I was one of them…I played tabletop Napoleonic wargames but even I didn’t play D&D the way it was supposed to be played…everyone just sort of declared where they were and the DM kept the positions in his head (it was always a he...I played with women, but none of them have ever wanted to DM).

Wizards of the Coast’s D&D 3rd edition, while I was away, dropped the fiction that we were all out there adjudicating disputes with rulers…and came up with combat rules that basically derived from board wargames. They did keep the mini-figs instead of using cardboard counters, although now you buy them pre-painted and they’re sold like collectable cards…you get them randomized in a box, unless you pay market rate on the secondary minis market. You can take the company away from the business model, but you can never take the business model entirely out of the company. But I digress (even more than usual, I mean).

Anyway, the GDW Traveller combat rules, “Snapshot”, played eerily similar to what the group had been doing with D&D 3.5 all along…rules that came twenty years after GDW released “Snapshot”. Those rules would cover from close range to (in some cases) long range combat, for both guns and hand weapons. Since “very long” was 250m and up, I figured I could simply cover that range increment abstractly. And in fact, so it has turned out (a recent encounter started at a klick…and all of that was conducted in the “once a minute a target appears during a rush, and you can shoot at it” way (a unit deployed in combat formation, using bounding overwatch will cover 1000m in somewhere between a half and hour to two-plus hours). The one thing the group took to like a duck to water was how to do combat. (What they constantly have to remind themselves about is radio contact…you can talk remotely, unlike D&D, and they’re constantly poking each other to remind each other to “tell the rest”…something I’m allowing because contrary to popular opinion, I’m not a total dick and it really is a novel concept when you’re used to D&D.)

The final, major piece of homebrew was “Difficulty Class” or DC, the target roll of dice for success or failure at any given task. For the first few sessions I was winging the DCs for tasks. It felt unfair to me, god only knows how the group perceived it. Pretty much the same if the eagerness with which they seized on the table I made up is any indication.

As a rule generation example this one is fairly typical. It’s based on two insights and one statistical reality. First the statistical reality: the center of a two six sided dice, normal probability curve is 7 and it’s a fairly steep curve, so average “difficulty” will play off 7 as a target and change by increments of two.

The two insights were that 5 categories are more than enough to describe almost any situation (thank you survey design in grad school!), therefore difficulties are all described as either “very easy”, “easy”, “average”, “difficult”, and “very difficult”. Second insight: that skill level 3 is “professional grade”…the rules themselves state that if a person has Medic-3 they qualify for the title “Doctor”. Arbitrarily, I set “master” skill at 6, and not so arbitrarily “beginner” is 1.

Put the two together…a task that would be of average difficulty for a beginner has a target of 8 or more (the statistical 7 plus 1 for skill level), whereas a task that could be described as average for a master is 13 (statistical 7 plus 6 for skill level). All difficulties can now be decided in my mind by answering the question, “How difficult would this be for ‘x’ skill level?” An appendectomy is easy for a doctor, but average to difficult for a beginner. Heart surgery is average for a master, difficult for a professional, and very difficult (at least!) for a beginner. If you can put it in words, the chance that everyone agrees with your assessment (and hence thinks you’re playing fair with them) goes WAY up. So was born the three column, five row table at the center of skill use.

The point I’m making? If you as a GM have a problem, your group has or will have that problem in spades. If you look back up over the decisions I’ve described (especially if you’ve ever played Traveller) you can see that everything I’ve done is to increase enjoyment by providing a sense of accomplishment, or a sense of fairness.

There’s only one game out there whose purpose is to make the player feel like they’re a tiny ant and that the GM is out to get them (mainly because he is): Paranoia. From which players derive enjoyment. It’s not an everyday game though…

Making the game enjoyable, rewarding and fair from your players’ point of view isn’t the most important thing you do as a DM, it’s the ONLY thing you do, or rather should do. Everything else is record keeping.

Next: Putting together a campaign where you manage to move characters smartly from one situation to another despite the fact that they can literally get into a spaceship and zip off in another direction entirely. On a whim.

The Bond Market Described

2009-06-05T10:37:00.001-05:00

Via Dan Gross:

Finally, the notion that the market is telling us something—anything—ultimately rests on the erroneous assumption that financial markets represent the collective wisdom of rational actors processing information efficiently. There are plenty of cool-minded forward-thinking investors in the markets. But there are also a lot of lunatics, fools, sharks, widows and orphans, government actors with ulterior motives, algorithmic traders, greedy speculators, and whack jobs. The markets resemble the Star Wars bar scene more than they do the economics faculty lounge at Princeton.

The Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues (The Theory And Practice Of GMing RPGs) Part I

2009-06-01T21:49:00.006-05:00

The title comes from a classic pen and and paper RPG from the 80s called "Paranoia". The political lamp is decidedly NOT lit. After recounting my lawn-a-cide last time, I find that I am interested in discussing other things that are going on around here rather than just what's going on in Washington. I do have other interests.

One of those things is "Geek Night". As it happens those of us out there (like Stephen Colbert) who played D&D when we were little nerdlets occasionally visit the mothership. So for the better part of two years I have been playing D&D 3.5 with a bunch of very cool folks, discovering that you can have even more fun with elves when you're an adult (for one thing, by calling them "tree humpers"...they HATE that) than when you're a teenager. We've been meeting every other week (mostly) with the same crew of folks (mostly) and having a high old time (mostly).

We first started playing in "Forgotten Realms", the by now default D&D setting. One problem. Thanks to having been designed back in the dark ages (the AD&D era) it had a LOT of baggage. Not least of which is a series of merchandising novels that pretty much put you in a straitjacket. There's one way to present (and play) Forgotten Realms, and don't you DARE violate the way it's supposed to be.

Booooorrr--ING! Thieves are thieves, Fighters are fighters, etc., etc. ad nauseum absurdum.

So when we lost our wizard to ennui and our flagrant lack of compliance with the way he thought way we should be playing (see above) one of our number trotted out the new "default" D&D setting from Wizards Of The Coast..."Eberron". Now I will freely admit that the conceit of Eberron--that magic in many ways replaces technology but with similar effective end points--is simply a gimmick to allow elves to duel with orcs on top of moving railroad trains, while the dwarf hijacks an airship to swoop down and rescue the orc from the vicious elven mercenary (think Mission Impossible meets The Good, The Bad And the Pointy Eared). But it is well executed. Pretty fun too...it allowed me to play a shapeshifter with a nasty case of PTSD as result of his experiences at the end of an all encompassing world war.

But D&D has a problem, a systemic one. There's a "sweet spot" to the game...starting about Level 5 and ending about Level 13. Most of the interesting stuff happens in between those two points...before Level 5 a stiff breeze can cripple you and after Level 13 or so the scaling gets out of hand and you increasingly find it difficult to throw out a challenge that isn't either too much or too little...an oscillating system forever on the verge of getting out of control. Our group collectively started getting close to 13 and we were running out of prepublished stuff to play (for the reason I just outlined you don't see many commercial modules for Levels 15 to 20...it's all but impossible to get the level of difficulty "just right" at that point...it HAS to be personalized). The GM for Eberron is getting his Master's and wanted some relief from prepping. It was getting time consuming.

That's when I stepped in. As it happened, I had something I was really, REALLY interested in revisiting. When we were casting about for a way to not have to end "geek night" when we lost the aforementioned Fandamentalist, and before we settled on Eberron, I had been lamenting the loss over many a relocation (some more frantically rushed than others...leases will run out from time to time) of all but the dreg ends of what had been a truly impressive collection of pen and paper RPG games.

The loss I felt most keenly was a game called Traveller. It was, to SF RPGs what D&D was to Fantasy RPGs...the very first, the wellspring, the alpha and omega from which all subsequent games derived. Its system was gloriously different from the d20 system we were playing. It had all KINDS of spiffy aspects, including a character generation system that started you out with your mature skill set (instead of the usual generic, "You have left home to seek your fortune..." start) and a backstory as famous in its time as Forgotten Realms is to D&D now.

So there I was, hanging out in a game shop trying to find some Eberron sourcebooks when I ran across the reprint. Apparently Marc Miller, the original designer of Traveller, had decided to reprint the old "little black books" of Traveller having reacquired the rights to the game at some point in the past. After a quick consultation with the group regarding their willingness to contemplate playing something other than D&D at some point (the consensus was "why not") I started acquiring books and refamiliarizing myself with the game system and campaign setting.

This has gone on for a bit so I will leave you with this insight, stolen blatantly from Spiegelman's "Maus"...

And here my troubles began.

What Does Not Kill (My Lawn) Makes It Stronger

2009-05-26T19:18:00.005-05:00

And it did in point of fact kill it. In a brief break from ranting about politics, I can also rant about a vicious cold blooded killer in our midst.

More cold blooded than Dick Cheney. More vicious than Dick Cheney. More looming than Dick Cheney. A bigger pain in my ass than Dick Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

My tree.

Assuming you count each blade of grass as a victim, that tree has a body count Mengele would envy. Now I will freely admit that I was complicit. After numerous summers eyeing water bills the way I now eye my 401(k), I basically said, "Fuck it. Whatever happens, happens." And thus began the August of telling the lawn to nut up and survive on its own.

The result was more tan than you can find on George Hamilton. So this year I am replanting. Did you know what happens when you google "grass for dry shade"? I do now. You get a loooong list of the plants you might want to try instead of planting grass.

So over the Memorial Day Weekend, I spent some quality time with the new Decemberists' album on my iPod and The Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant's Weasel. No, not THAT weasel. I spend all my time with THAT weasel. I mean her Garden Weasel. Breaking up and aerating the aforementioned (alleged) lawn. So that I could put down the started fertilizer and seed. Which took about one tenth of the time the weasel took.

Anyway, we'll see what happens. If overplanting doesn't work, then I'm really stuck. I'll have to till and completely reseed. Which will suck. Or I could plow the crops under and plant Hostas. We'll see.

Follow Up To Torture

2009-04-23T11:34:00.004-05:00

EnviroMom responded to yesterday's post in a way that has caused me to think and extend my remarks:

The thing that disturbs me the most about all of this is that
we tend to feel, as a society and a species, as if we've evolved. But
intimidating prisoners to get them to confess to things for political gain, well
that beautiful concept dates back quite a bit longer than the Bush
administration. Think the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish
Inquisition...torturing confessions out of prisoners is not exactly a new idea,
and it doesn't make me feel any more hopeful about mankind's ability to learn
from its past mistakes.

That left me thinking about her point, which I'm going to both refute and reinforce (quite the trick). I think of all this as a case of the reptile brain gaining ascendancy.

When I'm confronted by something, someone or some situation I dislike, there's a part of me that wants to say, "Hulk Smash!" and get with the smacking down. I don't do it because it would be wrong (the fact that cops show up helps).

What we had in 2002 in particular was a freak out, where the government's reptile brain (Dick Cheney) ran wild. As I said, understandable. What is unusual is in this era when the consensus is that torture is wrong, someone(s) in the White House and the Pentagon, and for all I know, Langley, decided that, "What the hell. As long as we have the thumbscrews out, let's help W get his war on and smack those latte sipping liberal elites around a bit too...show that they're not really serious about defending the country."

The Inquisition, the Witch Trials (the ones in central Europe around that time, by the way, were FAR bloodier than their little American cousins) and so forth were conducted using what were AT THAT TIME, standard "criminal" techniques. Henry the VIII had the punishment for poisoners set at "boiled alive by being slowly lowered feet first". Torture was, in those days, the modern equivalent of putting a prisoner in solitary confinement.

Today, torture is no longer the cultural punitive norm (and that's a good thing, BTW). THAT'S what makes what Bush/Cheney did in service of their political agenda particularly vile. It's what makes Republicans today arguing that not using it reflects unseriousness about protecting ourselves reprehensible. They're trying to refight a long ago resolved discussion about what constitutes inhumane treatment.

That's why this is so dangerous. THAT'S why the current batch of Republican politicians and pundits who won't come out publicly and continually to state, "Torture is still always wrong," in the style of the 70s era Saturday Night Live Weekend Update that would always start, "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead," are contemptible. Until John McCain and Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Barone and Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes come out continually and say THAT, something they don't do...something in fact that all of them have directly or indirectly contradicted at some point in the last eight years, I really don't think the country is safe from them.

We are AT RISK, because some people saw an opportunity to refight the real "Culture War." The one between the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment. The forces of superstition and fear still want their drawing and quartering, and if the forces of rationality and enlightenment do not fight them, continually and with neither cessation nor mercy, superstition will win.

Words Fail Me

2009-04-22T17:22:00.002-05:00

Well obviously not, but I see this and I have trouble not breaking into a stream of profanity.

If you don't click links, it seems that one of the uses Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld found for "enhanced interrogation techniques" in 2002 and 2003 was in...wait for it...torturing prisoners to find an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection.

You know what? It's one thing to lose your moral compass from a fear...a not unjustified fear...that Al Qaeda might have had more cells out planning something. It would be WRONG, but at least understandable. NOT forgettable, not even forgivable, but at least I could understand it...the way I can understand, but not forgive, Hamas rocket attacks.

That isn't what happened here. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (plus the usual supporting crew) tortured people to cover their political asses and to have a talking point to beat up Democrats with.

These people and their enablers (aka the Republican Party) are beneath pond scum. You and I and everyone we know lived in a dictatorship for 8 years. I think the reason Dear Leader Rush Limbaugh is freaking out is he's afraid that someone might be after payback.

He should be glad it's Obama in charge and not me.

The Emporer's New Budget

2009-03-26T17:17:00.003-05:00

The Republicans have unveiled their alternative budget. And there's no there, there. Apparently, the Repubs have elected to for a circular firing squad and whale away.

I am of mixed thoughts on this. In theory, I should want a robust opposition. If nothing else it raises the game. But really. Given their behavior over the last 16 years (especially), I just can't muster anything other than unbridled glee at the conjunction of their utter, complete psychotic break...at exactly the moment the media has finally decided to notice that they're kinda crazy.

Seriously. Go look at the "budget"...it really is more of what Bush gave ya. Only with even less detail.

I'm the one in the corner crunching popcorn and laughing myself sick.

What On Earth Is Happening In The Economy?

2009-03-23T17:24:00.003-05:00

Several folks have taken a stab at explaining Geithner's plan.

Brad DeLong finds much to admire. My favorite question from his FAQ? "Q: What if markets never recover, the assets are not fundamentally undervalued, and even when held to maturity the government doesn't make back its money? A: Then we have worse things to worry about than government losses on TARP-program money--for we are then in a world in which the only things that have value are bottled water, sewing needles, and ammunition. "

Mark Thoma compares and contrasts the Paulson version, Geithner version and Nationalization with a simplified exercise involving cars that blow up (well the engines at least...but only some of them!).

Paul Krugman has now actually made his way out onto the ledge and really looks like he's going to jump.

These are three "liberal economists" and just look at the range of opinion, this doesn't include any conservative/Chicago School economists. And who cares what the conservatives think? They and their desperate need to adhere to their orthodoxy caused the mess.

For reactions, considered and otherwise, I give you Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings: "As someone who thinks that levels of compensation in the US are absurdly unequal, and that this is bad for the country, it's tempting to say: oh, go ahead, you idiots. Keep your sense of entitlement to other people's money. Make people come after you with pikes and tumbrils. See if I care."

Also this rather elegant summing up on the difference between what your head and you heart tell you, by Ezra Klein: "Intellectually, I'm of the crowd that thinks the A.I.G. bonuses don't deserve the continued focus of the political system. One tenth of one percent of the money we've given to one company should not obsess us. But whenever it comes up in conversation, I'm shocked at the depth of my own fury. And here's why: Not to sound naive about this, but the absence of patriotism that galls. The lack of responsibility is sickening. These bankers delivered an almost mortal wound to the American economy. Their actions threw millions out of work and wrecked the retirement savings of tens of millions more. [...] They should be begging for a shot at redemption. They should work without pay, without sleep, without credit. They should wear sackcloth and ashes. But more than that, they should be trying to help. The damage they wrought might have been unintentional, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the aftermath. What we've got, however, is an economic hit-and-run, with one wrinkle: The collar-popper peeking out of the bloodied Porsche is willing to stick around if we pay him for his time. Give him a bonus and he'll dirty his hands with CPR."

Me? How the fuck should I know? You just saw three major economists disagreeing and two very rational people who basically said that despite what their rationality tells them they'd be happy to attend a Festival of Blood for Wall Street types. Weird huh? I get all pissed off, right up until it becomes an actual crisis, then I get all calm.

Except for when Repubs talk about the debt, and how we're stealing from future generations. From THEM I want to know where their oh so tender concern for my daughter was when THEY were in charge of shoveling money to their cronies in no bid contracts and tax breaks for their buds. THEY can go fuck themselves.

This Says It All

2009-03-06T10:05:00.004-06:00

Normally, I don't quote in the entirety or I just provide a link.

You should read all of this, so I'm pulling it all in.

My name is Ta-Nehisi Coates, and I'm a social liberal. I'm pro-choice. I believe in the right to die. I believe in gay marriage. I'm against the death penalty. And, and as we've recently seen, I don't believe that all kids should be raised by married parents. I also like being black. But I'm clear that most of my views are to the left of most black people. By and by, I hope that isn't the case. But it is today, and understanding that difference is
key.
I think one of the biggest problems with the GOP is that they they mistake their deepest held beliefs for mainstream American beliefs. The root of the current conservative crack-up probably lies in Iraq, but the one event that exposed it all, for me, was Terri Schiavo. Here you had a sitting President, a gaggle of Senators and congressmen bending over backward to argue that government was a better arbiter of a woman's fate, than her husband and her doctors. The moment Bill Frist decided to give a diagnosis via video tape, I felt the wind shift. When it comes to the end of their days, most Americans would want their spouse--not the Senate Majority Leader--to be the final authority.
The point is that you have to be able to distinguish your deeply held beliefs, from the electorates. I think much of the GOP's trouble stems from the inability to discern the difference. That whole "Real America," "Real Virginia," small-town snobbery bit, isn't an act--they actually believe it. I've never understood the whole "Center-right country" meme, because it's ultimately self-serving--and then self-defeating. It blinds you to the hard work of arguing, cajoling and fighting with the electorate, until they see your point. It's interesting that so many of their most dominant voices of the GOP (Steele, Gingrich, Limbaugh) have either never won an election, or haven't won one in a decade.
I keep thinking about the big things that have always kept me from being a conservative--the knee-jerk worship of a past that branded me half a man, the elevation of the loud imbeciles who think science teachers should be using the Bible, the toleration and baiting of bigots who cloaked themselves in the garb of "States Rights," and now run under the garb of "protecting marriage." The common denominator here is an unreflective veneration of what was, a belief that tradition, no matter how backwards, can heal all. Thus it's only right, that Steele, Gingrich and Limbaugh make up the leadership.
It's not that I think liberals are without flaw, but to argue that our most strident members should be our public face, would seem silly. As Ross intimates, if most liberals thought
it was good idea for Howard Zinn Randall Robinson, or Noam Chomsky to be a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, I'd think we'd all gone insane. If Democratic politicians were scared to disagree with Keith Olberman or Michael Moore, I'd be a man without a home.
But these guys think that they are America. They delude themselves with that "center-right nation" analysis, and then mask their losses by claiming they didn't really lose. They think the problem is their wardrobe, their slang, their hairstyle. This is what black folks call Project-Bougie or--more aptly put--just plain trifling. The GOP is out shopping for a new dining set, a new couch, a flat-screen--anything to make the crib look a little more inviting. Meanwhile the water bill is two months past due. The lights are off. And the eviction notice is in the mail.

Holy Crap, that puts it all in to words for me. Finally someone said it, and far more eloquently than I've been able to manage.

Fringe Beliefs

2009-02-23T11:53:00.006-06:00

Via Matt Yglesias I find this.

Legalizing Marijuana is a ridiculous notion. The "love that dare not speak it's name" could speak it's name in rural Montana sooner than major political figures suggest ending our wonderful Weed Dealer Subsidy (aka, the Great Big War On Drugs).

There's a few things more fringe than legal weed though. Check out the approval rating graph:

Discuss.

Picture Of The Week

2009-02-13T08:59:00.003-06:00

For the Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant:

Best Line Ever

2009-02-05T17:26:00.002-06:00

From John Cole at Balloon Juice (aka the blog that shows you what happens to conservative views when the guy can actually think...) a comment about dealing with "bipartisanship" when one of the partisans is clearly crazy.

Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

The Picture Of The Week

2009-02-04T08:48:00.002-06:00

Because it's, a) funny, b) highly appropriate and c) I need practice embedding pictures in this thing...the last couple got chopped in weird ways...

Stimulus Package Shenanigans (Adult Supervision Required)

2009-02-02T12:08:00.006-06:00

This should be interesting. On the one hand you have a group of people, the House Republicans, who after 8 years of Bush think "bipartisan" means you do what they want and they smile instead of mooning you. On the other hand you have a group of people, liberals, mainly blogger type, but let's just admit, liberals; justifiably annoyed at our treatment by Republicans over the last eight years.

Now that the former have shown that in many ways they are deeply unserious, the latter have made calls for Obama to put everything and the kitchen sink back in the stimulus package now that the Repubs did what Repubs do. The Repubs haven't met us half way? Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on for the next eight years. Let's see how the fat white fucks like bending over and taking it rather than dishing it out. And there's a HUGE part of me that wants to join in.

I even know EXACTLY what I'd put into the stimulus package. Worried about how we're going to pay for the spending? OK. Bend over cause I'm about to lay some pipe, you noobs. Let's take the top marginal tax rate back up to 39% right NOW rather than waiting until after next year when it happens automatically. Hell, bump it to 45%.

"Wrong time to raise taxes"? Well I'm not talking about everyone, just the 500K and up crowd. And they, my friends, aren't hurting. A few who did something monumentally stupid, like let one guy run all their investments, are but not most of 'em.

"You'll disincentivize them, they won't be as inventive as they would be otherwise"? Given what this crew invented over the last few years in the financial sector, I find that I can face the thought of a buncha Wall Street types getting in touch with their inner Goth, all emo and depressed, better than thinking about what else they'd do if they were all perky. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

But we shouldn't do it. Why? Well one, Obama really DOES want to govern pragmatically and get past the partisan tit for tat, which means someone, somewhere, has to be the adult here. Lord knows it won't be the Repubs. And like not torturing people, what's right should also turn out to be more effective. I harbor a sneaking suspicion that if the stimulus as currently packaged is as attractive to America as it seems to be, and the Repubs find themselves unable to do anything other than claim that their ideas (you know, the ones that got us INTO the mess...a neverending cycle of deregulation and tax cuts) are the only ones they can support, eventually it'll get noticed.

Then there will increasingly be three types of Repubs; dead enders, ones about to be voted out, and pragmatic moderates.

There's always going to be an Orange County, CA, so there will always be dead enders. Like herpes, they just never go away completely and the question is always, "Can you control it most of the time?" Increasingly though, either the Repubs will get it, or they'll go completely Palin and they'll be replaced with something that kind of looks like the kind of Republicans MomPedant remembers, whether they call themselves Tories or Whigs or Bull Moose.

People who are pissed about Obama being willing to genuinely compromise need to realize that there are two idiotic beliefs that people engage in every four years. Every four years we're told by Repubs that the Democratic candidate is the most liberal politician short of exhuming Che Guevara. The two idiot beliefs? One, Repubs believe it. Two, Democrats believe it too.

Barack Hussein Obama is not now, nor has he ever been, a doctrinaire liberal. He has shown every sign of preferring to go with what works. I find that comforting. I may (or may not) be more liberal than Obama, but I have a high degree of confidence that if my belief in one of my deeply held theories is right then he'd do what I want, and if I'm wrong, he won't. And where I'm wrong, he shouldn't, whether the idea is liberal or not.

Economics Post (CAUTION: Extra-Dry)

2009-01-28T17:05:00.008-06:00

OK. This has been building up, and a return to blogging by discussing the finer points of economic stimulus may be the equivalent of asking you guys to do a triple gainer into a wading pool, but I can't help myself.

Coming back from politics cold turkey was too difficult, so I'm kinda combining my (perverse) interest in economics and politics into a rant/educational opportunity. See, there are two main schools of economic thought running through academia these days and while they don't map ENTIRELY to the political parties, you don't find a lot of laissez faire Milton Friedman-wannabe clones floating around Democratic circles and you don't tend to find the John Kenneth Galbraith types lurking in the foliage at a Republican party ("Where white goes to make real dancers cry.")

So what an old (and from my point of view idiotic) macro professor told me is true...there is "Chicago School" and "Berkley School" econ...the Freshwater/Classical/Real Business Cycle and Saltwater/Keynesian versions of macroeconomics (Though there's been enough idea bleed...neither side has a monopoly on good insights...that to call them formal Classicals and Keynsians would be inaccurate, I'm going to use the two terms to ID the sides).

The key characteristic of Classicals is math. Lots of math. The two groups in academia that a Classical would admit to looking up to are mathematicans and physicists. Classicists might (MIGHT) admit that the hypothetical "rational actor" doesn't really exist, but immediately move on to claim that either a) it doesn't matter or b) in the aggregate the sum of actors are rational. Keynesians are a touch more pragmantic and more inclined to look at disciplines such as behavioral economics for insights (rather than as punching bags).

And those two schools are having a bitchslap contest. The Classicals have had their way with the economy for nigh on 20 years now, and the Keynesians are pointing out that the track record has some problems. In fact, in my admittedly somewhat partial opinion, Classicals (and their blog offspring like Megan McArdle) are beginning to twist themselves into interesting little knots in an attempt to reconcile their a priori not to be questioned assumptions and that annoying little interlocutor, the real world. In this way (he said puckishly, knowing what it would do to them if they read it) they more than slightly resemble the Marxian economists that I studied in undergraduate, desperately using more and more elaborate maths and assumption to prove that their desired conclusions are correct.

First, while you might have more trouble getting a Classical to admit it than a Keynesian, BOTH sides would actually find the proposition that "The government should act like a business/family and live within its means," to be a foolish statement. There's a reason that Micro- and Macroeconomics are divided. For governments, for the banking systems that support a modern economy, the rules are NOT the same as you or I can or should follow. It is NOT straightforward and simple...there are aspects beyond simple accounting rules...paying A $500 and A paying that $500 to B and B paying $500 to C is NOT the same as paying A $500 and A spending it. There are advantages to an economy for the velocity of money use to be high that are not found in simple microeconomic scenarios. In fact in this case, that scenario is FOUR TIMES as good for the economy.

All this by way of saying that there are two theories about stimulating the economy...monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus. Classicists prefer monetary and Keynesians (traditionally) prefer fiscal. In practice both Classicals and Keynesians state that in normal times monetary stimulus works better. (Friedman received his Nobel for his work on monetary stimulus and even Keynesians today acknowledge that his insights were valuable). That is why, these days, there are a TON of quotes from guys like Krugman stating that under normal circumstances, monetary stimulus is preferable.

Where they differ is in times like these. I'm about to use the D-word, so brace yourselves. Krugman's book The Return Of Depression Economics argues that there comes a tipping point in a recession where traditional monetary stimulus has shot its wad. Lately he's been strongly arguing that when the Fed Rate has reached the zero lower bound, you're probably there. He's also been saying that monetary stimulus is useless in the Liquidity Trap. What the Freshwater types have been reduced to is arguing that their unknown efficacy "non-traditional" monetary stimulus is better than non-traditional fiscal stimulus or that maybe doing nothing is a better option and arguing that if we are in a liquidity trap (and given the behavior of banks these days it takes some major chutzpah to claim otherwise) it will be shortlived rather than lasting, say, a decade.

In short, a lot of what you hear these days regarding stimulus is inspired as much by a desire to have things a certain way politically, or to beat back a nagging feeling that all that time spent studying integral, tensors and matrix algebra may NOT have been necessary as it is inspired by actual analysis. All social sciences suffer from a lack of controlled experimentation. Only economics exerts THIS much influence on policy.

That may not be a good thing, but you go into a social crisis with the academic disciplines you have, not the academic disciplines you wish to have, or might have in the future... Just keep that in mind when you read the news these days.

New Posting...After A Long Layoff Only Partially Inspired By Election Fatigue

2008-12-15T11:57:00.005-06:00

I ran into another "Best Line Ever", this one at Media Matters.org, concerning our news media's willingness to kowtow to Republican implied controversy before Obama even takes office (re: the Blagojevich scandal):

And yet, here we are again, with an incoming Democratic president who hails from a city we are all supposed to believe is the most corrupt place this side of Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. Chicago, we are told, is a den of villainy so irredeemable it defies credulity to suggest anyone could emerge from so much as a long layover at O'Hare without a closet full of skeletons.

Absolutely, Best Line Ever...

Liveblogging The Election

2008-11-04T17:15:00.022-06:00

OK. Butt firmly in chair. Watching MSNBC (CNN has clearly decided to court conservatives, so fuck 'em) and getting TPM and fivethirtyeight up. Buckle up. Much beer, Scotch (Laphroiag...I don't share my damn scotch) and champagne on hand. Monitor my spelling over the evening.

5:25 CST
Talking Points Memo saying Exit Polls breaking strongly for Obama, with all the usual caveats.

5:54
Indiana is still damn close. 3% in. Not good for McCain. Dole is doing badly in NC against Hagan. I'm begining to get optimistic. One of my bellweather points is breaking Obama's way. Cautiously optimistic. 1st Sam Adams opened.

6:38
Jeez. What's with Virginia? Still only 3% reporting. Indiana still too close to call. I want my instant gratification.

7:01
MSNBC calls Pennsylvania and New Hampshire for Obama. And now, Virginia, Florida, Missouri and Indiana are too close to call. Allright. We're now close to being able to break out the Champagne.

7:17
Jeanne Shaheen takes the Senate seat from Sununu. Take that you phone bank jamming bastards. (A major Repub operative was convicted of illegal vote tampering in an election where NH went Kerry pretty hard...the jamming was almost CERTAINLY directed at keeping Shaheen from the Senate seat).

7:43
Hagan takes Dole's seat. +3 Seats for Dems. Still waiting on VA, IN, FL, MO. It may take until CA before Obama goes over 270.

8:02
Wisconsin goes Obama. Colorado too early to call. Ohio too early to call. One of these former Red States has to fall into Obama's column. Right now, it looks like NC or FL (!!) will tip earliest. Gahh. I'm increasingly certain that this will end well, but I was hoping that FL or VA would tip early and we could just do victory laps.

8:17
fivethirtyeight calls New Mexico's Senate seat for Udall (the other Udall). If this comes in at 7 or 8 I'm going to do my "Little Superior Dance" a la the Church Lady. If you guys are lucky, The LATMP will take a film of that and I can post it. (It wouldn't be lucky for you, really...acid won't be able to scrub it from your memory and you'll assuredly have PTSD).

8:23
FINALLY!! Obama just took Ohio. He just flipped a state Bush took in 2004. This is going to take longer than I'd like, but it's looking MUCH MUCH better. The LATMP just heaved a great sigh of relief.

8:33
New Mexico goes to Obama. Another Red State flips. More relief in the Pedant house.

8:46
As expected, James Inhofe (R-Crazy Town) was reelected. Expected, but depressing. The Paternal Pedant was from Oklahoma and I'm resonably sure he's happy we cremated him, so he doesn't have to spin in his grave yet again.

9:13
One restart later and I can post that Iowa went Obama. BTW, Dell laptops suck big hairy donkey balls. I'm going to guess that Indiana may well go Obama, which will please EnviroMom no end.

9:23
fivethirtyeight is showing that Obama is likely to win 353 electoral votes, out of all called, safe, likely and lean states. If both toss-ups, Indiana and Missouri, go to Obama that's another 22 electoral votes, and that puts Obama at 375...a "landslide". It might be enough for us to elect the first black President, but if he also wins by a landslide...

9:31
Half an hour and California, Oregon, and Washington polls close. At that point we should be able to formally call the election for Obama. I'm sure Hawaii and Alaska are used to voting long after the election is called. I guess its the price of either a) living in paradise or b) being fucking nuts enough to live on the set of Northern Exposure.

10:00
Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. Free at last.

10:17
Colorado, Virginia, and Florida have gone Obama. If we get Missouri and Indiana...

10:19
McCain concedes.

'Twas The Night Before...

2008-11-03T19:49:00.005-06:00

OK. What the fuck am I going to do with my time, now that the campaign is ending?

Well, likely there will be cabinet pick decisions to look at and pontificate about. There's the ever popular, "What on God's earth will Bush do in the final three months to screw the country up further?" (Hint: "Executive Orders"...it's gonna be Christmas in...um...well...December...for every business group and right wing anti-science group).

But we just got a look at final polls by way of fivethirtyeight.com. It's coming down to Obama +7, and McCain has to run the fucking table just to have a longshot. They're calling it at 98.1% chance of Obama victory now. On the all important Electoral Outlook:

Far more important, of course, is the race for 270 electors. It appears almost certain that Obama will capture all of the states won by John Kerry in 2008. Pennsylvania, while certainly having tightened somewhat over the course of the past two weeks, appears to be holding at a margin of about +8 for Obama, with very few remaining undecideds. Obama also appears almost certain to capture Iowa and New Mexico, which were won by Al Gore in 2000. Collectively, these states total 264 electoral votes, leaving Obama
just 5 votes shy of a tie and 6 of a win.

Obama has any number of states to collect those 5 or 6 votes. In inverse order of difficulty, these include Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana. Obama is the signficant favorite in several of these states; winning any one of them may be fairly difficult for John McCain, but winning all of them at once, as John McCain probably must do, is nearly impossible

So what to do?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Last week I found a DELIGHTFUL site called tvtropes.org. The name is a little disingenuous, as it also covers written fiction, comic books, movies and so on.

Anvilicious? Didn't know it. Don't know what I'd do without it now.

Dropped a Bridge on Him? Marvel claims to do it all the time, only to be followed with bringing the character Back From the Dead.

You can spend HOURS on this site.

As for the election? I plan to blog while watching the results tomorrow. Check in for updates. Or to send nasty-grams in the comments.

For Those Worried About The Campaign

2008-10-30T00:57:00.008-05:00

(h/t Ta-Nahese Coates)

Donkey In Da House

2008-10-23T20:59:00.004-05:00

So I promised to talk about the house. Now at 435, I'm not going to list every race...mainly because not only do I not have a break down, but I couldn't even BEGIN to tell you what freaking congressional district I and the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pundit live in (ed: WI-5...the Intertubes are a wonderful thing) let alone all the rest of the 434 yahoos. So I really don't have a race by race breakdown.

However, current count is 235 D, 199 R, 1 I (Bernie Sanders, VT, caucuses with the the Dems). My guess is +10, leaving the new House at 245 D, 189 R, 1 I. Why the piddling count improvement? Gerrymandering. Both parties make safe districts for themselves, and Repubs held a crap load of statehouses shortly after 2000 (the Census year). So they packed districts. But not in a really crude, "as many Repubs as we can cram right in there," way.

Here's what you do, if you're a typical Repub state legislator. You optimize. You wall off as many Dems as geography can possibly allow while maintaining the safety of Repub seats...say 60-40 splits. Thus creating, voila, an institutional bias in favor of Repubs in the House. Which they did. It's a testament to the TOWERING incompetence of the Bush Administration and the unpopularity of the Repub brand that the count is where it is, but is also means that we're reaching the point of diminishing returns.

I just don't think that there just aren't that many districts left out there that are even marginally reachable for Democrats that they don't already have. Now this isn't based in any way on poll numbers or a district by district look. I'm sure there are people who's job it is to do that, and report up their party chains. They don't put that on the net. If they're winning they don't want to tip their hand, and if they're losing they don't want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

+10 is a guess, but it's a reasonably educated one. Dems picked up a crapload of seats in 2006. They ran the table that year, folks. But running the table in 2006 means there just isn't that much left to pick up.

If Dems pick up more than +15 to +20, I think that means it will be a good day indeed for Obama.

On a side note: other bellweathers to look for? Pennsylvania, Florida and Virginia. Their polls close early. If Obama is ahead in all of those, or if they get called for Obama, you might as well crack the champagne early. The metro districts take longer to get counted. If Obama is ahead or if he's so far ahead that the news orgs actually call it, that means he's winning the RURAL vote. If he does that in those three states, you might as well say the fat lady is singing.

Whither Lieberman?

2008-10-09T16:27:00.003-05:00

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Although I really, REALLY want Obama to win, I'd like to take a look down into Congress. Even if Obama loses, we're picking up major Congress coin. First up...the Senate.

Ezra Klein and Steve Benen (at the Washington Monthly) are posting about the possibility of 60 votes. Fivethirtyeight shows the chances of that occurring at roughly 25%.

I just don't see it...my call is +7 at this point. I think Stevens in AK goes down, along with Gilmore in VA (to Warner), Pearce in NM (to Udall), Schaffer in CO (to the other Udall), Sununu in NH (to Shaheen...again!...and won't THAT piss him off), Dole in NC (to Hagan) and, the wild card is...Coleman in MN (to Franken!!) rather than Smith in OR. I think Smith stays alive to fight another day. Although it wouldn't shock me for that to break the other way

The pickups necessary to get to +9 are too outlandish. In addition to Smith, you'd need to pick off: one of Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky or Texas. Rii-iiiight.

But even if we get +9, that leaves Lieberman the filibuster killer. Now in the unlikely event that we do get to +9, I think Reid leaves Holy Joe unmolested. I think that would be a mistake. Yglesias makes what I think is a valid point: 57, 58 is as good as 60. If you can get to 58, you can pressure a couple moderate Repubs to vote for cloture. WHICH Repub depends on the issue being voted on, but on almost anything you can cherry pick a couple to carry you over.

Besides I really, really want to screw Lieberman over. But not in that crude, "get the fuck out," way you might be thinking. No. Here's what my twisted vicious brain has cooked up: regardless of how the Senate ends up, I think we pull Lieberman out of EVERY committee assignment he has. We stick him in inconsequential and entirely domestic committees and subcommittees. Agriculture. That Little Tag On New Mattresses Subcommittee. That sort of thing.

Make Holy Joe painfully aware that, as long as he's a Senator caucusing with Democrats, he will never, ever, ever have access to a committee responsible in even a tangential way for Israel. He would be told to not even slow down and listen to Foreign Affairs or Defense hearings. He would be utterly impotent to affect how the Congress funds aid to Israel. Cooperates (or not) with Israeli Intelligence. Provides military equipment and assistance to the IDF.

My retribution for Holy Joe's perfidy? Make HIM make it clear why he's now caucusing with Republicans: because Israel is 100 times more important to him than Connecticut. Whom he at least nominally is supposed to represent.

Joe Klein Goes in the Tank...On The Side Of The Angels

2008-10-02T15:59:00.001-05:00

Coupled with Apology NOT Accepted Klein's latest piece completes a Klein rehabilitation for me. Best of all? It's in the "Dead Tree" version of Time. Non-blog trollers will see this one.

Cheating

2008-10-01T19:13:00.003-05:00

I'm going to make this an open thread (and no doubt will be mightily disappointed in reaction), but work, where we are trying DESPERATELY to save bonuses given the economic climate, my overall muted and somewhat depressed reaction to ideologues who'd rather ride the bomb down than turn the fucking plane around (a Dr. Strangelove reference):

and a general need to cater to every need and/or whim of the Wee Pedant have left me with a dearth of posting urge.

The Thrilla In Ole Missilla

2008-09-27T07:26:00.004-05:00

OK. Post-debate time.

First, my own opinion: It was a push, but a push is a win for the leader and that's Obama. Also, he pretty clearly showed that he has the cool and gravitas to run the country. I kept waiting for McCain to turn into McNasty, but I was disappointed that we didn't see Mt Saint Helens...more like Mauna Loa, a slow flow of anger and contempt from McCain, but it's getting general play.

Snap polls, with all the usual caveats, seem to be giving this one on points to Obama, despite my thinking.

On the other hand, this was (eventually) the foreign policy debate. If McCain can't take Obama on foreign policy, what IS he going to take him on? Economics? I just don't see it. And I expect the Palin/Biden debate to be nothing more than a train wreck after that Couric interview...sweet Jesus, I'm no longer certain English is that woman's first language.

If the last debate is economic and McCain continues to assert that the way to solve a 400 billion dollar deficit is to focus EXCLUSIVELY on 18 billion in earmarks he's gonna flunk Electoral Math.

Whenever I Hear...

2008-09-24T12:50:00.005-05:00

Whenever I hear a Republican say, "It's not a time to point fingers," in conjunction with a major crisis whether its Katrina or a financial meltdown on Wall Street, all I ever hear is, "Oh, God, we fucked up again! How on Earth are we gonna avoid having our noses well and truly rubbed in it THIS time?"

When I hear John McCain say, "The regulators were just not doing their jobs," I substitute, "Maybe if I make the right mouth noises, these rubes will forget that the reason the regulators let this happen is that for 14 years we Republicans have starved them of every resource both legal and monetary for doing their job, and have also spent the last 8 making it ABUNDANTLY clear that their ACTUAL job consisted of resolutely looking the other way."

When I hear Karl Rove say, "The McCain campaign has been a little worse about the lying," I hear, "Oh Holy Fuck...the man is lying like a rug! If he blows our fucking cover we might actually have to campaign on the merits of our policies and then we're REALLY screwed!"

Thank you. This has been an edition of Political Babel Fish.

To Keep NagMaster2000 Happy

2008-08-28T14:29:00.005-05:00

My MBTI:

Introverted (I) 61.76% Extroverted (E) 38.24%

Sensing (S) 51.52% Intuitive (N) 48.48%

Thinking (T) 83.33% Feeling (F) 16.67%

Judging (J) 56.25% Perceiving (P) 43.75%

ISTJ - "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time- honored institutions. Dependable. 11.6% of total population.

Take Free Jung Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

My Enneagram:

Enneagram Test Results

Type 1	Perfectionism	46%
Type 2	Helpfulness	30%
Type 3	Image Awareness	66%
Type 4	Sensitivity	40%
Type 5	Detachment	56%
Type 6	Anxiety	40%
Type 7	Adventurousness	43%
Type 8	Aggressiveness	86%
Type 9	Calmness	50%

Your main type is 8
Your variant is sexual

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Main type	Variant

Take Free Enneagram Personality Test
personality tests by similarminds.com

Pow, POW, P.O.W.!!!

2008-08-28T12:07:00.003-05:00

I was thinking recently about all the times that some dippy thing John McCain has said was defended with "Yes, John McCain insert gaffe here, but John McCain didn't have subject of gaffe for five and a half years....in prison!"

McCain is allegedly "reticent" about discussing his P.O.W. past. I'd hate to see what it would look like if he fucking felt like talking about it!!

Expertise vs. Judgement

2008-08-28T10:52:00.003-05:00

Since EnviroMom was chapping my ass about posting, here's the second post in a week. Now I have to think of something new to call her. "NagMaster2000" maybe?

So... for what it's worth...I was watching the convention last night and Joe Biden finally got to what I had been groping towards all this time regarding Obama. Bill Clinton may have said Obama was ready for the job, but what Joe Biden actually said in his speech was that Obama had always been ready for the job. By virtue of the fact that he makes good decisions and periodically revisits them to evaluate their appropriateness.

McCain has a greater history in the Senate, though his recent round of flip flops are hardly his first (his post-Keating re-invention as St. John The Maverick was the first) and they're worth noting. I think they will be. Joe Biden started the "more in sorrow than in anger" trope, and I expect that at some point the argument will develop into, "I can't believe what my old friend has begun saying because he's trying to please a corrupt and intellectually bankrupt Republican Party. Does he really believe that???"

So let's look at what "Bomb, Bomb Iran" John's legislative accomplishments have been recently. He opposes Lily Ledbetter (by supporting a Republican filibuster), because apparently pay discrimination is just fine as long as your victim can't figure out they're getting fucked within 180 days of getting their first paycheck. He was against Webb's GI Bill before he just didn't care enough to show up to vote one way or another before he decided to take credit for it in the Rose Garden. He was against torture before he was for letting Bush get away with a signing statement saying, "But torture is defined by the President at his sole discretion acting as Commander in Chief," so that St. John could get a photo-op with the Deciderator in the Rose Garden.

Basically, John McCain is very good at getting REALLY STUPID SHIT done. Frankly, I prefer incompetence in the service of idiocy, thank you very much.

In turn let us consider Obama. Negotiate with Iran with no preconditions? I work in marketing, so I've been part of more than a few negotiations. Let me tell you...if your precondition for even starting a negotiation is total capitulation from the other guy you're NOT NEGOTIATING. You're issuing an ultimatum. Phrased in the form of a negotiation offer so that people who are dumber than a bag of hammers can't figure out you're actually REJECTING any possibility of negotiation. "Fooling some of the people all of the time," leaps to mind here.

"I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to dumb wars"? Preach it, brother. I was an Army Officer, so pretty clearly I'm not opposed to all wars. But watching a bunch of kids who trust you to do the right thing by them get killed because some dumb fuck of a politician can't keep a hold of his fucking temper for 24 hours at a stretch? Not exactly what any of us signed up for.

Pragmatic free market philosophy in support of an egalitarian redistribution aimed at creating equal opportunity? Pretty much describes my philosophy: The economic purpose of the state is to keep capitalism and free markets from fucking it all up for themselves. Because the Good Lord knows that a 24 year old bond trader wondering where his next Ferrari is coming from is NOT who you want ensuring that capitalism doesn't shit where it lives.

I infinitely prefer judgement to expertise. Expertise can be acquired (or hired). Judgement you're born with. And John McCain doesn't have judgement. He has a seething mass of free floating anger waiting...just waiting...for someplace to light so he can engage in the next round of spastic shitheadedness.

McCain Seriously Loses His Shit

2008-08-22T21:12:00.006-05:00

I've been following St. John the Maverick's latest meltdown with some degree of genuine sorrow. After reading an article by an Arizona reporter who knew John McCain like Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose (of Shrub fame) knew Bush, I've come to the conclusion that St. John was never that saintly to begin with.

I knew, for example, that he had a temper. A bad one. What I didn't know was how thoroughly his personality has infused his campaign. Until this week.

See, as you may have heard St. John, who's been saying that Obama is elitist and out of touch, has apparently lost track of how many houses he owns. Which set off a storm.

Apparently, the Obama camp had been laying in wait for this one. They had all kinds of stuff ready to go, and the last couple weeks have as near as I can tell, been a big, Rope-A-Dope.

They've let McCain run "Elitist" ad after ad, and now, McCain walks into a punch and there's two ads out in 48 hours. Almost like they were hoping that he'd gaffe regarding wealth. Stringing it together with Phil Gramm's "whiners" comment and you have a one-two punch that hits McCain where he lives.

The McCain campaign response? It turns out, as you may not have known, that John McCain was a POW. So there!

Even the MSM has started to note that whenever McCain gets his ass in a crack he trots out "POW".

I think this may have been the plan all along. McCain, in his undisciplined way, runs amok all summer long, when no one is actually watching, while Obama keeps his powder dry. Knowing that at some point St. John will put his foot in it. And then won't be able to figure out how to handle it.

Which of course leads to the meta-question. If this guy can't keep his campaign on track for more than 3 days running without losing his shit, do you REALLY want his spastic ass in charge of the country for 4 years?

Unfortunately, I Kinda Thought So...

2008-07-28T15:46:00.004-05:00

But about the shooting in Tennessee, as it turns out this wasn't the usual incoherent nutjob.

When I heard this morning on the national news that some guy had shot up a church I thought, "Oh crap...here we go. The Christians will talk about how they're oppressed."

Then I heard that it was a Unitarian Universalist church that was the target of a Mr. Jim Adkisson, 53, and not being an ignorant agnostic my tune changed. The Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant can attest that I told her that I figured it was at least 60/40 that this guy was motivated by fundamentalist Christian impulses...and it looks as if I was right. At the very least I was mostly right, and I'll be SHOCKED if it doesn't turn out that this guy was into a fundamentalist church.

Jim Adkisson was apparently motivated by an unproductive job search and by rage against liberals, according to MSNBC.com. "It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," said Knoxville Police Department Chief Sterling Owen.

There've been some aspects in the wake of this that I find telling though. MSNBC.com's headline read, "Police: Killer Targeted Church for Liberal Views." CNN.com's reads, "Church Shooting Suspect Angry Over Job Search, Police Say." Hmmm, bias much?

In the last couple hours the link text but not the article headline has been changed to read, "Police: Shooting suspect mad over job, liberals" which at least indicates that a news organization that employs and coddles Glenn Beck has realized it might not want to appear to be glossing over a major component of the motive, despite having tried to gloss over a major part of the motive.

I also find it interesting that Googling "fundamentalist condemnation church shootings" produces this from Tony Perkins as the very first hit on Google, regarding the pity party Christian Fundies threw for themselves in the wake of the Colorado Springs shootings. Because, of course, everyone knows that after 7 years of Bush Christians have to meet in catacombs to avoid persecution by the government, rather than, say, running most of the government.

As for condemnation of the shootings over the weekend? "Your search - fundamentalist condemnation Tennessee shootings - did not match any documents."

I don't expect it ever will.

UPDATE: Now, not only are there still no Fundie condemnations but CNN and MSNBC, using the same AP wire story, have shaded it slightly differently. MSNBC.com contains this chilling quote: "Adkisson 'stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country,' investigator Steve Still wrote."

CNN.com omitted that little factoid from their version of the AP wire report.

CNN has seriously misplayed their hand. Long called "Clinton News Network" by the wingers, they apparently are trying to court conservatives, at a time when conservative self identification and affiliation with the Republican Party is falling. In the process, they aren't pleasing conservatives, for whom nothing less than full throated Fox News style Republican propagandism is acceptable, and they're now pissing off liberals in their attempt to get at the conservatives. And in order to do so, they're glossing over a conservative hatred of liberals so profound that shooting up a church full of children is OK, at least at the far margins of conservative thought.

They deserve the ratings crackup they're headed for.

McCain Tries For The Early Checkmate

2008-07-19T10:23:00.005-05:00

By revealing Obama's itinerary for travel in Iraq.

Joke's on him though, Obama landed in Afghanistan.

Either a) He's trying to get Obama killed before the white supremacists can get to the Democratic nominee or b) his campaign was complicit in a disinformation campaign.

Given that you get the same effect from not saying a goddamn thing as from planting false information...guess which one *I* think? Not that I think St. John the Divine did this; just one of his Repub Frat Boy Staffer types...the ones the Repub party is so thoroughly larded with these days.

Offered Without Further Comment

2008-07-18T13:49:00.002-05:00

George W. Bush Sewage Plant name is on ballot in San Francisco.

Republicans And Love Of Country

2008-06-30T21:55:00.003-05:00

Basically, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Obama is making a patriotism speech where basically he says that he won't let anyone impugn his patriotism.

Which McCain has, if not in so many words. Has the man never heard of the Intertubes?? He says outrageous shit and then simply denies he said it. This may be the first year in which YouTube is used more to debunk a lying politician than to check out Leeroy Jenkins.

OK. Plug your ears and lock up the kids. I'll wait...

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH REPUBLICANS?!?!?!?

Seriously.

Did you somehow become fucking convinced that only YOU love your Country(TM)? News flash assholes, not only do you NOT have a monopoly on loving America, I'm still not convinced that upwards of 90% of you ACTUALLY love America. Sean Hannity dry humping the country (and one sort of envisions that happening to Florida...like a little rat dog humping a leg) notwithstanding, what Republicans ACTUALLY do is TALK about loving America.

I'm going to give you a little hint. Republicans (in the main) don't love America, they love themselves. The reason they spend so much time talking about loving America is that they figure that America is the country most likely to allow them to love themselves with the least amount of interruption or inconvenience. If another country, say Albania, made them a better offer...they'd be on a plane in a second, all those country and western songs notwithstanding.

How can I say this? Simple. If, when discussing taxes, your first words about taxes are something on the order of, "It's MY money, how dare they tell me what to do with it," you love yourself.

If you are terribly concerned with a terrorist attack on American soil...putting YOU at risk...without regard to whether an attack is an existential threat to the country? You love yourself.

Are you concerned with what "Teh Gay" is doing to our moral fabric (LINK WARNING: Shower before and after clicking on the link)...mainly because it makes you feel icky (or even worse, vaguely titillated)? You love yourself.

Basically, what we have is a group of people who are like an abusive boyfriend. As long as America puts out, in whatever kinky way these Republicans want it to, they'll let America occasionally go out to the mall or see friends. If the bitch crosses them though? She'll be sorry.

So spare me your patriotic chest thumping. Go play with a tub of butter or something and leave those of us who actually care about her take her to the ER and have the broken bones looked at.

Best Line Ever

2008-06-16T12:40:00.002-05:00

In the spirit of Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World", I am instituting a "Best Line Ever" topic...hyperbole, since I intend to periodically find one. The criteria is simply that it strikes me as insightful and funny all at once.

As a result, Best Line Ever today goes to hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. She was writing about the rather foolish notion that Obama could be our first woman prez, a la Bill Clinton as our first black prez. She notes that both are absurd...Bill is NOT black and Obama, barring some radical hormone therapy and surgery is not and never will be female.

But then she gets to the good part. In noting that the reason to consider Obama feminine is to contrast that with Our Current Idiot Manchild's style of governance. She then writes, "If I truly thought that masculinity was anything like the sneering, bullying caricature that people try to foist off on us every four years at about this time, I'd either take a vow of celibacy right now or spend some serious effort trying to discover whether it's possible to become gay by sheer force of will."

Best Line Ever.

Can Someone Please Tell Me Why

2008-06-12T12:08:00.004-05:00

given this monstrosity:

Why oh why shouldn't I be allowed to burn out all of Fox News' Studios, scatter their so-called journalists to the four winds of permanent exile and then salt the earth?

Shall We Play A Game?

2008-06-02T20:17:00.002-05:00

For those of you, like the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant, who are too freaking young, that refers to this:

It's also a brief look back at those halcyon days of the early 80s, when we could count on our adversary acting in their own rational self-interest, for what it's worth. But rather than Global Thermonuclear War, I'd like to talk about avoiding Democratic Thermonuclear War.

Hillary's campaign has put out internal guidance to not plan any further appearances after Wednesday's speech in front of AIPAC. While the Clintonites were quick to say that this was by no means the end, I think we all know it's the end. As I've stated before, Hillary pushes this past tomorrow and she'll be luck to run unopposed in the NY Senatorial campaign. Hell, she pushes much past tomorrow and I'll give money to her opponent for Chappaqua DOGCATCHER if she decided to run for THAT.

So what the fuck (that's for you, Really Mad Professor) IS she up to?

Let's play a game. Let's call this game, "Hillary wants to be a Veep." God alone knows why, but let's suppose. She's misplayed her hand up to this point in my opinion, but lord knows Bill is undisciplined enough to be a one man gaffe factory if this is actually her goal. This by the way assumes, not without some degree of justification, that some of the Hillary staffers look more to Bill than her (by the way; NOT because of sexism...by all reports Bill has BY FAR the fouler temper).

So here we have a goal, "Become the Veep," not entirely supported by the tactics of the Clinton Campaign, but not conclusively obviated by it, and a means: "Come in a close second, with an option to drag everything down with her." Not historically unprecedented.

Now, it is possible that Hillary can deliver the cracker vote (aka, Voters So Far Back Up In The Hills They Have To Import Daylight) to Obama. And he needs it, at least the Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania versions thereof. Because while he can (and SHOULD) craft an Intermountain West Strategy (the Democrats version of a 40-Years-Later "Southern Strategy"...a way to pick off traditionally Republican votes cheesed off by the current incarnation of their party) and put states like Colorado in play (way to go EnviroMom...and yes, you have your own blog-du-plume now that I have decided to file all the serial numbers off all your IDs out there)...it's mathematically "fun" to work out how he wins the Electoral College. Best to avoid the whole exercise and BURY the Sons'a'Bitches in November. Hillary CAN help there, I believe.

Maybe that's her motive, but just in case, perhaps Obama should pull her aside. And now, let's pretend we can put words into his mouth:

"Hillary, I need you as VP. It heals a party divided, and moves quickly to uniting the country. But let me be perfectly clear. I will be the President. The first time we have a policy disagreement and I read about a leak that even THEORETICALLY can be linked to the Vice-President's office? You will spend the rest of your days in the Old Executive Office Building waiting for somebody semi-notable to die so you can do SOME kind of job. There will be NO reprieve from the Siberia I put you in. You will write The Gulag Archipelago Two before I let you so much as watch a Cabinet Meeting on CNN. Just so we're clear."

I don't think she wants the job. I think she wants to finish out the whole primary season so she can say, "A woman went the distance and damn near won." Hell, if that's what she says sometime this week or next, I take back every nasty thing I've said about her, because she'd be right. But as long as we're playing games...

How about a nice game of Chess?

For God's Sake, Can We Just CALM DOWN?

2008-05-25T10:55:00.004-05:00

The primary season's waning days have me thinking.

Well, that, and a raft of what one hopes are misstatements and the rantings of out of control staffers coming from the Clinton Campaign. Let me preface all this by saying, the reason the somewhat unhinged statements are coming from Sen. Clinton's and not Sen. Obama's campaign are twofold. First, she's lost and both she and her supporters know this; the difference being that some of her supporters seem unwilling to...well, see the title. Second, she has Bill on her campaign, and while Bill was an excellent President, his will to win regardless of cost actually exceeds hers and because he has a sense of grievance exceeded only in some Republican circles which seems to have taken hold. Thus he's lunging around like an untethered cannon on the HMS Victory. (Just click the freaking link...I can't be you guys SOLE source for unwarrantedly obscure military history)

Let's start with Hillary And The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. As reported in the New York Times Blog, it seems as if Hillary really wasn't, you know, suggesting someone might do what hundreds of white supremacist's have expressed an interest in doing. Nevertheless, as Olbermann points out: for the love of GOD, you invoked Kennedy's assassination to justify staying in the race, even tangentially? Are you nuts?!?

This may be what takes her down. The only way she walks back from this, frankly, is to go through June third, and then bow out. There's no way she ends up with a Veep shot after Friday. Not that that seems to have been her idea. And if she pushes this thing all the way to the convention, the highest office she'll ever hold will be senior senator from NY. She gets out of the race and stays out after June third, maybe she gets majority leader, maybe she gets plum committee chairs, maybe she gets a shot at the White House again in 2016 or if the Dem's (god forbid) lose this year, in 2012.

But the only way she has a play this year, at this point, is to deliberately upset the applecart. I don't know if the excitement lately has been with or without her consent (with Bill it seems to have been without), but the RFK comment clinched it. RFK, Jr. can excuse her. The party can't. Either she or Obama lose in this of all years after she does something like that and she'll be lucky if she's allowed to run unopposed in the NY Senatorial Primary in 2012.

Now, let's go to the great "sexism" debate. Look, I get it. I may have a penis, but I know a lot of women, and the ones who are Hillary supporters want this to be about sexism, rather than say...she ran a crappy campaign or she has negatives out the wazoo. Hillary's in trouble because of sexism. Therefore, people who don't vote for Hillary are doing it out of sexism.

Only thing is, you can make the exact same argument for Obama and racism. In other words, if you accuse those who never preferred Hillary of sexism, then if you never preferred Obama it's because you're a racist. You simply cannot have it both ways.

People don't vote for Hillary for a lot of reasons: because 20 years of Bushes and Clintons is enough (my personal reason), because with regard to obsessive secrecy she's second only to George W Bush, because you don't particularly trust her word (Mrs. Pedant's reason), or possibly because you're sexist. It could be any NUMBER of reasons, only ONE of which is sexism.

And finally, for the argument that sexism is worse that racism in this country, I have to say, I have no freaking idea. To me, it seems like an argument about whether drowning or burning is a worse way to die. For the love of god, they're both horrible. Trying to parse out which one is marginally viler is ridiculous. I suspect that women think sexism is worse, blacks think racism is worse, black women no doubt split about equally on which is worse and black lesbians KNOW that homophobia is worse than either sexism or racism. Who CARES?

I do understand. There are a lot of women who want a woman president for what are blatantly obvious reasons. Some of them are old enough and smart enough to figure that the odds of getting another woman candidate before they die are greatly lessened if Obama gets the nomination and wins. After all, if he wins, it's 2016 before another woman runs (since if he wins he is the nominee in 2012 so win or lose in 2012 the next time a woman has a shot is 2016 because it will be a LONG FREAKING TIME before the Repub's run a woman rather than a white dude), and who other than Hillary is available in the short term? So it's "OMFG, Hillary's a victim of sexism and Obama would never be where he is unless he were black." Which argument, by the way, is as foolish as saying OJ got off because he was black (true story...I once heard a guy say that)...all those whites disproportionately jailed proves that theory. (Hint, that's SARCASM.)

Let's put it this way...until the 2004 convention, only Illinois residents knew about Obama. I can think of a couple female governors and senators that might run well off the top of my head. What do you think the odds are that someone somewhere we haven't even HEARD of can come out in 2016 and make a run? Because I want a woman president someday soon. I'd like to point the Wee Pedant to a real flesh and blood figure.

I'd just prefer that the flesh and blood female President I point to not get impeached for the high handed way she continued the Bush secrecy fetish while alienating half the country with her "win at all costs" public style.

Sex and the Unitary Executive

2008-04-24T20:43:00.003-05:00

Well, THAT got your attention.

OK, now that I have proven my marketing expertise with the equivalent of "Live Nude Girls" at the header, let's discuss what I alluded to in a previous post: ways in which to contain an out of control President from within his (or her) term.

First, let us dispense with, as my brother assumes, the ability of Congress to send out the Sergeant At Arms and arrest persons who display Contempt of Congress. While IN THEORY this might be effective, in practice...not so much. Any attempt to arrest, say Karl Rove or John Yoo to make them testify about who exactly gave the order to fire the US Attorneys, or what exactly was the expression on Dick Cheney's face when he ordered people tortured (glee, unbridled malice or some combination of both), would of necessity run up against either the FBI (Justice Department) or the Secret Service (Treasury Department) or both.

While a running gun battle between an aging federal pensioner and some FBI HRT gunslinger might be amusing (in a morbid curiosity sense) the obvious outcome to the standoff is...a trip to the Supreme Court. With the Justice Department lawyers (answerable to the EXECUTIVE branch) as Congress's lawyers. Yeah, I'm willing to bet they'll get RIGHT on that case...

And the Supreme's, who last bestirred themselves to alacrity in Gore v. Bush, will no doubt be inclined to let the lower courts have their way first. At length. For ten or fifteen years.

This is not a solution. It's a very long running Abbot and Costello routine ("Who's sued first?" "Exactly!")

Let us also dispense with, "Waiting until the bastard is voted out." Bush has shown us, among all the OTHER things he's done (signing statements, signing bills with Takesie-Backsies, claiming CinC powers confer the ability to not have to even listen when everyone around you says your idea is the dumbest fucking thing to come down the pike since Prohibition), exactly how QUICKLY you can pack the Voting Rights Office with Young Republican Lawyers of the opinion that Blacks and Poor Folk have NO voting rights.

Makes it kinda hard to elect Democrats when two groups routinely shat upon by Republicans can't, y'know, actually VOTE. Eventually God-Emperor McCain or Romney or whoever the hell it is will, like Gaius Octavian Caesar before him, decide to dispense with the troublesome need to even PRETEND to go through an election.

Now, and this is IMPORTANT because I don't want to wade through emails (all three of them) saying, "That's unconstitutional," what I am about to suggest will require amendments, because I must, perforce, screw with the current constitutional balances BY DEFINITION.

One: If Congress is to have the "Power of the Purse" then they need to have the fucking Power of the Purse. CONGRESS should set Department internal budgets, rather than giving the Executive the power to slosh one big honking wad of tax dollars around any way he sees fit within the 13 Appropriations Bills Congress approves. The goddamn President doesn't need a line item veto...CONGRESS does.

If they want to defund Iraq, under this scheme, then they just line out all the requests related to Iraq and the President can't shitcan all VA benefits to then restore funding for Iraq. This one, is at least arguably constitutional. The Constitution is pretty much silent on internal budgets for the various Departments of the Executive.

Not so much for my next suggestion, phrased in the form of a question: Why, in the name of Beelzubub's Big Brass Balls, is the JUSTICE Department part of the Executive Branch rather than the JUDICIAL Branch? Yes, yes. I know: "The President shall ensure that the laws be well and faithfully executed."

Is it the Framer's fault that we elected a Texan, who judging by the number of inmates he sent to "Ol' Sparky" while he was the Governor, has one, and ONLY one, definition of "executed"? Well, no.

But since Bush has shown us what it looks like, I think maybe we should take the lawyers in charge of enforcing laws governing the Executive away from an Executive who thinks laws controlling the Executive are an annoyance, rather than say, the only thing differentiating us from Zimbabwe...now that we eighty-sixed the whole, "Doesn't attach electrodes to political prisoner's balls," thing.

Yes, the Supreme's are annoying. But there's NINE of them. With about as much common purpose as a room full of cats. Plus one loud rabid nutjob of a dog, whose name rhymes with Frito. Seriously, even most of the conservative nutjobs at least care about the law, except for Thomas who, judging by how active he is on the bench during oral arguments, is mainly interested in a NAP, and Frito, I mean Alito, who's mainly interested in how many different ways you can screw the country while remaining at least arguably within the framework of the Constitution. Kinda sorta. If you squint just right.

That still leaves seven people who care about the rule of law. Who might receive a contempt of Congress citation without viewing it as another in a long series of opportunities to expand Executive authority without regard for the other two branches. Or reason. Or decency. Or anything other than an overwhelming desire for power. Unlimited, unfettered, unequaled remorseless force.

That one does require an amendment. And a respect for the principle of good government. Which is why it'll never happen.

Ahhhhh!

2008-04-03T19:39:00.001-05:00

Dear GOD, I am glad Fafblog is back.

Back...Kinda Sorta...But I Am In Good Company

2008-04-01T15:56:00.004-05:00

Back, after an extended hiatus that mainly consisted of perfecting diaper changes on the Wee Pedant. Seriously. When she turns sixteen and we have an argument and I tell her she's full of shit, I will know what I am talking about.

So I am back. And as it turns out, I'm not the only only one back. Yes! Fafblog has returned! Let the rejoicing commence.

Brief pause while I let the joyous news sink in.

Now I can commence the rant that's been building for many a week. Let's start with something the Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant is fond of saying, "Those Founding Fathers were geniuses."

No. No they weren't. Do you know how I know? George W. Bush. And not the way you're thinking. I am sure that they knew that second rate (and third rate) men would occupy office. Hell, half of them THOUGHT the other half were second rate men.

No. It is this: George Bush in his abuse of Executive Authority has in NO WAY clearly violated the Constitution. Sure, his (or Dick Cheney's) interpretation of "Commander In Chief" powers is, shall we say, generous...but his seeming conviction that he was elected God-Emperor of the US is not inconsistent with what Alexander Hamilton was pushing for back in 1787. He hasn't tried to eliminate the Congress...just completely and utterly ignore it. And there's nothing in the Constitution that requires him to pay any attention to Congress.

"But what about 'Checks and Balances'?" I hear you say. Let's look at the "checks" to unfettered Executive power. The Supreme Court? Yeah, maybe, except that we'll probably have colonies on Mars before that collection of egos first hears and then rules on any cases of Executive abuse. If they decide to punt it back to a Circuit Court first because the original ruling was missing a dotted "i" we could be looking at Alpha Centauri before there's a ruling. The Executive branch can do something tomorrow, the Judicial branch takes forever. The court is not capable of being a check on the Executive because the repair takes too long.

Congress. Yeah. Congress wields the "Power Of The Purse". And that, my friends, is ALL Congress wields. Subpoena? Not if the Justice Department doesn't want to enforce it, as they have refused to do on a Contempt Of Congress cite on Karl Rove. Testimony? Oversight? Not likely. (See above, Rove, Karl, Asshole, One Each)

Let's take a hypothetical, say, highly unpopular not to mention strategically disastrous war in Southwest Asia. Congress can stop that war ONLY BY CUTTING OFF ALL MONEY TO THE MILITARY ENTIRELY. Make no mistake. The Executive allocates money within the Defense Department. If Congress were to "defund" Iraq tomorrow, the ONLY thing that would happen is say, all military dependant dental care would get canceled or something like that. Unless Congress cuts off ALL money to the military the Deciderator can just shuffle funds from something else in the DoD and drive on his merry way in Iraq, like some modern Caesar hellbent on over-extending the Legions.

The "Check" Congress wields is FAR too blunt an instrument to stop a President like Idiot Boy, willing to basically say "Fuck You" to every consensual limit on his power.

George Bush has shown us a festering gaping SORE in the basic structure of our Government. Namely, that the Executive Branch has all the available moves.

I have some thoughts on this, but would like to hear comments first.

Fuck The Clarifications

2008-02-20T18:09:00.004-06:00

You might be aware that Michelle Obama is "Proud" or "Really Proud" of her country for the first time in her adult life. The right wing blogs and Faux have been having a fake rage-gasm over the quote. Let me say...officially...if you don't agree with her you haven't been fucking paying attention the last thirty years.

To explain, let's go back to when she turned 18, in fact let's even make the poor woman older and go allllllll the way back to 1968. For presidents, Michelle has watched, in chronological order: a Malignant Tumor, an Ineffectual Well-Meaning Sop, an Amiable Moron, a Bloodless Technocrat, a Smarmy Morals Challenged But Competent Letch and a Not-Very-Amiable Vindictive Incompetent Uber-Moron. Hell, with that rogues gallery it's the first time I'm proud of my country and I wasted four years defending it so that the KGB couldn't listen to our phone conversations without warrants and send citizens to the Gulag to be tortured without due process. Oh, wait...

I'm beginning to understand why all those Boomers get their panties wet whenever they talk about JFK or RFK. Obama actually inspires me to do something more than shop. Had 9/11 occurred under Obama, I'm willing to bet he would have asked us all to something noble. Not to go out shopping prop up an economy he'd spent the last nine months badmouthing in an attempt to justify tax cuts he'd already decided on.

Frankly, the latest two minute hate is all the right wing in this country has left. Intellectually bankrupt, all they can do is impugn the patriotism or sanity of anyone opposing them. As someone said on a blog (and I really don't feel like digging it up, so just take my word for it), if you spend all your time implying that 45% of the country aren't really Americans, eventually that 45% is going to get really pissed off. And you don't win elections by needing to get 90% plus one of all the votes left available to you.

The only thing Obama could do that would make me prouder is flying down to Guantanamo immediately after his inauguration, personally setting off the charges that blow the prison there sky high and then remanding those responsible to the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague starting with Cheney (if possible) and Rumsfeld (without fail). Rumsfeld can stand up all the way there.

Voter Fraud Detected in WI. Right Wing Outrage Machine...Well...OUTRAGED

2008-02-20T17:48:00.004-06:00

Turns out there's photographic evidence that a slightly underaged voter in Wisconsin went to the polls yesterday:

If you look carefully just above the grassy knoll you'll detect an "I Voted" sticker. Clearly, this is evidence of massive voter fraud that must be addressed immediately. I understand that Red State and Michelle Malkin are, as we speak, rifling through my garbage looking for evidence that the Wee Pedant cast a ballot for the lieberal Demoncrat Barack Jihad Hussein Osama Obama.

Won't they be surprised when all they find is used diapers from the aforementioned Wee Pedant and used litter from Furperson Cat Pedant's litterbox?

Don't eat it it Michelle. :-)

Welcome To The Jungle

2008-02-14T16:02:00.002-06:00

You might have heard. We're having a primary here next week. I know, big surprise, huh?

By all accounts it's Obama's to lose, at least here, and Hillary has "gone negative". I'm at work and our IT department has cut us off from YouTube (due to bandwidth considerations) so I can't link to the ad but go poke around TPM or Yglesia's site, in fact let me do it for you. Here or here.

If that's a negative ad, I'm a cossack. What THAT is, is an attempt by the Clinton campaign to get some free airtime here in beer, brat n' cheddar paradise. Clinton is shedding campaign staffers faster than a Las Vegas stripper. She's writing herself 5 million dollar loans. People. Candidates do these things when they're in trouble.

Her best bet is to win Texas and Ohio. But, particularly according to Obama's folks, she'd have to CRUSH him in those states, given the Dem proportional allocation plan. Like 60-40 splits. There's a candidate who's gotten those splits, but it wasn't her. Even in California the margin was more like 55-45 and that was her best showing to date.

So, now what? She's got one hope: keep it close enough in pledged delegates that she can pick enough superdelegates up to take the nomination. Ideally without having to start a floor fight about seating Michigan and Florida...though she might try that if she's close in the pledged delegates and thinks enough supers would back her. Ideally, she is losing badly enough after Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio that the "party elders" like Reid, Pelosi and Dean sit her down and explain that she needs to back down for the good of the party and not push for the supers to bail her out. Maybe a Senate Majority Leader nod from Reid when the time comes will put her over the edge into accepting defeat.

That doesn't look like it's going to happen, though these things have been known to change. Next best is for Obama to have enough of a lead that the supers would feel uncomfortable just ignoring it. I don't know what that number is. 100 or less is probably not enough. 300 or more would be more than enough. So I'll say 200.

Obama goes into Denver with a 200 pledged delegate lead, Hillary counts noses among the supers, comes up short and takes herself out, maybe with as little as a primetime speech but she might angle for the aforementioned Majority Leader position (and wouldn't THAT frost the Repubs ass...female Speaker, female Majority Leader, Black President and---let's assume he picks Richardson as a veep---a Hispanic Vice-President...eat THAT "Heritage Not Hate" Southern-cracker Repubs). That's second best.

Third best is Hillary goes into Denver with enough pledged delegates that the supers aren't obviously ignoring the electorate. Hillary gets the nod and heads into the general with maybe Obama as veep, or maybe not, maybe Obama turns on Illinois as a governor to position himself in 4 to 8 years.

Hillary as the nominee is third best because she energizes McCain's base and frees him to run to the middle, as opposed to catering to the flat-earth, all torture all the time-types on the lunatic fringe, which is what he'd have to do contra-Obama. Yes, I know Obama is ACTUALLY more reliably liberal than Hillary, except for Krugman's weird one-issue Universal Healthcare obsession. For the record, universal health care is important. Just not MORE IMPORTANT than our overseas image, our economic health and our environmental balance COMBINED. (Yes, Krugman's attacks are more widespread, but it started because Obama wasn't doing what Krugman wanted done on healthcare). But he isn't SEEN that way. In this, he IS Reaganesque. He can be on a wing and not SEEM to be on the wing.

Worst is if Hillary JUST ekes out enough delegates to seat Michigan and Florida through the argument that those two states are too important in the general election to dis at the convention. Which by the way, is utter bullshit. Michigan's econo-woes are too awful to go Repub and between the Crackers and Batistasitas...I mean Cuban-Americans...I think Florida goes R no matter what. So who gives a flying monkey whether they're seated...makes no difference in the end. Except. Except. *I* have given serious thought to sitting out the election if Hillary pulls that stunt. How many independants, blacks and young voters go to McCain or sit it out if Hillary pulls that stunt?

And that's always been the nasty smelly underside of Hillary's main strength. She'll do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to win the contest she's in AT THE MOMENT. Let the future take care of itself. If she does that, and then tanks in the general in a year when we should win in a walk, that's it. I'll vote in Republican primaries for the least bad option and sit out the generals. Because if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this of all years, then the Democratic party needs to cease to exist, and be replaced with something worthwhile.

I don't think that happens though. I think option 2 is much more likely. I think Obama heads to Denver with enough of a lead that the Clinton's count noses and realize they've come up short. But there's always SOMEthing in the jungle waiting to chew your face off. So watch and wait.

So Exactly Who Won Super Duper Tuesday?

2008-02-06T13:44:00.000-06:00

Hard to say. Let's start with, "No one sealed the deal," and look a tad deeper. Hillary won California, but that state is hard to move once it gets going in one direction or another, and her NH win probably provided at least 5 points of momentum alone.

But at Washington Monthly blog I find this: "It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night's delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton."

So he won. Except that many superdelegates seem to be breaking for Clinton. So she actually has about a 60 delegate lead. Who are superdelegates? I could tell you but then I'd have to ice my wrist for carpal tunnel, so instead I'll let Josh Marshall explain them.

Bottom line? This fucker may well go TO THE CONVENTION...it is more than feasible that neither Obama nor Clinton will sew it up before or even after the last primary, thanks to proportional representation and the (currently) about 500 uncommitted superdelegates, though Obama is making noises in speeches about the lack of wisdom on the part of superdelegates in contravening the expressed preference of the Democratic Polity: "Those super delegates will have to think long and hard about who they'll support because the people they represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"

Now on the one hand, damn. That's some cold-blooded threatening. "Fail to support me, and who knows...your constituents might put horse head in your bed sometime." And then I got to thinking. That quote makes me support him more. The one thing I've known about Hillary is that she'll put the knife in and SMILE while she's doing it. We're going to need that. (That she would throw the right into spastic paroxysms of rage and impotence in addition is a feature not a bug, in my opinion.)

And Obama just showed he can play hardball too. "Want to seat those Florida and Michigan delegates? Go ahead and try...but if you fail, and I get the nomination, I. Will. Fuck. You. Up."

Good for him. We're going to need that. Hillary always could supply that cold steely resolve, and I guess Barack can too.

So let the games commence. As long as we can keep it as civil as those California Debates, and as substantive as anything moderated by Tim Russert is allowed to be, we're going to end up looking like the "Grownups' Party" rather than the "Commie-Pinko Party." And if we're seen as the grownups, we win. Period. Eight years of Idiot Manchild is MORE than enough.

Why Obama?

2008-01-29T20:02:00.000-06:00

It's going to come as no surprise to those who read this blog (and thus know me) that I am an Obama supporter. I am, in fact, fairly enthusiastic about him, which bodes well for him should he get the nomination. I have a fairly good track record when it comes to victory IF the DemocratIC (that's Democratic, NOT Democrat, you asshole conservatives) Party nominates the guy I liked in the primaries. I liked Carter, I liked Clinton and I like Obama. When the guy I like DOESN'T get the nod, the Dems lose.

So, victory likelihood aside, why Obama? Why not (Hillary) Clinton? I liked her husband, even if, on a personal note, he never got past being the Band Geek, and thus when some free pussy threw itself at him, he had no discernible self-control at a time when he KNEW (not suspected, KNEW) they really were out to get him? I liked him for the reasons he was a pretty decent President; when it came to policy he wasn't doctrinaire, he had a great campaign presence which was sorely needed in the post-Reagan era, his basic ideas about where the country needed to go were spot on. And the country delivered in spades. Longest peacetime expansion. Huge wealth engine. A rising tide that actually DID lift all the boats. That latter is, perhaps, the main reason the right hated him so. He did everything they said would be disastrous and he succeeded. I don't think they ever forgave him for not putting the economy in the tank like they said he would.

But I'm NOT supporting his wife. Why? Maybe she leaves me cold. I dunno. I do know this. After the campaign between Kerry and Bush in 2004 I realized something.

I'm sick and fucking TIRED of the baby boomers dragging our collective asses into their god damned psychodrama. EVERYTHING revolves around who went to Vietnam and who didn't. Who supported the war and who didn't. Who was a dirty fucking hippie and who was a drunken fucking fratboy.

I'm NOT a damned boomer, but thanks to these self-absorbed assholes and their constant need to fight and refight and re-refight the central conflict of the sixties (counter-culture vs. button-down) in all it's multifaceted glory, I get to watch, get sucked in, have to deal with their inability to MOVE THE FUCK ON. That's the change Obama offers. It's the fucking subtext of ALL his speeches, "Aren't you sick and tired of all this hyper-partisan warfare fucking it all up for the rest of us?"

Yes, yes, I am. I realize that the culture war won't end, ever, because every generation has its issues. Personally, if a cancer plague killed every single registered Republican painfully over the next month, I wouldn't shed a tear. But at least that's MY issue. Not some aging Aquarian's need to prove HE (or she) was RIGHT about; drugs, Vietnam, the need to "Burn Baby Burn", sell out and move up, or any of that shit. At least my issues are my issues, not the belted up, bitter baggage of someone who's old enough to have seen the premiere of "Hair".

THAT'S why Obama. Clinton, Bush, they're all just fucking boomers, trying to make us live in the world they want to make. Fuck that. This is the dawning of the Age Of Shut The Fuck Up And Finally Grow Old Gracefully, Or ELSE! Vote for someone who doesn't care what you did in '68. Since what I did in '68 was mainly refuse to take my afternoon nap, I've had it with you people.

Friday Random Thoughts

2008-01-18T12:16:00.000-06:00

Much blogging has not been occurring because the Wee Pedant gets up in the middle of the night selfishly insisting on feedings and then processing said feedings directly into diapers. Even with Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant running interference during the week, I lack energy.

But instead of ONE long and scatological diatribe, you get many. Shall we start?

Turns out the White House, in direct contravention of laws requiring them to maintain records of emails (and as they've been told now, not to circumvent oversight by using RNC email accounts) has been destroying (or rather "recycling") email tapes and thousands and thousands of emails by writing over the tapes. Spokesman Tony Fratto (and is there ANYone who sounds more like a character from The Godfather available?) has replied, "We have no reason to believe that there is any data missing at all [from White House computer servers], and we've certainly found no evidence of any data missing." Of course you can't find evidence that data is missing, you pinhead. You fucking DESTROYED it!

In other words, since we destroyed the data, you can't prove we destroyed the data, therefore we didn't destroy the data. Shorter White House? Succeeding at it is a valid defense for obstruction of justice.

What else have I been following? That whole Navy warship/Highly threatening Iranian speedboats controversy. The Bushies tried to get their war on over this until...well, read for yourself. Apparently Iran's protestations of innocence may be, ummmm, accurate. And Idiot Manchild's characterization of the incident as unusual and provocative? Not so much.

What's my point? It used to be in incidents like this you knew who to believe. The US had the straight scoop and the the third-world generalissimo making grandiose claims was full of shit. This is what the Deciderator has done. In a he said/he said standoff, I genuinely don't know whether to believe the US or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. Let THAT sink in for a sec. Course, given what's gone on in the last seven years, calling Bush a third-world generalissimo probably isn't that inaccurate.

Lastly...recession? Probably. Bush's reaction? Entirely (and tediously) predictable. For those of you who never click links AND have the IQ of a lump of granite, the prescription is....(drum roll please)...TAX CUTS! Ta Da.

The Wee Pedant Has Landed

2007-12-31T18:04:00.000-06:00

The wee one herself:

The lovely and (obviously) talented Mrs. Pedant spent about 15 hours in labor, most of it spent NOT swearing like a longshoreman. I leave the balance of the time to your no doubt fertile imaginations.

So You Say This Is (War On) Christmas...

2007-12-22T08:34:00.000-06:00

Let's start with this. As an Ex-military guy, if you say "War On..." I feel that I need to see bodies. If you can't show me the bodies, you can't call it a war. The "War on Drugs" at least qualifies due in no small part to trigger happy cops. The "War On Christmas"...unless there has been a rash of drive-bys on Mall Santas that has gone mysteriously unreported...not so much.

So, as Rogers points on in the excellent post I Saw You Looking At Agnosticism's Ass, Christianity and Christians have been acting awfully needy lately. Co-dependant clingy needy. "Girlfriend you're really starting to think about dumping, if only because of all the neediness," needy.

Now, and work with me here, EVERY major candidate for President and the vast, vast majority of the MINOR ones...the ones who can say whatever the fuck pops into their pointy little heads because it just doesn't matter (I'm looking at you, Ron "Fiat Money" Paul)...spend a considerable amount of time dry humping an altar somewhere hoping that a photographer will come by and take a picture of them fellating the Jesus on a Cross so that they can establish their "Good Christian" bona fides. Somehow, I just don't think your average Atlanta-area Megachurch-goer is in all that much danger of having the place raided by preatorians and getting their asses thrown into the gladiatorial pits.

So why "War On Christmas"? Well, we can start with the rise of Faux News, who needed to fill 24 hours a day with conservative friendly drool. Telling people that they're wonderful because they hate taxes only lasts so long. A producer looking to hand red meat to the right wings can't help but notice that, first, despite the power they wield they LOVE to feel sorry for themselves, and second, a shitload of them self-identify as good Christian Churchgoers.

So once again, I have to sit here and listen to this self-righteous drivel from folks who reply to "Happy Holidays" with a pointed "Merry Christmas". Hey, asshole, if you wanted to SAY "Fuck You" at least have the balls to actually say it. I say Happy Holidays interchangeably with Merry Christmas (more on that later) for one reason ONLY. I am a LAZY asshole. "Happy Holidays" is just easier than "Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah, Happy New Year and a very festive crapload of minor holidays centered around the Winter Solstice for some suspicious reason."

Which leads me to why I, a notorious agnostic (what can I say, it's a really cute ass), have no problem with Merry Christmas. You want "war on christmas"? Here it comes. As far as I'm concerned "Christmas" is just the latest name for the Solstice Holiday, and any excuse to get together with family and eat myself round is a Good Thing (cf., Thanksgiving), but the lewt is bonus. Plus it's nice to be reminded that while there is two more months of snow and sleet and all other manner of white shit followed by a month of freaking mud and dirty slush, there will in fact be another summer (which is loaded with mosquitoes and insane humidity...I can be a little discontented...really I like Autumn, give me a good Harvest Festival any day of the week). You've gotten your crappy religion all over my tasty solstice celebration.

Everyone is kinda certain that Christmas is simply the heir of the Saturnalia and various other pagan festivals. Let me suggest something FAR MORE subversive:
Easter and Passover have their roots in pagan rebirth and renewal legends and celebrations. Christ is Dead, Christ Is Risen? The sparing of the Jews from Matt Damon...I mean the Angel of death? Pretty standard really. Judaism isn't even unique in it's insistence that there is only one god.

You want war? The central tenets of your faith are eminently predictable sequalae of preceding cultural beliefs.

Happy Holidays.

Huck YOU!

2007-12-17T18:51:00.000-06:00

Via Kevin Drum I see that it turns out that the Deciderderator was using the Constitution for toilet paper MUCH earlier than previously thought. 9/11 wasn't the initiator of warrantless wiretapping so much as a wonderful post hoc pretext.

Ya know, I really should feel more betrayed by this this. But the Bush Administration has never failed to live down to my worst expectations and then some. If I didn't know better, I'd think it's all a vast performance art piece entitled, "You get the government your ignorant, logic hating ass deserves."

In fact, in the last few days I've been reading about increasing levels of, chagrin is too mild a word, let us say "pants wetting paroxysms" concerning Mike Huckabee. My personal favorite comes from John Cole's Balloon Juice, a right wing blog that has become a left wing blog because it turns out that a)Mr. Cole has some level of intellectual integrity and b)the Man really is out to fuck you up. He links to Andrew Sullivan, Ace of Spades (!) (the link is to Sullivan's link...I have SOME standards about how I pollute my eyeballs, thank you very much), Dan Riehl, Captain Ed, and of all people Peggy "Extreme Unctuousness" Noonan.

My favorite two bits:

I simply can not tell you how much I am enjoying this. The GOP has been pandering to these stupid bastards for years, and every time I pointed it out I was called “anti-Christian” or something or other. Those of us who saw what the party was becoming were told to shut up, that it was good politics.

Enjoy your new GOP, folks. And here is something else to think about- are the evangelicals going to support Romney or Giuliani if you do manage to trash Huckabee enough to secure the nomination for them? Will the eye for an eye crowd learn to forgive and forget? Have fun!

and:

Can schadenfreude be fatal?

God I hope not. Otherwise, I am SCREWED. Seriously, as others have said before me, THIS is what the Repubs have said they want for 30 fucking years. Whether they REALLY wanted it, or just claimed to want it so that they could continue to loot assets like Eva Peron really doesn't matter. They've made their bed. Their choice is to continue to date the two bag, coyote morning skank they've cultivated or pull their heads out of their asses and vote Dem.

Just To Set The Professor Off..

2007-12-17T18:25:00.001-06:00

Because it's amusing when it happens. And because I'm an asshole.

Oh, NO, You Didn't Just SAY That

2007-12-12T16:33:00.000-06:00

According to a Mitt Romney (you remember him, the Christian hating fanatical cultist, right?) spokesperson, "[Romney] continues to believe that this campaign should not be about questioning a candidate's faith. While it is fair to criticize an opponent's record or policy positions, it is out of bounds for one candidate to question another's personal faith."

Unless the candidate is a Democrat. In which case, his (or her) atheist, gay marriage, abortion permitting ass is fair game. After all, "Freedom Requires Faith."

And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

All Your Dreams Come True

2007-12-07T10:57:00.001-06:00

From "Nobody Scores"

NIE, NIE, NIE, I Can't Heeeaaaarr You!!!

2007-12-06T15:48:00.001-06:00

As pointed out by Josh Marshall at TPM, it turns out that if you're a winger who gets his news from Fox, you might be forgiven for not knowing about the National Intelligence Estimate two days later.

As Fox has been doing a bang up job of burying something the Bushies find embarrassing. Since they've been strongly implying that the next thing that Iran would do to us was nuke a city or two, you might think they'd ease off talking about it. You know, I'm not really expecting a "We screwed up," but I didn't expect this.

Shorter Bush: Fuck reality, I'm not changing my mind no matter what.

Seriously. Fox is BURYING a story that directly contradicts what Darth Cheney has been telling us for months. How the hell did they even COVER that travesty of a press conference without promoting that news that the Bushies have been, ya'know, LYING to us, because they want to get their war on?

And now the wingnuttosphere is denying the entire premise of the NIE. Basically, it's all a CIA plot to discredit Bush, because they want Iran to take over America. Why exactly the CIA hates America is not really clear. Maybe because they accept reality. Who the fuck knows?

The reason your co-worker is acting like Iraq has always been going well, that Saddam had WMDs, that the US takes care of the troops and Iran is working on "newk-you-lar" weapons? They watch Fox.

Do you suppose Fox'll be as deferential to the next President?

Is Gallup THAT Unimaginative???

2007-11-30T12:46:00.000-06:00

Via TPM I found this.

Repubs of all demographic breakdowns self report higher mental health than independents or democrats and all that Gallup comes up with is, "The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel)."

Allow me to gently suggest that these nimrods have missed an obvious possibility in SELF-REPORTED mental health. Conservatives who deny the validity of mental health problems might JUST be more inclined than others to deny that they have mental health issues.

Just sayin'.

Elijah And The Bear

2007-11-30T12:00:00.000-06:00

Your Bible In Action:

All Your Base Are Belong To SATAN!

2007-11-30T11:33:00.000-06:00

Via Kevin Drum I find this from Joe Klein at Swampland. Normally I hold Joe in a kind of "dupe of the power structure" regard for his false equivalency columns when comparing Repubs and Democrats. But lately his blog posts show the behind the scenes horror he feels about Bush and the Repubs. May have felt all along but didn't write, don't know. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Presuming you don't click the link, it concerns Klein at an undecideds Repub focus group during the most recent debate, and he highlights two things he called "really distressing". As you read this, I want you to understand that focus groups are carefully selected to be AS REPRESENTATIVE AS POSSIBLE of the population it is selected from...in this case Repubs, likely to vote in primary type, i.e., "the base".

First, when Mike Huckabee said that financial aid should be available to the children of illegal immigrants because we are all Children of God his score went into the 30s. For those of you not in the focus group biz, 1 to 100 dial scoring has a sliding scale of inaccuracy the farther you get from 50 (neutral). Scores in the low twenties are kind of the theoretical minimum, statistically indistinguishable from "1" or Total Universal Disagreement by the group. So all but a few Repubs at large agree that US Citizens should be isolated from even the OPPORTUNITY of college because of what their parents did and fuck this "children of God"/Christianity bullshit...bring on the Old Testament, Sins Of The Father God.

Then John McCain weighed in on Waterboarding As Torture. HIS scores went into the twenties. Yes. Repubs universally approve of torturing prisoners of war. Words fail me. I knew it was bad, but UNIVERSAL DISAPPROVAL of the guy telling you what you want to do with the non-Christian brown people is TORTURE for fuck's sake? What the fuck do these people want to do to ME and my latte sipping ways? Jail? Concentration Camps? A Final Solution?

I really DID waste my time in the Army, didn't I? I should have spent it accumulating assets held in Swiss Banks for the moment I have to pack up and run for the border 'cause the brownshirts are after me.

Well, If THIS Isn't Depressing...

2007-11-29T11:49:00.000-06:00

Over at Yglesias' site I find this tidbit and link. Basically, it turns out that Gresham's Law applies to political discourse; over time bad discourse will drive out good. As it happens, if someone has a position about a candidate's favorability, and then adverse information, real or made up, becomes known to that person it will negatively impact their favorability. If the information later turns out to be false or incomplete, the favorability improves, but not all the way back to the point it was at before.

Also, how much your opinion moves depends on your position in the partisan spectrum. Informed that Hillary Clinton is a man-hating power hungry dyke moves Repubs much further towards disliking her than it moves Democrats. The converse, being told that Mitt Romney is a goat fucker, moves Dems further away than Repubs (many of whom have probably fucked a goat or two in their time, so who would want to cast the first stone).

So what does that mean? Counter punching in response is, over time, a losing move. Obama's campaign has made much of the fact that they have not initiated any of the Clinton/Obama tiffs, but they have not stood aside when it's happened...that they counter punch. I had thought that that was more than adequate. What this study shows is that I was wrong and that isn't good enough. Over time, your positives inexorably erode relative to your goat fucking opponent, whom you have not been adequately slurring. It's why negative campaigns work.

So, it's not enough to simply stand up and fight back (and it's DISASTROUS to "not stoop to their level" as the Kerry campaign incompetently did in 2004). Your ass has to be down in the mud, slinging fast and furious, frequently and with vicious glee. You already see the narrative that the Rovian Repubs are getting ready to trot out; "Hillary is a man-hating, ultra-liberal, vagina dentata destroyer of American Virtue (who had Vince Foster killed)", "Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, trained in radical Madrassahs who will willingly invite jihadis to rape good Christian women", and "John Edwards is a closet fag".

It's going to happen. It is happening, it has happened, it will continue to happen. If we love our country (and with all the torture and human rights violations the Repub Party is "OK" with, I'm beginning to think my four years in the Army were an UTTER waste of my time) we can't just fight back, we have to get down and dirty. We have to say things about our goat fucking opponents FIRST, with two goals; first, to raise their negatives so swayable undecideds go for our guys (or gal), second, (and more importantly) so tar the Repub candidate with nastiness that many Repub voters simply stay home.

That second point provides some degree of Schadenfreude, at least in the anticipation. Because to get Repub voters to sit down, we have to sling slurs at them such as "Rudy is a closet fag." In other words, kill the candidates with the prejudices they've spent 30 years perfecting. Say, "Mitt Romney is a Christian hating cultist," or "Fred Thompson is a Hollywood slut who hops beds with the frequency of a cheap ham radio."

Mike Huckabee is the hardest to get in this way, so I propose that in the (unlikely but possible) event that he receives the nomination, we go the other way. He's a Christo-fanatic who wants to take away birth control, let alone abortion, and who believes the world is 6000 years old. For the Repub base, these are ADVANTAGES. But he's a damn likable guy, so lets just strip off every independent or moderate Repub (presuming there IS such a creature) even marginally concerned about their kids growing up in the Republic of Gilead.

All we have to do is record him speaking, pull out some Young Earth Creationist zaniness, and imply strongly that maybe falling waaaaayyyy behind in technology, science and knowledge isn't exactly the way to go about global competition. We could probably pull every state in the Intermountain West, other than Montana (State Motto: "At least our cows aren't gun toting loons!") and maybe Wyoming.

But...make NO MISTAKE...we have to actually DO it. You might not like "stooping to their level." Tough. I'd rather respect my country than respect myself in the morning. After eight years of Bush, we can't AFFORD ethics. It is indeed time to get nasty.

Racism in America (or) Posting Again

2007-11-09T07:20:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the long delay. Been spending waaay too much time in Warcraft. My main made 70, got a flying mount and has been socking away money at a high rate of speed. In fact one of my friends has been 70 almost as long and has about 50G...I have 950G...and the guy in question is into me for 50 large. Big L wants his money, AND the vig. I'm turning into the Shylock of Azeroth.

Which, bwah-ha-ha, leads me into the topic I need to write about...racism. Yes. The favorite topic of many a blogger (not). That minefield and morass into which many soul has wandered, never to be seen again.

The Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant teaches at inner city schools, so the issue of racism is one that we don't really have the luxury of sticking in the back of an unused kitchen drawer and thinking about only when we see a news report on the Jena 6 or something. It seems to me that one of the reasons this subject is so fraught is that people, or at least the people who speak about racism, fall into one of the two categories...the "Reverse Discrimination" crowd or the "Everything bad comes from the White Man" crowd.

Mrs. Pedant has a saying after 5 years of inner-city teaching: "We load the gun, and then they shoot themselves in the foot with it."

Which is to say, both sides of the racial divide have some work to do. So let's take a look, shall we?

On the "Whitey is the root of all evil," front, there's lots of posts refuting it. Whitey is, like everyone else chained to the great wheel, both good and bad, perpetrator and healer. Blaming Whitey for every inner-city problem ignores that fact that black on black violence is on the rise. Gangs exist not because "The Man" is deliberately keeping inner city kids from having a viable social net of family and community, but because in the absence of viable families and communities, for whatever reason, the kids in the inner city will make those social groups for themselves.

And because they're conceived by and run by children the social groups will rapidly descend, Lord Of the Flies-like, into tribalism with all the attendant paranoia regarding anyone in the "out group". They shoot each other not because "Whitey makes them," but because the only family they really know expects it. Because the people at the other end are from another tribe, because in some way they aren't really human.

This isn't happening because some white dude in a corporate board room wants it. But, and here is where the power structure ISN'T off the hook, it IS happening because the white dude in the corporate board room doesn't CARE enough to be active in STOPPING it. Why? Because in many cases, he thinks discrimination is sooooo last century. He listened to Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. He reads the words and somehow he convinces himself that we're already there.

Yes. Really. That's what anyone who talks about "Reverse Discrimination" about affirmative action is saying. They may ADMIT to YOU that there's still discrimination but, in the immortal words of John Roberts, "The way to end discrimination is to end discrimination." But you know what campers? If right after you say that you make it harder to PROVE discrimination, if your only contact with affirmative action seems to looking for ways to tear it down, and other than that you spend NO TIME dealing with the problems of discrimination, then you aren't saying "The only way to end discrimination," (against blacks and Latinos and native Americans), "is to end," (all forms of), "discrimination," you are ACTUALLY saying, "The only way to end discrimination," (once and for all), "is to end discrimination," (against whites, which the only remaining form of discrimination).

Look, if to disadvantage whites in the hiring process or the admissions process is "discrimination," the clear corollary is that non-whites are not suffering discrimination. Because if non-whites ARE suffering discrimination then affirmative action is STILL fulfilling it's original function: to level the playing field between whites and others with regard to schools attended or jobs filled.

So, if as everyone knows and has proved with scientific studies, hiring and admissions bias DOES still exist how could one POSSIBLY believe that affirmative action is discrimination? The only method I can see is defining discrimination down. What can we point to as an absolute 100% success in the last 50 years against discrimination?

Strange Fruit.

It's been a long time since a black community woke up to find one of their own hung from a tree for the crime of: looking at a white woman funny, sassing a white man, drinking from the wrong fountain, etc. What an accomplishment! We should give ourselves a round of applause that white men can no longer kill black men with impunity, certain that a jury of THEIR peers would never convict.

This is where the fainting violets amongst you might want to avert your eyes.

What a fucking GREAT accomplishment; "We don't do the shooting ourselves." Give yourself a pat on the back!

So, apropos of my comparison that in the conservative mind "Being made to look at a Democrat's placard equals Rosa Park's being told to go to the back of the bus," we can NOW add, "My kid not getting into law school because that slot went to a black kid equals that same black kid getting strung up in a tree and fucking LYNCHED."

Jesus Christ On A Crutch, what the FUCK is wrong with these people? How unbelievably self-centered do you have to be to not notice how unequal that equation is??

If you think affirmative action should be ended, I had better see some MAJOR equality work, Mother Teresa level work, or you're just a goddamn bigot.

OK, all safe for your tender virgin eyes again.

All told, racism in this country is alive and well and arguments to the contrary are woefully misled at best and deliberately disingenuous at worst. Affirmative action is necessary because Mrs. Pedant's students are far less likely to get into a good school or get a good job than the Wee Pedant (To Be Named Later), and she's not even born yet. If you're white, you are still enjoying the fruits of the racism of your forebears. You ain't off the hook yet, Skippy.

**Update**
Bad grammar and gratuitous commas removed. I need an editor.

Did You HONESTLY Think There Wouldn't Be a Red Sox Post???

2007-10-23T23:48:00.001-05:00

OK, of COURSE I have to write about the Sox in the series. Now this doesn't mean you have to join me (although those of you in Colorado can just keep comments to yourself). But if you do, there's a how to manual on line now.

My favorite bit?

17. Finally, bitch about everything: critics, certain players who personally disappoint you, etc. They call it New England for a reason. People in England love to fucking complain. You are the newer, even more annoying model.

More instructions on the site. I love the Sox. I love the fact that with Jonathon Papelbon, Nuke LaLoosh lives for real. The guy is flakier than a pie baking contest.

But that doesn't change one little fact, that will get waaaaaaaay under any Red Sox Nation citizen's skin:

They're not the fucking underdogs anymore, idiot.

Seriously. My fellow fans have a lot invested in the David and Goliath story. And maybe a long time ago it was true. But it has been a long time since Boston was David and the New York (May They Rot In Hell) Yankees were Goliath.

No. These days the more apt description is King Kong versus Godzilla. Sure, we may not have the Steinbrenner radioactive breath, but the Sox are one big, mean, biplane swatting ape. So my money is on the Sox. Because, love them or not, they're the second most expensive team in baseball (how many teams down from number three could you pay for out of Boston and New York's combined salaries anyway).

And I'll root for them. But I'm not going to sit around talking about how hard it is for the boys to win this one. Having made it through the ALCS, they're already well ahead of the Rockies, who are also in one of those baseball paradoxes, in trouble BECAUSE of all the time off they've had (think pitchers, arms stiffening during a long at bat, actually getting TOO rested in the dugout...it's like that).

So in the end, I and the little Red Sox fan to be born later (daughter or no, it's even odds her first words will be "Yankees Suck") want to say this to the world:

I'm A COMPLETE Econ Geek

2007-10-18T15:52:00.000-05:00

In case you were wondering.

Over at the American Prospect I find this article about what the Nobel Prize winners for Economics have to say to people thinking about dealing with global warming. The quote that caused this post:

A key insight of mechanism design theory is that real-world economic transactions differ from an abstract "market" where a price falls from heaven and trade happens. When engaging in trade in the real world, economic actors (buyers and sellers), must abide by certain rules and/or norms (e.g. Is it ok to negotiate? Can you make more than one counter offer?). Mechanism design shows that the economic outcomes, including market efficiency, can be dependent upon those rules.
Thus all "free-markets" are not equal. In fact a marketplace does not exist independently from its rules and norms -- they one and the same. Saying that "the market works" to allocate resources depends on the specific market design and conditions. Thus (and contrary to much conservative rhetoric) economic theory -- of which mechanism design is a part -- does not say that markets always achieve an efficient outcome. Mechanism design can help us better understand when markets do perform well. And when markets no not reach an efficient outcome, mechanism design theory can suggest mechanisms that might work better.

So basically, the Nobel for Economics went to a bunch of guys who actually admit that markets don't always come up with the best possible answer and then explain WHY.

One of their key public policy insights:

The fact that people have an incentive to not reveal their true preferences has obvious important consequences for public policy. If people are asked if they want a new highway built, they might rightly worry that they will be asked to pick up some of the expense, and so might not fully reveal their true preference, opting instead to try to game the system as a free-rider. Economic research building from the Nobel winners’ work analyzed ways to get around this -- to provide a mechanism by which people would volunteer their true valuation of the highway, and thus better evaluate the merits of a project that would benefit an entire community. (The key of this particular mechanism is to link an individual’s valuation response to the decision to build or not, but to de-link the exact mount they would pay).

So how does this impact a global warming discussion? Again from the article:

This brings us to global warming and cap-and-trade policy. If we -- and by "we" I mean the entire planet -- ever take global warming seriously, we will have to adopt some mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. A real program will require nations to implement some form of regulation and/or market mechanism to reduce carbon. But what kind of mechanism? How do we design a program that reduces carbon across nations? Some nations will be harmed significantly by global warming, while others will be better able to adapt, but in a negotiation, countries will have incentives to hide their true valuations, just like in the used car example above. Can we design a mechanism that is more likely to get nations to commit to reducing global greenhouse gases?

This fits in with my own experience. When I lived in famously libertarian New Hampshire (Official Motto: Live Free Or Die; Unofficial Motto: Fuck Off And Leave Me Alone) everyone religiously recycled everything recyclable. Why? Had they taken leave of their (conservative) senses and embraced nanny state regulation??

Of course not. You paid $1 per 35 pounds of trash that went into the landfill. And for stuff you recycled? Nothing. Even that nominal fee, a buck, probably nowhere near the true societal "cost" of 35 pounds of banana peel laying around rotting, was enough to very powerfully motivate independent Granite Staters to recycle like a Berkeley liberal.

In Case Of Emergency...

2007-10-18T12:25:00.000-05:00

For those of you wondering what might happen if the Deciderator decides to attack Iran, here's an insight into the military many of you might not have.

I want to emphasize that this is from a MILITARY journal, by two guys from the ARMY WAR COLLEGE, outlining reasons why senior officers acquiesce to bad though not unlawful orders and covering some options that these senior officers may not have thought of to short circuit yet another "strategeric" bungle by a guy who, experience shows, has no end of.

Since Skippy McDumbass is showing every sign, over and over, of having already decided to attack Iran and he's just trying (unsuccesfully) to pull the same snow job he did about Iraq, this little article is FAR from moot.

At Long Last, Have You No Decency?

2007-10-18T12:07:00.000-05:00

As I was wandering afield I ran across this:

The Bush administration again has appointed a chief of family
planning programs at the Department of Health and Human
Services who has been critical of contraception.

Words fail me. Utterly. I had had a low opinion of the Deciderator before, but I figured outside of ordering an airstrike on Iran, the amount of additional damage he could do to the executive branch's various departments was kinda limited (mainly owing to having done all the damage possible already).

And then I run across that crap. Seriously. Our theocratic incompetent Preznit has decided to put someone opposed to CONTRACEPTION in charge of HHS's Family Planning programs. Not someone critical of free contraceptive handouts. Not someone critical of providing minors with contraceptives without parental consent. No. Someone who:

In a 2001 article in The Washington Post, [appointee] Orr applauded a Bush proposal to stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees to cover a broad
range of birth control. "We're quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease," said Orr, then an official with the Family Research Council.

So what, exactly, is the Office of Family Planning going to do under this winger? Recommend paint colors to expectant parents? Offer advice on how to work that eighth baby into a busy work schedule?

There is no limit to the damage these guys can do...it's going to take the next (Democratic) president 4 to 8 years just to UNDO these guys Bad Decision Making Theater, let alone do anything meaningful. Why ANY of them want the job at this point is BEYOND me.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

The Courage of Their Convictions

2007-10-06T14:21:00.000-05:00

As I was watching the latest atrocity from the Deciderator, it occurred to me that there was SOMEthing larger going on. Something that I can write about without constantly lapsing into profanity. I might also note, as an aside, that watching that most recent press gaggle where Dana Perino was all but told no one in the room believed a word she was saying reminded me what a real press corps looks like. We'll probably get a robust, inquisitive, aggressive press on January 21, 2009, but not earlier.

Part of that could be because the Bush administration's blatant attempts to keep all the reins of power in this country begin more and more to look like the ruling military government in Myanmar's attempt to suppress dissent. Hell, the man even has his own private group of brownshirts ready to go in the wings. So I can certainly see why the press might feel they have to keep their pieholes shut until the Democrats are in the White House. Still, somewhat encouraging to see they are slowly regaining the courage of their convictions.

Which leads me to today's topic: why is it that so many of us lack the courage of our convictions? Bush says that Democracy is "terror's antidote" at least as long as we don't, you know, practice it here. Democracy is this terribly wonderful form of government that everyone aspires to and whose advance is mandated by the Almighty. And how do we HAVE to protect this vast, unstoppable JUGGERNAUT of a movement? Why, by abandoning all its precepts simply because a few people with a serious weed up their ass about us are hiding out in the Pakistani hinterlands.

Yes, Democracy is so precious that we have no choice but to abandon it faster than a porn starlet getting out of her clothes in order to protect it. Jesus H Christ. Do people even LISTEN to themselves? I mean, how can you get from here to there, conceptually, without your head actually bulging from the cognitive dissonance? Republicans have always sorta had a majority share in this idiocy, possibly one of the reasons I never really respected self-identified Republicans that much.

Don't get me wrong, liberals and progressives have their convictionless moments as well, and I sure you can think of a few, but you know what? I'm not gonna list them here and create some sort of "pox on both their houses" false equivalency when Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, clearly display the lion's share of this behavior, and certainly the two most important and significant examples of it.

Tossing out everything but the "pretty packaging" of Democracy because they're all scared is the first. Damn near bankrupting the country in the name of security from Communism is the other.

Let's get down to brass tacks. Either capitalism is the best way of maximizing growth and opportunity and thus will outpace any competing economic systems, OR communism was so powerful that we needed HUGE arsenals of very expensive nuclear weapons delivery and defense systems because they were going to bury us. You can NOT have it both ways.

The same folks talking up capitalism's advantages seemed AWFULLY concerned about communism. Could it be that deep down, they knew they were screwing over the proletariat and if the rubes ever figured out their place in the system (the marks) there'd be hell to pay? I know there are some of you out there nodding. I would gently suggest not.

What they were, and are, is frightened. Pitifully, pants-wettingly, paralytically FRIGHTENED. It's not that they don't have these convictions, it's that they don't have courage. They are fundamentally convinced that some daddy-figure must bail them out. It's why conservatives are fanatically convinced Reagan won the Cold War. To believe otherwise, to believe that Reagan simply had the great good fortune to be President at about the time Levi's Blue Jeans were mopping up the last dregs of communism would have meant that NO ONE WAS PROTECTING THEM. Oh, the horror.

They even elect cowards, and call them resolute. Here's a little hint guys...Bush is a coward. His behavior on 9/11 should have shown you that. Or maybe you should have noticed that he has all the hallmarks of the bully/coward: obsessed with loyalty, peeved when questioned, punitive when crossed, derisive of subordinates, and unwilling to admit mistakes (because to admit them would break the ENTIRE facade of power). No matter how you slice it, we will stay in Iraq until he's gone for one simple reason: he's scared of being seen as a loser. For pities sake, how many president's have never spoken to a SINGLE hostile audience? He's a coward, and we're all stuck in his pathology, a pathology he shares with most Conservatives.

I guess in the end, they think, "Better to give freedom up than admit that I was ALWAYS in danger."

They next time you hear someone say, "I don't have anything to hide so why should I worry," just substitute, "I'm a small minded, petty coward," in your head. The key is not to let them have power. The only bumper sticker I've been tempted to put on a car read, "Frightened People Do Stupid Things."

Indeed.

Something Stephen Fry and I Have in Common

2007-10-04T21:45:00.000-05:00

We started blogging in September 2007. Really.

At some point in the near future I will comment on the Deciderator's decision that we don't torture. We torture, but if we do it by definition it's not torture.

An aborted post or two has convinced me that I'm not ready to write coherently about it. Look over all the previous posts. Eliminate all the words that aren't "fuck". String the remaining words together. That's what a post on this would look like at the moment. Even I have an anger circuit breaker and it's tripped.

So go looking where I looked.

Rush Limbaugh, Hypocrisy and...Oh, who the fuck cares? The man's a MORON.

2007-10-02T19:03:00.000-05:00

So, if you were exceptionally careful the last few days you might have noticed Rush Limbaugh calling any soldier who disagrees with the Deciderator a "phony soldier". Transcript, unedited, unredacted and unaltered of the pertinent section:
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.
RUSH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------
And I thought about blogging about it. About how pointing out this fat fuck and his polynoidal cyst have, oh, I dunno, FOUR FUCKING YEARS less service on active duty than I do. About how every time one of these right wing blowhards gets up and claims that all "real Americans" stand with them, and then try to claim that they aren't saying someone like me, who clearly DOESN'T stand with them, isn't a real American they advance the date I will even CONSIDER voting for a Repub off another damn decade. About the rank hypocrisy of the right's politicians calling MoveOn.org's ad "disgusting" and the chorus of cricket chirps about this one.

And I though to myself, Fuck It. I just do not have the time, the mental energy, or the patience to blog coherently about this particular case. The speed with which a post would devolve into nonsense as I banged my head on the keyboard repeatedly would be remarkable.

This incident simply reinforces my thinking that compromise is impossible. I seriously can claim that if Rush Limbaugh were bleeding to death by the side of the road...no one to call 911 but me, no one to see what happened...I would SIT AND WATCH HIM BLEED TO DEATH. I'd tell him exactly why his life was pumping away while I watched. If he begged, I'd laugh.

But then, I'm bloodier minded than most of you. As the Lovely and Talented Mrs. Pedant has said on a number of occasions, the creepiest thing she knows about me is this: I spent my time on active duty in a line artillery battery with nuclear capability and made a conscious decision that I could start a nuclear war if in circumstances where the order was lawful and appropriate*. The fact that I decided, cold-bloodedly, that I could destroy the world under the proper conditions bothers her. I can't understand why.

What it means, along with my tendency to hold grudges slightly less long than the half life of lead, is that I really could just watch Rush die, and never think of more of it than if I were cutting my fingernails. Something about that man, and Ann Coulter, simply rubs me so much the wrong way that I would gladly sell tickets and eat popcorn at a gladiatorial match between them (my money's on the fat fuck over the stick figure whore by the way). In fact, much like a Yankees/Mets World Series, I'd be rooting for injuries, preferably fatal ones.

I'm not looking for praise or horror. I simply say this to illustrate how gobsmackingly TIRED I am of the constant verbal and written diarrhea promulgated by this guy. At some points words simply fail me, I realize how unutterably different a world view I have from right-wing true believers and I simply cannot tolerate an open-minded attitude to my fellow Americans on the right. I'm tired of even trying to understand them and I wish they would all just GO AWAY. I'm done with them.

*For strategic, foreign policy and military theory reasons too numerous to go into, by FAR the likeliest route to Nuclear Holocaust during the Cold War was the deployment of tactical nuclear warheads, by some unit just like the one I was assigned to. My wartime position in the Fulda Gap just about ENSURED that, had a nuclear war broken out in the years 1989 to 1991, I had a, say, 1 in 50 chance of being the "guy who started it."

Bipartisanship Explained

2007-10-02T06:57:00.000-05:00

By Tom Tomorrow.

S-CHIP Follies, or, Mommy Is A Democrat Because Republicans Hate Children

2007-09-27T19:44:00.000-05:00

Heard something today that truly brought to mind the term schadenfruede. Mitch McConnell (R-Lackey), confronted with a bill that would radically choose to fully fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), was quoted today on NPR: "Democrats are counting down the hours, so they can tee up the election ads, saying Republicans don't like kids."

To which I reply:

You are 100% Fucking-A right, Skippy. Even if you concede that Republicans opposed to S-CHIP are opposed for some deep philosophical reason, such as chronic diseases will toughen up the coming generations, it's still the case that you're getting it shoved back down your throat. Why? Oh, let me think...is it for Willie Horton? Maybe it's "Al Gore claims he invented the Internet," or maybe it's turning triple-amputee Max Cleland into some kind of wimp because he didn't support the Deciderator in Iraq.

If you're getting shoved down your fucking throat that you hate kids, it's only sweet sweet karmic payback for the decades of sludge, muck, fecal matter and slime tossed by Repub after Repub. He who lives by the false innuendo, dies by the false innuendo, motherfucker.

There seems to be some kind of trope running through the Republican party, that despite running the country into the ground while enjoying total control of the Legislative, Judicial and of course the Dictatorial...I mean, Executive...branches, somehow they're PUT UPON. I was once told by someone (a Bush Supporter) that she felt hostility directed towards her for her sign supporting Bush in her lawn. A lawn in Mequon, WI.* For a moment, I simply couldn't understand what the FUCK she was talking about.

Slowly, it dawned on me. Other encounters with known Republicans (don't worry I have a list...when the Revolution comes Guantanamo will be FULL, baby) suddenly made sense. Republicans think they're being unacceptably put upon when even ONE person around them disagrees, no matter how politely.

Seriously. Somewhere in the conservative mindset lies the equation "Having to look at a Democratic candidate's placard"="Rosa Parks being told to go to the back of the bus."

It's why, despite controlling EVERY aspect of business, and government most of the time, and the military all of the time, they find it INTOLERABLE that large universities are havens of liberal control. They don't even NOTICE that they control all the other levers of society. The fact that there is even the SLIGHTEST dissent drives them bugnuts.

So, I say to Mitch: Cry me a fucking river, asshole. I hope the Democrats run an ad every week in every district that has a congresscritter that voted against S-CHIP, and every state with a Senator that voted against it (actually a short list, since the Senate, unlike the House, actually has the votes to override Bushie's veto) from now until election day. Just so I NEVER have to hear, "Children are so precious to us that we must insert your favorite totalitarian impulse here," out of one of their PIEHOLES ever again.

*For those of you who've never lived in Milwaukee, Mequon is an affluent suburb, north of Milwaukee. There are few places more Republican than Mequon. Affirmative action consists of busing in kids who don't have their own trust funds, so their betters can see them occasionally. The only place more Republican in Milwaukee than Mequon, is Waukesha. And that's only because Waukesha adds the religiously fanatic to the overwhelmingly self-absorbed.

Halo 3

2007-09-25T19:57:00.001-05:00

...is NOT taking up all of my time. Unfortunately.

The Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant is planning on getting it for me for an anniversary present, which goes to show that I married well. As a result, I am afraid I would seem a tad...churlish...to insist on getting it right now. RIGHT NOW!!! OMFG I waaannntt!!!!

I mean, look, the LATMP (Lovely And Talented Mrs. Pedant) accepts my video game thing. She's helping me by planning on getting the BIGGEST crack rock available for an addict this year. And yet...

I do not...YET...have a copy of Bioshock. Why? Because I figure one insane obsession at a time. Except I ALSO don't have a copy of Halo 3. Which fundamentally means that my insane obsession is a free floating vaporous apparition, coked to the gills and cruising for hookers in Vegas. World Of Warcraft should fill the void, but First Person Shooter-y goodness awaits.

Just running around farming adamantite seems...tame...compared to a no holds barred grudge match between Master Chief (me) and the Covenant's insane triumvirate. I long to debate the finer points of politics with them, primarily with an assault rifle and plasma grenades, but occasionally with dual SMGs. Even my coming apotheosis as a Level 70 Hunter can not POSSIBLY compare with mowing down thousands of gibbering panicky Covenant Grunts.

So I am at loose ends at the moment. Those of you who have Halo 3 (you know who you are, assholes!) can just keep it to yourself. And the first person to blow the story line for me gets a frag shoved where the sun don't shine. At least for a short time...

The Email That Started It All

2007-09-20T20:06:00.000-05:00

Below is the email that led to "Blog, blog, BLOG" requests...

---------------------------------------------------
"Why Is Compromise Impossible?"

Because of batshit arrogant crap like this I find in Talking Points Memo: "Schlozman [a former US Attorney and head of several departments within Justice at various times] has further been accused of politicizing the hiring at the Civil Rights Division, famously commenting that he was replacing Democratic hires with "good Americans." It's this activity which the Department's joint internal investigation, led by the inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility, is probing."

You know why it's war to the knife, Repubs? YOU made it that way. Because of your "I don't wanna pay taxes, I don't wanna pay taxes, wah, wah, WAH!" temper tantrum, there are near 4000 dead US Soldiers in Iraq, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted (including several billion with a B in CASH simply LOST...these huge pallets of currency seemed to just "grow legs"), Iran turned into THE major regional power and now the Justice Department may require an actual PURGE...the kind with firing squads and last cigarettes...to get rid of the Young Republican Frat Boy Apparatchiks YOU'VE put there.

You'll be lucky if we don't just saw off the theocrat South and let it slowly devolve into a third world nation with crappy sanitation and babies running around naked with swollen stomachs based on its stated hostility to the scientific method as their engineers and doctors begin to think natural laws are open to church input.

If you don't understand the difference between George W Bush's corrupt, mendacious, TOXIC administration and mere doofery (a la Jimmy Carter) in a government, if you GENUINELY don't GET that this is one of the two worst adminstrations in history* (that's a FOOTNOTE guys, how many rants are annotated?) and you still believe "They're all the same, government is just like this, both parties do it" then sit down and STOP VOTING. The adults have to clean up the mess from your tantrum and they'd appreciate you NOT BOTHERING THEM WITH YOUR INANE WHINING while they work.

Until the last presidential election I still harbored hope that there were some ADULT Republicans we could work with, but apparently they've either left the country, became Democrats or Democratic Leaning Independants or just had a total ball-ectomy and have given in to the Bushies special brand of religion and hatred for the Constitution's civil rights provisions. No matter why, there IS no Republican, currently carrying water of ANY sort politically, that doesn't richly deserve contempt at this point, and who shouldn't be run out of office with extreme prejudice (I'm talking to YOU, Snowe, Smith and Sununu). Why is there no compromise? Because you people killed any possibility. Negotiating with you just gets us Lieberman. Time to get nasty.

*Depending on whether you think the Civil War was worse for the country than a total loss of geopolitical authority and "destruction by neglect" of the all volunteer military and hence our strategic position in the world...James Buchanan is neck and neck with Dub. Buchanan was worse for the country inside the country, Bush was worse for the country in the WORLD. You pays your money and you makes your pick. Given that the Civil War at least produced ONE worthy outcome, emancipation, I've gonna pin the medal on our current Idiot Manchild President. But if you think it's Buchanan, well, I won't derogate the choice.