America vs. The World

Checking in

2008-02-18T21:25:00.004-06:00

Hey loyal reader(s). Since Gordon and I are obviously incapable of maintaining a blog on our own, we'll be periodically contributing to the group blog at Urbanagora. It's chock-full of former Daily Illni writers and semi-witty commentary.

I should also note that Mandasaurus, who fought the good fight here for too long, has moved to more forgiving climes at her own blog, Mandasaurus Roars.

As a half-ass replacement for a real post, here's an IM conversation Gordon and I had Saturday.

Gordon: Hey, so I was meaning to ask you: What are the main blogs saying about Hillary/Obama? I still just mostly read mainstream media...

Buck: A lot of lefties are very cynical and believe Obama is all hype.

Gordon: That's too bad. Mainstream media loves him.

Buck: He's good ratings. Hillary actually has a decent following in the blogs. Edwards was probably more popular than either one of them.

Gordon: That's so weird.

Buck: Not if you stop thinking horse race and look at their policies. Edwards was definitely the most liberal and populist of the three.

Gordon: I guess so. I just personally feel that Hillary has negative inspiration (what's the polar-opposite of inspiring? despiring?), and I wish people didn't discount the value of having a great communicator in the White House. Especially since so much policy talk is stuff that the president can't really control.

Buck: Well, it's been a revelation to me how jaded a lot of the left has become by seven years of Bush basically getting away with everything you can think of. They want someone (e.g. Hillary, Edwards) who they think will come in and clean shop on the Republicans. Edwards because that was his rhetoric and Hillary for personal reasons. A lot of them mistake Obama's message as making peace with the Republicans, which (for the Democratic Congress at least) has looked a lot like getting fucked in the ass.

Buck: The problem is, that section of the left has lost their way, so that when the guy they've waited for all along shows up, they can't recognize him anymore. They're too cynical. Obama's not bipartisan, he's post-partisan. He's not going to appeal to Republican politicians, he's going straight to the people. A lot of whom are not nearly as crazy/evil as their choice in elected officials would lead you to believe.

Gordon: I love all this "post-partisan" stuff...as much as I recognize it as a buzzword, I strongly agree with the concept that America is torn 40/40/20, but it doesn't have to be. And under Hillary, you just know it would be more like 47/47/6. Not entirely her fault, it's just reality.

Buck: Post-partisanship a fundamentally different way of looking at things, one which a lot of political junkies just can't get their brains around. It's really the exact opposite of Rove's way.

Gordon: Exactly!

Buck: The more I see of Obama, the more I understand what people saw in Reagan. Everyone wants to be inspired.

Gordon: That's why I hate when inspiration and communication are dismissed as non-factors. They're totally factors. They're leadership...that's the first role of the president!

Buck: There's a great presidential exhibit at the Smithsonian where it talks about each of the roles of the president and which are the most important. National leader, chief executive, commander in chief, head of state, etc. You got to rank them at the end, I think I put national leader at No. 2. Here's the description of the national leader role:

Americans ask their presidents to do more than govern; they expect them to lead. No aspect of the chief executive's job is more important than articulating the nation's principles, taking on new challenges, providing comfort and inspiration in times of crisis, and, in Abraham Lincoln's words, appealing to "the better angels of our nature."

Presidential leadership has often been met with contentious political debate. But when Americans look back in history, this is the main quality they use to judge a president's tenure in office.

Buck: That pretty much sums it up. After a long time without a good one, people have forgotten how important it is.

Gordon: Yeah. Actually, my favorite quote on leadership came from McCain this year. Romney was talking about how he managed all these companies, and he said "John McCain never managed anything." And McCain responded "That's true, I'm not a manager. I'm a leader. I can hire managers.

Gordon: And it's totally true. There's thousands of good managers out there, but just a handful of leaders.

Finally, I would be amiss not to post the following video of Obama speaking Saturday, where he addresses the same ideas Gordon and I were talking about.

Exercise your brain

2007-11-18T21:42:00.000-06:00

Which way do you see the image above turning? Clockwise? Widdershins? Supposedly, the way you initially perceive it is supposed to tell you something about which way your brain is oriented. But I just think it's cool to try to go back and forth from seeing it move one way to the other. Like doing light-weight reps with your cerebellum.

I've literally spent hours staring at this thing until I can get it to turn either way at will. So, yeah, that's what I've been doing instead of blogging. Sorry.

Superbugs! Something to scrub about?

2007-11-11T20:56:00.000-06:00

I totally believe in the value of dirt.

Dirt, grime, germs, even bacteria (like the saintly bacteria hanging out in my cherry vanilla yogurt). Those things are good for you, at least in moderation.

There's soap in my bathroom and my kitchen, of course. But it's not super-powered soap. It's just regular soapy soap.

I'm a fierce proponent of hand-washing at my job where I work with little kids. Especially because kids are disgustingly dirty. Seriously, today I saw two 2-year-olds licking a door. This month my work posted notices for strep, pinkeye, chickenpox and head lice. That's more than enough to get me to scrub my hands dozens of times a day.

Now scientists are saying that all that sudsy goodness isn't so good. We're cleaning too much, at least with too-serious stuff. Antibacterial/antimicrobial soaps and gels just aren't necessary. What is? Regular soap.

Regular soap lets the immune system get strong fighting off germs. Those easy fights prepare the immune system to fight off bigger stuff later, making you stronger and healthier.

And that's something to scrub about.

Raise some hell to fix the El

2007-10-29T20:45:00.000-05:00

I ride the rails. I hop the bus. And I love it.

As long as I've been in cities with public transport infrastructure I've relied upon trains, buses and trolleys to get me where I need to go. I rode Boston's T to several jobs and more than several pubs. I still dream sweet dreams of Washington D.C.'s Metro (the best public transit in America). Now I enjoy climbing the rickety stairs to take Chicago's El train to work.

I've relied on red, orange, green, red (again), green (again), brown and red (for the third time) lines. And though I've been delayed, annoyed, pushed and squished, I've never been as frustrated by public transport as I am now.

Illinois' state, county and municipal authorities have failed to support Chicago transit, and now the CTA has little choice than to cut 39 bus lines and raise fares November 4, and again in January.

This is bad news for you.

You don't want me driving. And you don't want all my happy-go-Brown-line friends driving either.

There are tons of responsible Chicago public transit commuters. We switch lines. We take buses. We wait out delays and sit next to strangers. We stand up so elderly, handicapped or pregnant people may sit. Most of us listen to music at a reasonable volume. Even more of us avoid excessive cell phone use on the train. We take the CTA, the Metro and Pace.

We read the newspaper. We read books. We play cell phone poker. We sleep. We study. We giggle at funny announcements about using all the available doors. We work together to get help in emergencies. We public transit people are really quite civilized.

We're also helping you out, person who cannot take the bus or train. We're helping you and we're helping the Earth. We're good for Chicago traffic and good for humankind.

Whether you use the CTA is up to you, Chicagoans. But you benefit from the CTA and its ridership regardless. Call Governor Rod Blagojevich at 312-814-2121.

Chicagoween: The scaring, caring side of the Windy City

2007-10-26T00:11:00.000-05:00

I love Halloween. I love costumes, candy corn, ghosts, ghouls and goblins. And, apparently, my new city loves Halloween too.

Chicagoween, as its known, is a celebration throughout the city. There are pumpkin patches in parks, haunted buildings along the lake and an orange fountain in front of the city building. It's spooktacular.

Strolling through the city on a very fall-ish day a few weeks ago I saw the Midnight Circus perform in Daley "Pumpkin " Plaza. It was an absolute riot. This kind of goofy stuff is seriously important, believe it or not.

Chicagoween is awesome for families. My friends who reside in the suburbs brought their nearly-three-year-old daughter to a Halloween affair in Oz Park. She dressed up as a red dragon, rode a pony, took a hayride and got a witch painted on her cheek! Even though my friends live in the south 'burbs they had an awesome day in the city with their daughter. Families from inside the city and out can do the same, and they usually stick around to eat, play and shop. Cha-ching, says Mayor Daley.
Chicagoween is free. Nothing brings people together like free. Isn't the what Halloween is all about?
It made my heart sing to see a really, truly diverse group of people chuckling at the Midnight Circus. That's good for everyone. Plus there are events all over the city, making Chicagoween accessible and affordable to everyone in Chicago.
Chicagoween connects everyone. Libraries, museums, parks, historical spots, the Chicago Transit Authority and many more groups are involved. Connections between real life and books, particularly, are amazing learning tools.
The Midnight Circus performance is a hilarious spoof! The ringmaster is a (pretend) Mayor Daley trying to bring the Ghoulish Games (Olympics) to Chicago. It's a riot.

A huge city bringing people together, offering tons of activities, trucking in pumpkins, and making fun of itself all for silly, happy fun? Spooky.

Mama McCain

2007-10-18T15:04:00.001-05:00

As a marketing guy who dabbles in political commentary, I’ve always been interested in seeing how politicians—particularly candidates—brand and position themselves in the field.

(I’ve been observing this for years, but rarely discuss it, since I don’t like to besmirch marketing’s good name by comparing it to politics.)

Anyway, I just had to comment on a recent stunt that (in my opinion) was nothing short of marketing genius: John McCain bringing his mom on the campaign trail.

Though not my personal preference for President, McCain is one of my all-time favorite senators, a man of intelligence and integrity. Yet his campaign has been sputtering all year, and I recently wondered if he was virtually eliminated from the race.

Until now.

Don’t underestimate this move. Mama McCain’s presence isn’t just some feel-good story that’ll blow over. It’s a brilliant strategic move that will have lasting impact, mostly because it addresses head-on those critics who attack John’s age. How can they say that now, with his 95-year-old mom traveling around town? How can they question his health and stamina, when he’s displaying genetic proof of his endurance? And how can the crowds not go crazy for this adorable old lady?

My guess is McCain’s just quieted a few naysayers while earning himself a nice chunk of elderly and mom-loving voters—perhaps enough to get back into the top three Republicans.

This is not your father’s John McCain.

Business trip: Let's debrief

2007-10-17T00:17:00.000-05:00

I'm not a corporate type. I do not like to speak about teamwork - even though I truly enjoy working with people and sharing goals. I rarely enjoy "icebreakers" or "team-building exercises" and I wince when people say "put that idea in the parking lot" when someone gets off topic during a discussion.

Here's what I learned at my two-day, 14-hour training:

PowerPoint is supposed to be an aid to your lecture. You do not need to read aloud word-for-word what's on the screen because not only can I read that myself but it's also in front of me on the Power Point presentation print-out you handed out. (Perhaps I did not just learn this, exactly. However, the anger I felt at each slowly-passing slide really kept me from enjoying my deep breaths.)
According to the Personal Interaction Quiz I am a yellow. This means I am a talker. Yellows are expressive, outgoing, friendship-oriented and highly creative, according to the Power Point. After learning about my yellow status I felt so creative that I tried to take notes with my non-dominant hand, made a list of what I will wear to work this week and doodled a very realistic picture of my best friend Julie.
The Hyatt is very nice. I enjoyed Hyatt dinner, Hyatt coffee, Hyatt workout room and the extraordinary Hyatt bed.
When in doubt, take notes. My swift note-taking made it seem like I was really learning - becoming part of the team and understanding those presentations. I'm such a fabulous fooler.
I do not participate in role-plays. Ever.
There is a difference between counseling and coaching. I'm not sure what, but I'm told that those are different.
Finally, I've learned that a Mandasaurus can't be held down by corporate rules. I've got to be freer than this. I'm actually happy to say I'm feeling pretty damned inspired to look for something that will fill my days with less crap and more happiness. A yellow Mandasaurus can't be stuck in a such fake, PowerPoint filled world for long.

Yay or Nay? A business trip list

2007-10-12T21:56:00.000-05:00

On Monday I'm travelling to Lisle, Illinois to attend a conference for work. I might learn some answers about what the hell I'm supposed to do in the office besides eat plums, drink coffee and pretend to understand what I'm organizing.

I've decided to create a list of pros and cons of this trip using my gut intuitions and the itinerary my boss gave me a few days ago. Here goes with List No. 2.

Pros

I will be staying at a nice hotel.
I will receive lunch, dinner, breakfast and another lunch. Allegedly there are also snacks. That adds up to a lot of food. I bet there's coffee too.
The hotel might have a pool.
I love to learn. I might learn something useful.
I will enjoy "Session III: Managing Difficult Employees" because I myself am a difficult employee and will learn new tricks.
On Tuesday training ends at 1:15 (after a "Wrap Up" from 12:45-1 - what the fuck?) and I'll get to do something fun the rest of the day! Like swim in the pool! Cannonball!

Cons

I will be sharing a room with someone who I don't know. I don't like that. I know I'm not winning any fights about the cost-effectiveness of paying for an individual room for me, but I'd also argue that it's not very cost-effective to put people from the city and suburbs up in a hotel less than an hour from their homes.
"Session I: First Time Supervisors" does not apply to me because I am not a first time supervisor. I believe I was required to have supervisory experience to get my current job.
I fear that "Lunch / Color Personality Analysis" will give me hives and suck all my special powers away.
If I eat too much I might get a cramp when I got swimming! Oh no!

I'll report back on Tuesday. Any guesses on my personality color?

AVW Lists: Mighty Mandasaurus

2007-10-11T20:29:00.000-05:00

I'm here to announce that I, Mandasaurus, am blogging at least trice weekly in the form of lists. I love to make lists and AVW will be home to my smartest ones.

I might need to consider whether it's reasonable to put things like "work" and "take shower"
on my list of things to do, but to avoid that query I will not posts such dull lists. Ready for our first list? Me too.

List: Things I'm Doing For Betterment, Fufillment and Possible World Domination

Flossing daily.
Watching Heroes, Season 1. It's amazing and definitely improves my stealth comprehension of variations in normal human abilities, oddities in the time-space continuum and skepticism of evil vs. good. And I'm crushing on Hiro!
I'm enrolled in Loyola University Medical School's Mini Med School. Every Tuesday I sit in a big college-style lecture hall and learn about medical issues (the immune system, clinical trials) from real medical school professors. I take notes! Don't ask me how I've missed taking notes since being in school, but I do. I'm learning, and I'm keeping my brain mighty.
Eating apples. Honeycrisps are a miracle of modern science.
Volunteering for an important congressional campaign - and walking to Cure Juvenile Diabetes!
Tailgating! Go Huskies!

Mandasaurus for Attorney General? Yes.

2007-08-27T21:08:00.000-05:00

Who better than Mandasaurus to help the struggling Department of Justice put the thrill back in the Bill of Rights?

Since Alberto Gonzalez resigned to pursue the American dream of consulting and waiting for a Supreme Court nomination from Neverland, I must take action. Pick me. I'm in.

I've been hoping for a better cabinet appointment, or even a crappy one in a democratic White House, but here I am, and here's why:

I am not part of a fake Supreme Court. Texas' Supreme Court cannot possibly count in the same league as the United States Supreme Court which I witnessed live, in action this year as they heard the famous Bong Hits 4 Jesus Case. Seeing the real Scotus do something is worth, like, triple the points of being on a fake Supreme Court.
Being seventh in the line of presidential succession assures me Secret Service attention.
When I eavesdrop it is warranted. I only eavesdrop on buses or locker rooms or at work. And I'm not very sly so it's not at all a surprise to anyone that I've heard them. I don't like to do things without warrant. Warrant is the way to go.
I am very direct. I can answer any of your questions now.
Whether speaking to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate or to a bum on the street I would not say this. Ever:
GONZALES: The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
If someone said that to me I would say, as my father often says, "That idea sounds rather half-baked, Benjamin." (My name is not Benjamin.)
I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
I love our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. If I'm Attorney General and you want to screw around with my rights??? Oh, no! I'll stop you quick.
I am completely willing to be a A.G. Superhero, if need be. In fact, my sunglasses are so big, I'm almost a superhero already.

OK, Senate, call me up for the confirmation hearings. I'll tell it like it is and we'll get along like stars and stripes.

The porn threshold

2007-08-18T22:19:00.001-05:00

Check out some of these statistics on the porn industry. They're staggering.

At $13.3 billion, the 2006 revenues of the sex and porn industry in the United States are bigger than the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball combined. Worldwide sex industry sales for 2006 are reported to be $97 billion. To put this in perspective, Microsoft, who sells the operating system used on most of the computers in the world (in addition to other software) reported sales of $44.8 billion in 2006.

Obviously, porn is insanely big business. The same page reports that the industry cranks out about 11,000 movies per year. Non-porn American studios do about 400-500 (although that number itself has been creeping steadily upwards as technology decreases filmmaking costs and the distribution system flattens.)

The obvious question: Why do we need 11,000 new porn movies a year? Shouldn't there be some porn event horizon, beyond which we simply don't need any more movies? Is there really a ravening fan base out there, desperately awaiting the arrival of Booty Talk 67? Who would the industry alienate if they said, "Hey, you know what? There're enough dirty movies out there already. Here's a catalog, go order some old ones."

Especially when so many of them are just one in an on- (and on- and on-) going series. Who's going to notice if they slip in some footage from a previous entry? Are there porn mavens familiar with every frame of Screw My Wife Please #24 who are going to raise holy hell if they notice a repeat 15 titles down the road?

These are the questions that keep me up at night. Well, that and my breathless anticipation of Thick-n-Chunky Fat Freakz 2.

The myth of the super-skanks

2007-08-16T10:02:00.001-05:00

I don't imagine that mathematicians get invited to the same parties as sex researchers very often. Human sexuality professors, the rockstars of the behavioral sciences department, walk into their classes and stare out at a sea of horny freshmen; your average number theory seminar is basically full of guys who couldn't hack it in computer science.

So I imagine it was rather satisfying this week when the mathematicians got to publicly tell the sex researchers they're full of shit.

For years, researchers have been telling us something that doesn't really surprise anyone: men report a significantly higher number of sexual partners than women. A recent study by the federal government put the number at seven for men and four for women, while the Brits (who knew?) reported 12.7 and 6.5, respectively.

What sex researchers would know, if they spent more time studying statistics and less cataloging items found in body cavities, is that those numbers are frickin' impossible. Since (straight) men can only have sex with women, the averages have to be the same on both sides; every time two people sleep together, a number gets added to both sides of the equation. Or, if you want to get all mathematician:

By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.

Theorem: G=B

Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. Q.E.D.

This kind of explanation, of course, is why mathematicians don't get invited to the good parties.

Since men sleeping around more than women dovetails so nicely with our preconceived notions, it's easy to hear numbers like those and just nod. I know I have. But I like what the previous acceptance of those numbers says about our ideas of female, rather than male, promiscuity. Because even for the mathematically illiterate, the numbers sound a little hokey, and require some pretty stupid mental contortions to make them work out. For me, it goes something like:

"Well, sure, most women only sleep with like four guys. But somewhere out there there are these total sluts, these super-skanks from hell who have slept with like 75 guys, which brings the guys' average up to 7. So it all works out."

1. As I said, this is pretty stupid. Mathematically and otherwise.
2. Alas, there are no super-skanks. Or at least no more than there are on the male side.

All this really means, in the end, is that men over-report their number of partners and women under-report, which falls into the "New Study Finds College Binge Drinking To Be A Blast" department. Except it would have been nice if the sex researchers could have previously mentioned that their research proves people lie, not that guys get laid a lot.

Blogging will recommence in 3..2..1...

2007-08-13T22:10:00.000-05:00

Avast, there be non-sequiturs ahead!

A lot of people seem to be all atwitter about Karl Rove leaving the White House. I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it's a good thing that one of the people most responsible for the sorry state of our democracy is no longer able to pop across the hall to help Bush pick out his socks or give him a backrub or whatever. But somehow it doesn't make me feel better to know that dickhead will soon be awash in more gold-plated doughnuts then he's ever dreamed of. Republican flacks don't resign, they just go to consulting heaven.

I just finished one of the best science fiction books I've picked up in years, William Gibson's Pattern Recognition. It was published in 2003, but the pop culture and technology entwined throughout the book was so fresh then that it's still bleeding-edge today. It can't even be called science fiction, really, since it's set in the present day and doesn't feature any events or people that couldn't plausibly exist. But it feels like science fiction, which just drives home how fast things are changing. Remember, technological change is exponential, not linear.

Right up there with Pattern Recognition is Cory Doctorow's recent collection of long short-fiction, Overclocked. Criticism of intellectual property law meets cyberpunky sci-fi? Sign me up! Plus, it includes a story called "When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth". Nerdgasms. And lots of 'em.

Speaking of nerdgasms, I was at a wedding Friday night that, I shit you not, was held in the same room they'd filmed part of The Dark Knight in a couple days before. Rumors say it might even have been Bruce Wayne's penthouse bedroom (apparently, he's living the pimp life while Wayne Manor is being rebuilt) — which would be appropriate because Hotel 71's 39th floor is a gorgeous location with views of downtown Chicago and the river on three sides. Don't know about you, but I want a wedding where a Batman DVD serves as an anniversary present.

I leave you with Dick Cheney, speaking about the first Gulf War, circa 1994:

Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgement was not very many, and I think we got it right.

That's 3,676 dead American soldiers so far. Oh, and at least 1,000 civilian contractors. But who's counting?

Give a hoot.

2007-06-12T00:55:00.000-05:00

I'm tickled to say that I just moved to Chicago.

Chicago is great so far. Sure, I miss D.C. which is easy to get around and full of oddball fun happenings, but Chicago's pretty wonderful.

Today I took a stroll along Lake Michigan. The lake is blue and lovely. A long path winds along the shore past beaches, harbors and swimming holes. You can jog, bike, rollerblade, sail, swim, golf, shoot arrows, picnic, stroll and just about anything else along the lake. I love most of those activities so the lakefront is my kind of place. There is just one small problem with the lakefront: litter.

Who litters? Who are you? Show yourself!

I won't venture a guess (republicans?) about who is littering. But you litterbugs know who you are. You might not know this but littering makes you an asshole. If you leave bottles, shoes, cans, papers, wrappers, burritos, plastic bags, cigarette butts, containers, dog poop, or anything else lying about in public spaces you are an asshole. Please stop.

Personally, I'd love to see police officers patrolling the lakefront and ticketing people who litter. Buck says this isn't the police's place. That may be true. But if my broken-bottle-dodging skills fail me I might bow-and-arrow some litterbugs into the lake.

In defense of country music (not jerks)

2007-05-16T22:29:00.000-05:00

Jerry Falwell died, and that's that. He wasn't a great person. He did some good things which are difficult for me to find on the Internet, actually.

But Falwell did far more public bad things. You can read plenty about the ridiculous crap Jerry Falwell pulled in his 73 years on other sites.

I don't make it a secret that I like country music. And when I tell some people that, especially when I'm rocking out to a song with a mean fiddle solo, they scowl. How silly.

I don't support Dixie-Chicks-haters, but I do support Tim McGraw.

I saw Tim McGraw, Faith Hill and other environmentalist rock stars at the Stop Global Warming Tour and he sang this amazing song, which he wrote. Partly because I assumed Tim McGraw, the liberal country heartthrob, was singing this just for me, I cried.

You might not like it, but at least you'll know that there are smart men in cowboy hats out there. And far too many really stupid men in suits running huge organizations.

Cowboy, take me away .

"If we leave Iraq, Al-Qaida wins"

2007-05-01T14:54:00.000-05:00

A fictional speech by Bush, inspired by the famous Patton speech (I changed less than you'd think)

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for freedom.

Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, about getting kicked out of Iraq or the Texas Air National Guard, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. Just look at that Virginia Tech kid.

When you were kids, you all admired the big league ball player, the Texas cowboy, the male cheerleader. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a liberal who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war on my watch. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to democracy.

Now, democracy is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights for one party. This bipartisan stuff is a bunch of hooey. Harry Reid doesn’t know any more about real battle than he does about fornicating.

We have the best freedom, the best strategery and the hottest women in the world. You know, I actually pity those poor terrorists we’re going up against. By Jesus, I do. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to throw hoods over their heads and put alligator clips on their genitals.

Now, some of you boys, I know, are wondering whether or not you'll cut and run under pressure. Don't worry about it. I can assure you that you will all do your duty. Terrorists are the enemy. Kill those nappy-headed hoes. Spill their blood. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was democracy, you'll know what to do.

Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to hear the media saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything. We are staying the course and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except freedom. We're going to go through Al-Qaida like freedom through a goose.

There’s one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank Jesus for it. Thirty years from now when you’re sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what did you do in the great War of Freedom, you won’t have to say, "Well, I shoveled organic shit in California."

Alright now, you know how I feel about September the 11th. And I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle — anytime, anywhere.

Let's roll.

Is it getting hot in here?

2007-04-22T21:11:00.000-05:00

Mandasaurus' parents recycle everything and she aspires to as fabulous to the earth as they are.

Gordon's right. It's not just me. Or Gordon. (Although Gordon and I are hot to trot in our own right.)

Global warming is happening for real.

As Earth Day No. 37 dwindles away I'm going to spread some tree-hugging ideas. Because we can stop damage from climate change. We need to act now. All of us. Even you.

It's actually not even that hard. We can take little steps to make big changes. And if we don't polar bears will drown. Seriously. I'm not letting the deaths of polar bears around the world fall on my shoulders.

Pardon me, I'm off to sort my recycling, unplug my chargers and keep those polar bears happy. Get to it!

The hotter they fall

2007-04-18T23:11:00.000-05:00

I’ve never been much of an environmentalist, but recent developments have definitely made me wonder what the fuck is going on.

For a few years now, it seems to have become an accepted fact that global temperatures are rising; the only debate has been over whether this issue is man-made or naturally occurring, and how quickly it’s happening.

Then in February, I skimmed over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that concluded “it is very likely that human activities are causing global warming.” (The only real controversy this report evoked was that they settled for 90% likelihood, while most respected scientists on the panel were pushing to declare 95% likelihood or more.)

Then earlier this week, a group of retired American generals and admirals delivered a concerned report that stating that global warming could provoke serious national security threats. These generals recommend that climate change should be integrated into national security strategies, and that the US should “vow to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.”

More recently, the US Council on Foreign Relations presented its case to the House or Representatives. Council President Richard Haass, who originally worked as a national security director for Bush Senior and has been a close friend of Colin Powell, led his case with this statement:

Should climate change be treated as a national security matter? The short and clear answer is “yes.” Countries are unlikely to go to war over levels of greenhouse gas emissions, but they may well go to war over the results of climate change, including water shortages and large-scale human migration. Climate change, by contributing to disease, extreme weather, challenges from insects that attack both food production and people, water shortages, and the loss of arable land, will also contribute to state failure, which in turn provides opportunities for activities such as terrorism, illegal drugs, and slavery that exploit “sovereignty deficits.”

And then just yesterday, the British Foreign Secretary took the issue of climate change to the UN Security Council. "The Security Council is the forum to discuss issues that threaten the peace and security of the international community. What makes wars start? Fights over water. Changing patterns of rainfall. Fights over food production, land use," she said. This is the first time the Council has discussed global warming; fifty bucks says it won’t be the last.

But wait a sec…isn’t all this global warming mumbo-jumbo just a bunch of hippie bullshit? Of course it is. After all, the only people talking about it are tree-hugging pinko leftists—you know, extreme liberals like a respected panel of scientists, a collection of retired military leaders, a former Bush security advisor and the United Nations Security Council. Sounds like Woodstock to me.

I don’t bring this up because I’m a die-hard environmentalist. I’m not. I don’t even recycle much. But maybe it really is time to step up the urgency on this issue. This may even be the big opportunity that flings America back to the forefront of global struggle the world is begging it to fight, all under the pretext of complementing the global struggle we’re currently fighting.

In fact, Bush can use this as a great way to get some of his popularity back, internationally and at home. He has a chance to “steal” the environment issue from liberals on the basis of global security. In the end, it could be a legacy that saves millions of lives and made the world love America again, but for the right reasons: leadership, technology, morality.

Somebody buy Cheney a Prius already.

I did a pink bracket! For women!

2007-03-14T19:27:00.000-05:00

Mandasaurus attended numerous Rockford Lightning basketball games as a child, used to get rides to class with Illini players and wishes she could palm a regulation basketball. She really appreciates you reading this blog.

I'll be honest - I don't know a lot about the NCAA Womens' Basketball Tournament. But I'm learning.

I saw a commercial for the Women's Tourney and I was stirred. Theses women kick ass! They're big and tough and they can shoot. Plus you can bet on them with an easy-to-use bracket (I used ESPN's).

There's lots of reasons to enjoy women's basketball, not least of which is the fine game the women play. I've heard the games are fun and you can get up-close to the players.

Also, as one fan told me, "Female athletes are hot." Fair enough. I, personally, dig the physique of some male athletes and I'm not ashamed to say so.

I've upped the interest for some friends and I by creating a pool. With a $5 investment I'm raring to watch these games go down.

You can copy me and start your own Women's Bracket Pool. For a cool $5 apiece my pals and I are betting on the women. We're going to have a party at Ventnor's for the final game and I'm baking cookies. I asked some trivia buddies to join my bracket pool and all of them (all men) were psyched.

I picked Maryland, which might have been stupid. Or not. Heck, I still have time to change it up and pick the Sooners! That Courtney Paris is amazing, according to my sports guru .

I've decided to become a fan of women's basketball. I can't slam dunk, and neither can most people, but I'd sure like to see someone in a sports bra try. Wouldn't you?

Smurfing Good Brackets *using little to no knowledge of current basketball wisdom

2007-03-11T22:33:00.000-05:00

Mandasaurus might suck at making a reasonable prediction about any sporting event, but she does not suck at making creme brulee (which involves a torch). Creme brulee attempt No. 1 was a smashing (if over-sugared) success and that's sweeter than your picks making it to the Sweet 16.

It's time to bracket-up on your bracketology and bracket your bracket over to bracketville, or whatever. I'm never right at picking brackets because I use the flawed logic of denying teams predicted success if I dislike their school, state, team colors, mascot or if their coach is an asshole. Somehow, in my mind, teams feel bad when I don't pick them to go all the way and they consider change their evil ways.

One year I picked Illinois (my alma mater) to go all the way and beat Texas (a school in my least favorite state) by more than 100 points. This year I'll definitely eliminate schools like Ohio State (jerks), Old Dominion (likely involvement in the Confederacy) and Oral Roberts (possibly conservative). Since it's unwise to remove No. 1 seeds I'll wait for a really crazy situation to predict Kansas' defeat, perhaps by Illinois. Alternately, Kansas could be defeated by a team of dragons.

To be ESPN-ish I'll go sub-bracket by sub-bracket to explain some factors you'd probably want to consider.

Midwest

Maryland is a No. 4 seed despite a crappy loss in the first round of the ACC - what gives? Perhaps the Terps can get it together, but I think they've probably been mis-seeded.
I think that Florida could easily be trounced in the regionals. That's just a feeling I'm having. My roommate is from Florida (the state) and says that Florida (the team) might have won the tournament last year. Hmm.
I like Notre Dame because the Fighting Irish have at least three excellent alums: two nice parents from my work and the West Wing's President Josiah Bartlett.

West

To me Illinois looks awesome in this sub-bracket. I like to imagine that Illinois is using this week to really, really practice free throws and getting the ball through the hoop even if there are tall dudes from the other team all over the place.
Look! Southern Illinois - those guys look good too.
Indiana and Kansas both sucks. Kansas really sucks the most because their coach is Bill Self. According to Wikipedia's Bill Self page:
After the 2003 season, Self left Illinois, after insisting he wasn't leaving, to take his "dream job", the head coaching job at Kansas.
Leaving after you say you aren't leaving is dishonest, nasty behavior. Illinois is better off with Bruce Weber, a real man (who occasionally dons an orange suit!) and a really good coach. But for the record, picking Kansas sucks.

South

Memphis is home of Graceland and great basketball, duh. Pick those guys.
Virginia deserves picking because of two things: Thomas Jefferson and Jaberwoke. Jaberwoke is a sandwich shop in UVA's campus town with thebest sandwich I've ever had. Ever.
I don't really think it's wise to go for North Texas or Central Conneticut State. Just a hunch.

East

As I will suggest for the rest of my days - UNC sucks. That team is full of cheaters and too-big players. Looking at the tarheel blue uniforms will hurt your eyes. If your team plays UNC your team will be subject to ticky-tack fouls and poor officiating. You'll be so mad that you'll come to say, just as those before you do, "UNC sucks."
I would strongly consider teams like George Washington University, Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Picking Texas Tech is picking Bobby Knight. Bobby Knight is an outrage. He's absolutely nuts. He is a menace to the NCAA. He is mean and terrible.

My bracket will be a masterpiece. I'll use my amazing logic and probably some wisdom from my good friend Michael David Smith who writes the only sports blog I read.

If my teams don't win I can still enjoy a cold beer as your teams do. And if UNC wins it all, I'll be growling until baseball season starts and I can bet it all on the Cubbies. I-L-L!

Reporting the buildup to a war, take three

2007-02-24T13:25:00.000-06:00

Media critic Dan Froomkin from the Washington Post has a few suggestions for the press corps as we gear up for yet another military conflict with the bad guys. Seeing as how we've been through this a couple times now, let's see what we can learn.

You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.
Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.
Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.
Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.
Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?
Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?
Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.
Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair.
Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them.
Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge.
Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials
Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them.
Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.)
Look Outside Our Borders
Pay attention to international opinion.
Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different?
Keep an eye out for how the international press is covering this story. Why should we be so different?
Understand the Enemy
Listen to people on the other side, and report their position.
Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture.
Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized.
Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior.
Encourage Public Debate
The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate.
Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively.
Write about Motives
Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war.
Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives.
If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives.
Talk to the Military
Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.

Sunni or Shiite?

2007-02-16T01:37:00.000-06:00

Take the Sunni or Shiite quiz. I went 8 for 8. But the real question is, can you beat our president?

Plot holes? What plot holes?

2007-02-14T03:18:00.000-06:00

All those with even a vague interest in Star Wars should read Keith Martin's brilliant update of the first Star Wars movie (aka A New Hope). It incorporates what we learned in the prequels and uses Geroge Lucas' gaping plot holes as an opportunity to tie things together; let's just say R2-D2 is more than he appears. This may be the coolest Star Wars piece I've ever read.

I got the Star Wars story courtesy of my favorite blog of the moment, Kung Fu Monkey. It's written by a screenwriter on Catwoman and the new Transformers movie, no less. His mini-screenplay responding to one of Bush's speeches absolutely cracked me up. (Though not as much as the baby video below.)

These will make you laugh

2007-02-13T14:13:00.000-06:00

Guaranteed. Check 'em out.

Respect for the dead

2007-02-09T21:31:00.000-06:00

Whatever you think about Anna Nicole Smith this much is unarguably true:

Anna Nicole Smith went before the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Unanimously.

In life Anna Nicole Smith had a ridiculous persona. Her breasts were enormous. She spoke in a ditzy voice. She made silly decisions. She wore wonderfully giant sunglasses. She might have married for reasons other than love. She did not marry foolishly.

She had two children. One of them died days after the other was born.

Anna Nicole Smith lived a real life, not just like everyone else — but not so unlike everyone else, either. And Anna Nicole Smith deserves respect. Not this:

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (AP) — Anna Nicole Smith, the pneumatic blonde whose life played out as an extraordinary tabloid tale — Playboy centerfold, jeans model, bride of an octogenarian oil tycoon, reality-show subject, tragic mother — died Thursday after collapsing at a hotel. She was 39.

If you don't know what I'm upset about direct your attention to the descriptor "pneumatic." (I also don't like "bride of an octogenarian" or "tragic mother" either.)

Pneumatic isn't a word you use to describe a person. Correction: It's not a word you use to describe a person worthy of respect, at least according to the AP.

I earned a journalism degree. I know how to write an obituary. Heck, I wrote my own for an assignment.

You write an obit with respect. Anna Nicole Smith deserves respect — no matter how busty or silly or ditzy she was. If she got respect from the U.S. Supreme Court, it shouldn't be so hard for the AP to show a bit.

Bear Down! Football might have something to say after all...

2007-01-31T23:45:00.000-06:00

Mandasaurus apologizes for being off with her blogging. She promises to bring a Lovie Smith degree of committment to America vs. The World during the coming months. She also wants learn to run defense like Brian Urlacher. Go Bears!

The Chicago Bears are going to the Super Bowl. Awesome!

I'll be watching the big game hardcore - jumping, swearing, yelling, cheering all in my Desmond Clark jersey like a badass. That's how I am.

But, hey, my love for the Bears is mighty. When the Bears win my heart sings. I actually sing, too. And I feel an enormous sense of pride. Here's why.

My dad and my brother are super Bears fans. My brother used to fill notebooks up with football plays drawn out in pencil. I used to fetch beers (quite possibly PBRs) for my dad and his best friend during Bears games. Once my dad's best friend threw my entire bucket of crayons when the Bears made a bad play. That's a lot of crayons.

I'm proud of the Bears, and Colts (I guess), for hiring excellent coaches. Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are both calm, focused, football masterminds. Sure, Mike Ditka is smooth as gravy but I think it takes a bigger, maybe better coach to keep cool when your team is down.

Lovie Smith is also a good man because he's involved in the American Diabetes Association. And he wears hats. I love men in hats.

Lovie Smith is also, alongside his friend (and former boss) Tony Dungy, the first black man to bring a team to the Super Bowl as the head coach. But that's not as important to me as the fact that Lovie Smith knows that a little does a lot.

"There is a look you can give them," Smith said. "Once you are upset, I think guys know. And if they don't know, you tell them. I just don't think you have to yell and scream to tell them. They are real men. They understand."

How many people know that?

And Lovie, wisely, expects everyone to be the way he is: clear, to the point and respectful. The press (and certain irritating fans) regularly harass Dear Coach Lovie about sending in back-up for quarterback Rex Grossman.

"I'm just wondering if Peyton Manning will be asked that question. Probably not," Smith said. "Rex Grossman should not be asked that question. I shouldn't be asked that question. Rex is our quarterback. I should not have to continue to go over that. I am not planning pulling Brian Urlacher or Olin Kreutz either."

That's right.

I'm excited because this will be a real game. It will be a match between two great teams. And on the field men will play, fighting for a win, respect and a ring.

I'm not a sports writer and I'm really just learning about the subtleties and beauty of football as I watch this (the first season where I live near a bar with the games on and people who will explain stuff to me) season's end. But I see that, like many sporting events, these games mean more than what a scoreboard says. They means something to cities, to people, to children, to families, to men.

"I think would like for us to treat people a certain way," Smith said. "We try to treat our players a certain way. I think it just starts with that. As much as anything, I would like for guys to just see that on a day-to-day basis, to have trust, faith and love each other, and you never know where you might end up. You might end up here at the Super Bowl."

Maybe this is the first, or the last, or the 31st Super Bowl that's like this. I don't know. But I'll watch, spunky as the day is long, cheering for something. I'll cheer for traditions like the GHS on each Bears' jersey and the brilliant 'C' on each helmet. I'll cheer for new things like a serene, powerful coach who uses calm words to send big messages. I'll cheer for first downs, touchdowns and a win for my Chicago Bears.

Mostly I can't stop cheering for Lovie and his men.

Go Bears.

My sudden Chuck Hagel crush

2007-01-24T18:48:00.000-06:00

Wow. This is awesome.

Turnabout is...poetic justice

2007-01-18T12:00:00.000-06:00

Don't you just love when someone turns your own tactics against you? President Bush, welcome to the ranks of us America-hating terrorist coddlers.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki voiced frustration with both President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, saying their recent criticism of the Iraqi government probably helped the "terrorists."

Al-Maliki, whose relationship with the United States is strained, was especially upset about Rice's comment last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when she said that al-Maliki's government is working on "borrowed time."

"Such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American administration, but I can tell you that they haven't defeated the Iraqi government," he said during a meeting with a handful of reporters.

Turning wine into gold

2007-01-11T21:52:00.000-06:00

I was sipping a cold glass of Jack Daniels while flipping through The Atlantic today when I stumbled upon this fun finding: drinking early and often is good for one’s career, at least according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In one study, a pair of health economists found that American men who drank heavily in high school in 1990 averaged noticeably higher incomes in 2000 than their sober former classmates. (No such link was found for women… sorry, ladies.)

Another study from the Reason Foundation found that self-described drinkers (male and female) earn 10-14% more than nondrinkers. The suggested reason? Drinking may help build the kinds of social networks that lead to success at the office.

I always knew I owed my career to the University of Illinois; turns out I was just toasting Champaign for all the wrong reasons.

Jefferson: Closet Muslim?

2007-01-04T12:05:00.000-06:00

Remember Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress? I wrote about him a few weeks ago because some people were outraged after hearing he wanted to take his oath of office on a copy of the Koran rather than the Bible.

Well, that turned out to be a bunch of hooey. No one in Congress uses any sort of book when they take their oath — everyone just raises their right hand and swears in unison. People are free to have all the unofficial swearing in ceremonies they like, however, involving the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon, whatever...you can swear on a stack of Fantastic Fours if you want.

So yes, after the official ceremony, Ellison is having a private swearing-in with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Ellison is one smart cookie, though. He's using Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran, on loan from the Library of Congress.

How un-American of Ellison. And Mr. Jefferson.

Keith strikes again

2007-01-04T01:38:00.000-06:00

In a speech next week, President Bush plans to announce his "new way forward" for Iraq. Reports have leaked out that this will likely involve sending an additional 20,000 to 40,000 troops. For a variety of reasons, this is completely bugshit insane. One of which is the recent election, which as far as I can tell was used by the American people to tell our president to GET US THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ. LIKE, SOON.

A hopping-mad Keith Olbermann says it better than I ever could.

Hope, from the death of a president

2007-01-02T23:56:00.000-06:00

As Buck and Gordon try to decide exactly what they'll be doing with this new year, Mandasaurus enjoyed not working on the National Day of Mourning.

Former President Gerald Ford lay in state at the U.S. Capitol this weekend.

President Ford lying in state in the Rotunda.

Since I live about three miles from there it seemed proper to go. Two friends and I hopped the train to L'Enfant Plaza and walked over to stand in line. We got there at about 8 p.m. Saturday. We stood — among visitors to D.C. who'd spent the entire day outside, mostly — until about 10 waiting and shuffling toward the Capitol.

We walked through security (metal detectors, x-ray machines) to the porch of the Capitol. I heard a little boy talk about Jupiter and "Saturun" and describe the awe of the armed security guards. We passed dozens (seriously, dozens) of security guards. All of them standing tall with solemn faces. Some held giant guns. Some gave sneaky nods as you walked by, saying, "Come on in."

Inside the Capitol Rotunda (which isn't easy to get to and is definitely one of the most beautiful rooms in America) it was silent. Probably 60 people were in there — walking, standing, taking photos — but it was silent. Spotlights hit the casket, soldiers, and wreaths.

Five men — officers of the Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force — stood as still as statues around Ford's casket. I saw one man blink. That's it.

I'm not a traditional gal. I don't toe the line. I can't imagine a military life. (Plus, I'm not allowed in since I take insulin for my diabetes.) I don't think it's for me to follow orders or iron an uniform to look proper.

But I'm incredibly thankful that there are such people out there. These soldiers will fight for America. These soldiers will die for each other. These soldiers can bring peace and war someplace.

It's a beautiful thing to see. It's respectful, beautiful, powerful and even peaceful. Maybe we can give that a chance. Maybe we can take the peace that comes alongside the death of an old man who was once our president and let it grow.

Can it? Will it? Let's hope.

Smart Shopping + Cookies = Happy Mandasaurus

2006-12-23T14:19:00.000-06:00

Giving gifts is a challenge, especially if you're related to people. It's hard to find the right gift for people who buy the things they need and want. It's really hard if those people are related to me.
Seriously, this year my dad delcared that he needs no more dvds or t-shirts and just joined a book club. Thanks.

Allow me to offer some smart, responsible gift ideas for you.

The Dixie Chicks album "Taking the Long Way" - The Dixie Chicks are amazing, brave women who stood up for what they said (and against the president when he was actually popular). The Dixies are nominated for Record, Album an Song of the Year Grammys. If you don't like country your open mind can still enjoy this album because it's powerful, political and thoughtful. Heck, the banjo is pretty awesome and no one can argue with a fiddle.
Books! - If you are shopping for a child buy that child a book. Kids need books. Books are good for them. Books make kids think. Books, seriously, make all the difference. That's according to research. Book are good for grown people too, unless that person just joined a book club.
Renter's Insurance - Hmmmm.
Fruit of the Month Club - I totally want this. And, therotically, it's healthy! Don't do Jelly of the Month Club. People don't like that.
Wine, liquor, donations to good causes, gift cards, checks and genuine promises of good times.

Anyways, enjoy your holidays. Whatever you celebrate you're getting (hopefully) an extra day or so off work. And people are cheering for snow, being oddly nice to one another and making yummy cookies to share. That's reason enough to have a good time.

Metal now, metal forever

2006-12-21T12:49:00.000-06:00

Thanks to my landlord's backup TV, I watched a pretty good heavy metal documentary over the weekend, Metal: A Headbangers Journey. Leave it to a Canadian metalhead anthropologist to produce a compelling study of the genre.

Though I more than enjoy my Dixie Chicks, Roxette and Björk, I've been a flashing the devil horns since my mom bought me ...And Justice For All back in 1990. One of my favorite parts of the movie was an intricate chart tracing the evolution of heavy metal through the years and listing the most prominent groups in each sub-genre.

I realized that I tend towards the the "happier" side of the tree (shock, pop, glam, power, industrial and thrash metal, among others). I've never even heard of a lot of bands on the opposite side (black, death and goth metal, hardcore, metalcore, grindcore), which tend to be rather...gross. Sample band names: Carcass, Exhumed, Cradle of Filth, Entombed, Dismember, Immolation and the legendary Dying Fetus.

Norwegian black metal bands (which have their own flourishing sub-genre) are actually rather crazy, in a not-at-all-amusing, rather-disturbing kind of way. Disturbing because there have been intra-band murders, a suicide where the remaining band members made jewelry out of the deceased's skull, various church burnings and some indications of actual Satanism. (Rather than, you know, just posing. As Alice Cooper says in the documentary, when you get up on stage with pentagrams, fake blood and black eye-shadow, it's not Satanism. It's Halloween.)

It seems like a lot of this Norwegian black metal sub-culture is less about music and more about rebellion against the state Church of Norway. Norway was originally converted to Catholicism by way of the sword about a thousand years ago, and the Norwegian king got rid of the Catholic part and integrated the church into the state in 1527. Since 1660, clergy have actually been civil servants.

Dee Snider visiting Congress.

Apparently, there's a lot of pent-up aggression towards the state religion, with some people wanting to return to their pre-Christian past. Although something like 85 percent of the Norwegian population belongs to the state church, only 10 percent attend services more than once a month. Which means you get young guys dressing like Vikings, professing allegiance to Satan and burning down churches in between barking out crazy Norwegian lyrics and laying down vaguely disquieting metal riffs.

A couple other observations from my docu-watching:

Dee Snider is awesome. As some of you older sorts may remember, the Twisted Sister frontman (along with Frank Zappa and John Denver) was called to testify by the Senate in 1985 to defend his music. This was during the Parents Music Resource Center's successful campaign to have music companies label records with the infamous "Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyric" label.

(And let's remember that it was Al Gore's wife Tipper who lead the crusade. No single party has a monopoly on censorship,)

As he relates in the movie, Snider completely sandbagged the committee. He walked into the hearing dressed in a cut-off jean jacket, with crazy hair and a little makeup. He smiled dumbly, pulled his crumpled-up statement from his pocket, and then proceeded to deliver a full-on rhetorical beat-down to the Senators on the committee. You can read the transcript here; it was awesome. Here's a snippet:

Parents can thank the PMRC for reminding them that there is no substitute for parental guidance. But that is where the PMRC's job ends.

The beauty of literature, poetry, and music is that they leave room for the audience to put its own imagination, experiences, and dreams into the words. The examples I cited earlier showed clear evidence of Twisted Sister's music being completely misinterpreted and unfairly judged by supposedly well-informed adults.

We cannot allow this to continue. There is no authority who has the right or the necessary insight to make these judgments, not myself, not the Federal Government, not some recording industry committee, not the PTA, not the RIAA, and certainly not the PMRC.

Did you know that the Cyndi Lauper song "She Bop" (also target by the PMRC) is about masturbation? I totally didn't. Here's the lyrics:

We-hell-I see them every night in tight blue jeans -
In the pages of a blue boy magazine
Hey I've been thinking of a new sensation
I'm picking up - good vibration -
Oop - she bop

Do I wanna go out with a lion's roar
Huh, yea, I wanna go south n get me some more
Hey, they say that a stitch in time saves nine
They say I better stop - or I'll go blind
Oop - she bop - she bop

She bop--he bop--a--we bop
I bop--you bop--a--they bop
Be bop--be bop--a--lu--she bop,
I hope He will understand
She bop--he bop--a--we bop
I bop--you bop--a--they bop
Be bop--be bop--a--lu--she bop,
Oo--oo--she--do--she bop--she bop

(whistle along here)...

Hey, hey - they say I better get a chaperone
Because I can't stop messin' with the danger zone
No, I won't worry, and I won't fret
Ain't no law against it yet
Oop - she bop - she bop

She bop - he bop - we bop...

The wages of city living

2006-12-19T01:43:00.000-06:00

(updated below)

My apartment got robbed last Thursday about 90 minutes after I left for work. I hadn't been in to the office yet that week (hey, it's a good life), and the thieves wanted to make sure I was really gone before entering.

Alas, we knew ye well.

The three of them jumped the alley gate into the backyard, then pushed a garbage can over to the first-floor windows facing onto the yard. They were lucky enough to find a window unlocked and soon all three were inside.

They'd been looking at the big TV in the front room since it was delivered, so they headed straight to the second floor and towards the front. A couple of them grabbed the surprisingly light TV while the third took stock. His eyes bugged out at the bookcase full of DVDs, and he started looking around for something to put them in. He grabbed bags from both bedrooms and dumped their contents on the floor, filling them with DVDs and Playstation 2 games. And the Playstation 2.

His buddies came back from leaving the television downstairs. They went into the bedrooms, dumping out drawers and taking the two digital cameras they found, as well as a watch, school ring and a half-full "I heart Las Vegas" piggy bank. Binoculars and ice skates were briefly considered before being left on the bed.

Downstairs, the landlord's 80-year-old mother heard the crash of drawers hitting the floor. She thought it was probably the boys who lived upstairs, but curled up in her bed. It didn't sound right.

One of the thieves grabbed a battered Powerbook off the living room table, making sure to get the power cord, and tossed it in a duffle bag alongside a bottle of Bacardi. On their way out the trio paused by the bikes but decided against it — no time. Among other things, they also left behind an old iMac, three Playstation 2 games, a 120GB external hard drive, several boxes of comic books and a baseball signed by Mark Buehrle.

Rather than going back over the fence, they jimmied the side door on the garage and opened it to the alley, where their car waited. As long as they were out there, they grabbed a computer monitor and a toy truck (destined for Toys for Tots, believe it or not).

You too.

At least that's what my roommate and I have pieced together since he came home Thursday night around 7, Subway in hand, to find the place trashed. He'd had the 42" high-definition plasma TV less than a month. No renters insurance, of course.

The cops came, and made cop jokes, and didn't bother giving us any false hopes about getting our stuff back. They suggested to my roommate that we'd been robbed because he's Asian and further suggested we move out of Bridgeport. The fingerprint guy came later, which was pretty cool, but didn't find anything worthwhile. He did tell us that our neighbor, a semi-paranoid limo driver, had been robbed only two days earlier in a similar manner.

It took me most of Friday to get the place back to normal. I'm not happy about the camera, but thank God I got a new computer last month and transferred all my irreplaceable files over. Here are the DVDs they left behind: the first season of Buffy, Office Space, Twin Peaks (the entire series), the first season of Lost, Heathers, Gladiator, and two seasons of Sex and the City. We're not sure whether this was a statement about our taste in movies.

It's a weird feeling. Someone took my laptop and dumped my stuff all over the floor. They watched our television through the window and waited for me to leave so they could steal it. It makes me mad, of course. Nothing worse than impotent rage.

But I think I'm more sad. Just sad this happened. I'm a very trusting person. I don't lock my car doors if I'll only be gone a few minutes. I leave the laundromat while my clothes are in the dryer. When I lived in Urbana after college, I used to leave my back door open while I was at work.

We didn't have any security at the back of the house, and I never gave it a second thought. Neither did my landlord, who has owned the place for years without problem.

He installed a heavy-duty security door Saturday, and we also put up blinds to shield the view from the street. I don't think I'll be any less trusting. But I've learned that being trusting doesn't excuse you from taking reasonable precautions. And getting some fucking renters insurance.

This morning as I got out of my car and went into the store, I stopped after a few steps and went back to lock my door. Because while I'm still trusting, I know now that you can get robbed, it does happen. I can't pretend it doesn't. So I lock my door. It's not a big deal. Won't slow me down at all getting back in.

But, yeah. It makes me sad.

UPDATE

Here are some pictures my roommate took of the carnage. He used his phone because, ha ha, no more cameras.

My room, his room and the forlorn DVD shelves, respectively:

But it looks so big on the map

2006-12-11T15:29:00.000-06:00

Oh man, this can't be good for the national psyche:

A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men.

The study found that more than half of the men measured had penises that were shorter than international standards for condoms.

Well, at least we know that not everything can be outsourced to the subcontinent.

I wonder how India's main rival measures up? I assume that any study with comparable results would have been ruthlessly suppressed by the Chinese government.

Respecting the Game

2006-12-11T12:57:00.000-06:00

(updated below)

There are a lot of reasons to like Barack Obama. He's a great public speaker. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He has a cool name.

But the best reason, perhaps, is that he don't playa hate.

After learning he had inadvertently cockblocked a young man, Obama felt so broken up about it he had to call and apologize. (Which tells you all you need to know about this presidential candidate.)

Obama: Nicholas, this is Barack Obama.

Nicholas Lovelady: Hey, how's it going?

Obama: Man, I am calling to publicly apologize for messin' up your game. I felt terrible. I didn't know there were any ladies around. I just wanted to let you know that I'm deeply sorry. But if she was that superficial, then she wasn't for you.

Lovelady: (chuckles) Well, I really appreciate it.

Obama: Well okay, man. Bye bye.

You can listen to it at "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!"

(h/t to The Poorman Insititute)

UPDATE

In case you didn't hear, Obama made an important announcement on Monday Night Football last night.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans are off their rockers

2006-12-07T00:02:00.000-06:00

Last week, a public radio show host pulled a Borat. Host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band:

The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be 'off his rocker.' The second congratulated him and added: 'Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country ... they are here to kill us.'

Another caller asked, "What good is identifying them? You have to set up encampments like during World War II with the Japanese and Germans."

This went on for about an hour when Klein revealed that it was all a hoax, a social experiment of sorts. He needn't have bothered, because polling already reveals that 39 percent of Americans are in favor of requiring Muslims in the United States, including American citizens, to carry special identification.

You know what that sounds like to the other 61 percent of Americans. It sounds an awful lot like the beginnings of the Holocaust — arm bands and tattoos, which Klein noted after the station's jammed phone lines calmed down:

"... Basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous."

I'm glad that at least a majority of us probably agree that those 39 percent are the dangerous ones. Thirty-nine percent, you are an outrage.

Hard days ahead for Congress

2006-12-06T17:59:00.000-06:00

The days of milk and honey are over in D.C. — here comes the five-day workweek.

It's been a rather easy year for our current crop of congresscritters. They'll have worked a grand total of 103 days in 2006, seven fewer than the infamous "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948. And for only $165,200 a year! Here's how Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn, described Congress back in May:

"They call it the Tuesday to Thursday Club. That means you get here Tuesday night, you have a few easy votes, you vote on Wednesday and then you go back home Thursday afternoon. And that, believe it or not, is considered a work week in Washington."

No longer! Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is cracking the whip — members of Congress will have to be at the Capitol by 6:30 p.m. most Mondays, and they can't leave until 2 p.m. on Fridays. Lordy lordy, how will they survive?

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that's what this says."

Eats away at families. Right. Unlike, say, the bankruptcy bill.

Do something smart

2006-12-05T07:37:00.000-06:00

Since I'm listed on the Internet as a doctor, once worked in a hospital and love all things medical (besides college-level science classes) — I'm blogging up a medical notice to everyone.

If you are a female, or you know any females, you need to know about Gardasil. It's a vaccine for HPV (the human papilomma virus). There are many strains of HPV and some of them cause cervical cancer. Some other strains of HPV cause genital warts. HPV is usually undetectable in men, though a man can give a woman HPV from sexual contact.

Gardasil is given in a series of three injections over six months. Women and girls from age 11 to 26 should get the vaccine and should ask their doctor's about it immediately.

It's critical to follow the vaccine timetable (take the first shot, the second two months later, the four months after that). I can't explain how this vaccine was created and the New York Times can't really explain it either, but this story gives you some insight.

Gardasil will do a lot to protect women in America from cervical cancer. And hopefully success here will bring more help for women and girls who don't have routine pap tests to check for precancerous cells and other abnormalities on the cervix which can lead to cancer. The vaccine is being distributed worldwide. Heck, New Hampshire is offering it for free. Awesome.

There's really no excuse not to get it. This can save your life, or the life of someone you know. The fewer people with HPV the better. Do it.

I can hear the complaining now, and I'm sure you've heard it before too. "I hate shots!" and "I don't like to go to my doctor," or "I'm healthy so I don't need to go to the doctor." Here goes, straight from Dr. Mandasaurus.

I take at least five shots a day from a syringe or insulin pen. I prick my finger at least five times a day. I have diabetes and I'm not scared of shots. Shots make my body work. If I don't take them I feel like shit. And if I didn't get shots I'd die. Seriously. I get bruises and bumps sometimes. Occasionally I'll hit a funny spot and the tiny needle will hurt really bad. But it's fine. I'm tough. Getting a shot that can save your life is easy. If you don't like needles be tough and take a deep breath.
Going to the doctor doesn't have to be fun. It's something you have to do. It's good for you. If you don't go you are being stupid. That's it. I'm sure you're not stupid. So don't be stupid.
Healthy is as healthy does and everyone — everyone — needs to go to the doctor. You need to go so the doctor can listen to your heart, check your reflexes and take notes on how freaking healthy you are. Then next time he can take notes on how much healthier you are. It will make your doctor so happy to see your healthiness every year. (Doctors mostly see pinkeye, coughs, mucus, rashes and people addicted to ibuprofen.) You'll be doing a good deed. Just go to the doctor.

That's the end of my public health announcement.

Family Council

2006-12-04T13:16:00.000-06:00

In a surprise move last week, the Cook County Board announced its intention to supplant City Hall as the most corrupt institution in Chicagoland, a title that city government has held for decades.

Leading the way is temporary board president Bobbie Steele. Temporary, because she was chosen to replace John Stroger, who had to resign from the board back in March due to health problems.

Remember John, who I wrote about a few months ago? He's the guy who masked the severity of his crippling stroke long enough to win the Democratic primary, and then got his son Todd to replace him on the ballot. Unsurprisingly, Stroger No. 2 went on to victory last month, and he's set to take the presidency back from Steele this week. Before that happens, Steele is resigning.

What's she doing to carry the corruption flag? I mean, it's not like she could even think of trying to put her son on the Board in her place, after the controversy that surrounded Stoger's replacement. Especially since she promised she would serve out the rest of her term if re-elected.

So...yeah. That's what she's doing. The ward committeemen in her district are getting together to select Steele's replacement, and they're expected to choose her son Robert. He'll serve out the entirety of her term, then be re-elected a few times until he decides to pass the office on to his daughter one day. The Tribune has the sordid details.

In addition to making the County Board into a hereditary fiefdom, Bobbie's retirement will also give her a nice little double bubble. Steele has been on the Board for 20 years, and would normally get a pension based on her board member salary of $85,000 a year. But if she retires while she's still president (after a whopping eight months), her pension will be based on the $170,000 a year president's salary.

I don't even know what to say at this point. Clearly, the voters don't care anymore, if they ever did. In my ode to Daley a couple months ago, I said that I don't really care much about local corruption, as long as government still functions effectively (if not efficiently). I still believe that, but this political nepotism is really pushing my limits. It's one thing to line your pockets. It's another to toss the democratic process out the window.

You're my...Brady

2006-12-02T02:33:00.000-06:00

He may have beat the Bears, but, well... I don't think they'll be making any videos like this about Urlacher.

Best. Man. Ever.

2006-11-30T23:34:00.000-06:00

The Atlantic recently came out with a list of their 100 most influential figures in American history. Here’s a quick look at the top 10 and the short blurb that accompanied each:

1. Abraham Lincoln. He saved the Union, freed the slaves, and presided over America’s second founding.

2. George Washington. He made the United States possible—not only by defeating a king, but by declining to become one himself.

3. Thomas Jefferson. The author of the five most important words in American history: “All men are created equal.”

4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” and then he proved it.

5. Alexander Hamilton. Soldier, banker, and political scientist, he set in motion an agrarian nation’s transformation into an industrial power.

6. Benjamin Franklin. The Founder-of-all-trades—scientist, printer, writer, diplomat, inventor, and more; like his country, he contained multitudes.

7. John Marshall. The defining chief justice, he established the Supreme Court as the equal of the other two federal branches.

8. Martin Luther King Jr. His dream of racial equality is still elusive, but no one did more to make it real.

9. Thomas Edison. It wasn’t just the lightbulb; the Wizard of Menlo Park was the most prolific inventor in American history.

10. Woodrow Wilson. He made the world safe for U.S. interventionism, if not for democracy.

While this list could provide enough fodder for a century-long debate, what I’m most interested in is their choice for the #1 slot.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Lincoln. I live in Illinois, where Honest Abe comes in second place to no one, maybe not even Jesus. And I surely appreciate all he did for this country at the most challenging point in its history.

But when we’re talking top dog, I’m all about George Washington. Not just number one on the list of most influential Americans, but among most significant political leaders anywhere. Possibly even number one among every human being. Ever.

Before you write me off as nuts, look at it this way. The history of world governments and leaders is one long tale of seizing power and not letting go, either by keeping it in the hands of cronies or heirs. No truly powerful nation ever went more than a generation or two without developing an elite monopoly or a bloody coup.

Then came the American Revolution—certainly a defining moment in history where a pool of remarkable talent, intelligence and leadership kicked out an empire and began a wave of modern democracy that’s still spreading today.

But talented groups of men have overthrown governments before; the key here was that once this elite group obtained power, they handed much of it to one man, to do what he wished. (Sure, there were checks and balances written in the liner notes, but historically speaking, truly powerful figures can easily override checks and balances, often permanently.)

So what did Washington do with this power? Were he like every other military and political leader in world history, he would have consolidated it, wiped out his enemies and assured fortune for himself and his family for generations.

Instead, the near-unanimously elected Washington served out his first term, easily won a second, and then, after eight successful, popular, glorious years…he quit.

Think about that for a moment. His people wanted to crown him king, and instead he voluntarily returned to civilian life, allowing America to choose another leader, one he would recognize, respect and support.

When else has a strong, popular leader (and a general to boot) of a potential world power refused the crown and passed the torch with no blood, no pressure, no turmoil? By my count: never. Not once. Not even close.

What Washington did was no less than completely break the cycle of power that had run unabated for millennia, and set the world on a new path. He took power out of those who seized it and gave it back to the masses. He set a precedent so remarkable, modern civilization is forever in his debt.

Today, America is the most powerful nation in history. And as the globe continues to democratize step by step, we must appreciate how different the world would be had Washington given in to the same pressure that plagued every leader the came before him.

What a badass.

Feeding the hate

2006-11-29T04:29:00.000-06:00

(updated below)

I happened across this Dennis Prager column through a link on Andrew Sullivan's blog. In a nutshell, Prager is outraged that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is requesting that he swear his oath of office on a Koran rather than the Christian Bible.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable request, but Prager disagrees: "He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."

It just gets worse from there, and isn't really worth responding to. A simple reading of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution is enough to render it absurd:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Case closed: I'd say that being required to swear on a Bible to the exclusion of all other books counts as a religious test.

I then got to reading the comments, just to find out what people were saying about such a stupid column. Most of you probably haven't spent much time in the comment sections of conservatives blogs and don't know how bad it gets. Here's a nice sampling of some common views on a member of the Muslim faith being elected to Congress. Each paragraph is from a different person:

Congratulations Minnesota. You sent a filthy animal to congress, and now look whats going on. Did he state during his campaign that, if elected, he would take his oath on the murdering handbook instead of the bible? If so, the people who voted this America hating dog in to office, are themselves America hating dogs!

***

Muslims are not to be trusted. A quick look across the pond to Europe shows that they refuse assimilate and actively seek to make the country that they infest like the one they left!...I think that the nicest thing that we could do for muslims in America, especially in light of the poor six imams on US Airways, is to return them to the Land of Allah ASAP. Preferably before Christmas would be a nice present

***

the lunatics in Minnesota will be pleased that their Muslim representative will take his oath of office on a book that teaches Muslims to revere their Prophet who enjoyed kiddy sex and promoted sexual slavery...May the people of Minnesota who voted for the Muslim lose what they don't deserve to have. And may the rest of us live in liberty.

***

While I do not expect he will, I would not be surprised to see Mr. Ellison push for the Islamicization of this country. By himself he won't be able to impose Sharia law, but he might get some terrorist groups off of watch lists and the like.

***

The abhorrent ideology that is Mohammedanism is a plainly false religion, but falsity doesn't keep Mormons out of Congress, so we have no choice but to permit him to serve. But what committee assignments will the party in power permit this dissembler? We'll see.

***

How can any American, including Mr. Ellison, think that using the Koran in any form or fashion within our halls of government is acceptable. The words contained in this book call for the death of America as a nation and of all American infidels. Is it not just plain, common horse sense? Have we lost our ability to see our enemies, hear our enemies, and acknowledge that they are dead serious. Using the Koran in this way is just another chip out of America and I bet islamic radicals everywhere are cheering us on, to our own self destruction.

***

The people who elected this Muslim to congress should be ashamed, and likely will be.

***

The election of Mr Ellison is only the latest proof of our desire for national suicide. Minnesota 5th district is about as far along the left you can get without running into a picture of Lenin...Let Ellison swear upon his koran, which calls for the death of all of us "pigs and monkeys" Let you gas-filled liberals cheer him on. Swim in the delights of diversity, till you drown. We'll bury you, alongside the army of the religion of peace. You'll be the first to go, because you will not defend yourselves,indeed you think the islamofacists are correct.

***

Ellison is a typical low-life hatemonger who has found protection under a 'religion' so he can spew his hate and violitile words under the cloak of 'religion'.

***

That Minnesota should be the first state to elect an avowed enemy to our way of life is no surprise at all. It must be driving voters in Massachusetts crazy that didn't win that run-off.

***

Referring to my subject of "Golden Girls" - I seem to recall that Rose, the really stupid one, came from Minnesota, and openly reflected the stupidity of the average Minnesotan. The writers of the show must have known something, even back then.

This sort of thing is not uncommon; some blogs are almost entirely dedicated to hating Islam and Muslims in general. (Google "little green footballs" for a taste — I won't link there.)

I'm pretty nearly a free speech absolutist, so I would never dispute people's right to say these things. But what I'd like to know is in what way this kind of talk, which reaches millions of people every day through right-wing blogs and conservative talk radio, is functionally different than the Nazi propaganda used to demonize Jews in the lead-up to the Holocaust. Propaganda willingly distributed by the German media, for which people were tried as war criminals.

Gordon, you're the Nazi expert. What do you think?

UPDATE

Wow. I don't know whether to feel foolish for taking a guy like Prager as a reliable source or outraged that someone would gin up a controversy like this out of nothing. How about both?

But Prager's column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

UPDATE II

It seems like a few people have gotten the wrong impression about this, so I just wanted to clear it up. I didn't go around to a bunch of blogs searching for inflammatory quotes about Muslims. I just compiled a list of some of the more extreme examples (and there were many more) as I read through the comments of Prager's column.

These quotes aren't from bloggers, they're from commenters. They're not from some random KKK hate site, they're from one of the most-visited conservative sites on the Web, and and you can find countless other comments just like them on most other mainstream conservative blogs.

Super soviet radioactive sushi posion spy murder!

2006-11-28T11:22:00.000-06:00

Have you been following this Alexander Litvinenko story? Former soviet security officer, defected to Britain, pissed off Putin—and more recently, killed off with poison in his sushi.

As a specialist in fighting organized crime in late-nineties Russia, Litvinenko had made more than his share of enemies. He wrote a book called “Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within,” in which he alleged that Russian Federal Security Service agents coordinated a series of 1999 apartment bombings that killed more than 300 people. (The government blamed it on—surprise!—the Chechens.)

He was also thought to be close with outspoken journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead last month in Moscow. (He recently spoke of investigating her murder.)

After his death in London a few days ago, tests revealed a "major dose" of a radioactive element in his bloodstream. High-level British officials are claiming foul play on behalf of high-level Russian officials.

On his deathbed, Litvinenko accused fan-favorite Russian President Putin of involvement in his death. Putin’s calling “bullshit” on that one.

So why am I writing about this today? Because it represents a shaky and potentially deteriorating state of diplomacy between Russia and Britain? To speak out against Moscow’s poor track record with dissenters?

Nope. I just think this ranks among the coolest stories of the year. It’s got everything: espionage, murder, investigation, poison, radiation, sushi and potential involvement from the highest levels of two of the most powerful governments in the world.

Just goes to prove a belief I’ve long held: reality is far more interesting that fiction. You just can’t make this stuff up!

Buck adds:

Oh, and it doesn't end there. Litvinenko was buddies with exiled Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky, a longtime foe of Putin. Berezovsky's London offices have been sealed off after traces of the radioactive substance that killed Litvinenko were found there.

Hey, don't say we didn't warn you.

Cosmo, we hardly knew ye

2006-11-20T17:45:00.000-06:00

(updated below)

There's no way of knowing what actors are really like, no matter how long we've been watching them or how many roles we've seen them play. But still, it's always a shock to find out someone is a virulent racist. Especially when it's Cosmo Kramer.

Watch Michael Richards go insane:

As Salon commented, it makes scenes like this one a lot less funny in retrospect.

UPDATE:

Over at Steve Gilliard's blog, one of his commenters weighs in with some industry experience and really breaks down Richards' outburst.

Less than a mile from the White House

2006-11-17T13:07:00.000-06:00

I shot this on Wednesday in Dupont Circle. He somehow looked sort of comfortable, but I assume things could get significantly more cushy for him. It's an outrage.

In praise of Howard Dean

2006-11-16T20:54:00.000-06:00

I've written before of my admiration for Howard Dean. But this election has really taken it to a new level.

How much more right could he have been about the 50-state strategy? By running candidates wherever he could, and helping resuscitate Democratic operations in communities where they had shriveled away to almost nothing, the Democratic Party was able to ride a fierce anti-Republican wave to victory across the country. The whole reason you build a national party is so that when the electorate is in a mood like this one, you can give them someone to elect.

But did you know that Dean was also incredibly, amazingly right about the problems invading Iraq would present? And more than that, was willing to talk about it in public. This is from a speech he gave in February 2003, a month before the invasion:

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

I, for one, am not ready to abandon the search for better answers.

As a doctor, I was trained to treat illness, and to examine a variety of options before deciding which to prescribe. I worried about side effects and took the time to see what else might work before proceeding to high-risk measures. . . .

We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.

We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.

If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean. I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.

I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.

I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, . . . .

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

Man, what a freakin' crazy hippy liberal whacko! Check out the rest of the speech for more left-wing craziness (i.e. reality).

The truth is, Howard Dean is an intelligent and reasonable man with a history of good governance and centrist positions. I believe he would have made a great president — a much better president than either John Kerry or George W. Bush, that's for sure. I don't think anyone had much of a chance against Bush in 2004 anyway (the American people clearly weren't done with him until last Tuesday), but it would have been nice to at least have had someone you believe in to vote for.

Here's hoping we get someone we can believe in for 2008.

The blue revolution

2006-11-16T11:35:00.000-06:00

Below, Gordon argues that despite the large Democratic gains last week, ours is still largely a purple country. And he's right — America has been and will continue to be a political melting pot, despite what the Republican Party has been claiming over the last few years (i.e. anyone who opposes them are in the minority of terrorist-loving cowards).

But we also shouldn't underestimate the historic nature of this election. I wouldn't call it an endorsement of the Democrats, but it certainly was a resounding rejection of the conservative philosophy of George W. Bush and the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.

Consider:

The Republican Party did not gain a single House seat from the Democrats. You know how often a party has failed to take at least one House seat from the opposition? Yeah, that's right, never.

Republicans also did not gain a single governorship or state legislative chamber, while the Dems gained six and 10, respectively. Democrats gained at least one seat in one or both chambers in 41 states, while Republicans gained one or more seat in one or both chambers in only eight states.
Should we really be using Montana and Virginia as an argument that this was a close election? Just the fact that Democrats were able to compete in those states is amazing. The Democrats basically won every single competitive Senate seat. That's the only way they could have taken the Senate.

New Hampshire has two Republican senators. In the election just past, both of New Hampshire's House seats and both state houses flipped to the Democratic Party (the house for the first time in 95 years!). Pennsylvania, Ohio and Minnesota also have Republican senators who weren't up for re-election this year. How do you think they might have fared last Tuesday?
If this had been a presidential election, the Democratic candidate would probably have won in a landslide. Voters cast 6.5 million more votes for Democratic Senate candidates than Republican candidates. (Keep in mind, however, that 17 states did not vote for a senator this year, including much of the Deep South.)

Ohio, the state that essentially gave the presidency to Bush in 2004, elected unabashed liberal Sherrod Brown to the Senate over a two-term incumbent by a 56-44 percent margin, and their new Democratic governor gained a whopping 60 percent of the vote.
Check out these CNN exit polls. Dems won Latino support 69-30 percent and the 29-and-under vote 60-38. What do you suppose that bodes for the future?
At least for the moment, the Republican Party has become the de facto party of the South and little else. That doesn't bode well for them, either.

A purplier America

2006-11-14T23:47:00.000-06:00

Let’s get one thing straight: while I was happy to see the Democrats squeeze out a close one last week, I’m certainly not one to declare that America has turned blue overnight.

Yes, taking both House and Senate in one fell swoop is a tremendous accomplishment, particularly for a party locked out of power for the better half of a decade. But to get a clear understanding of where America lines up on the political spectrum, we need to take a sober look at how this country voted.

First off, let me remind you all that the executive and judicial branches are still squarely in the red column, the former for at least another two years and the latter likely for another generation. So while my overzealous liberal brethren jubilantly declare that Democrats have taken over the government, what we’re really looking at a majority of one-third (though perhaps the most important one-third).

And when I say majority, I’m talking about the slimmest kind. Sure, the House went down easy, but the Senate was decided by a couple thousand voters in Montana and Virginia, and even those only tipped blue when factoring in Republican scandals of generous proportions. If it weren’t for Hurricane Katrina and Jack Abramoff and Bob Woodward and Mark Foley and all four military magazines calling for Rumsfeld’s ouster 24 hours before election day, we’d be looking at a Democratic House and a Republican Senate—which translates to a tie at best. Losing Virginia Senator Allen said it best: the Democrats “had the prevailing winds,” even if those winds were borne in Republican skies.

So much to the dismay of progressives and conservatives nationwide, ours is a nation of purple. And what we’ll come to realize over the next two years is that this is not a government of George Bushes and Nancy Pelosis, but of Joe Liebermans and Jim Webbs—centrist Democrats with Republican credentials.

America isn’t head over heels in love with the Democratic Party, but we’ll give them two years to do better with their third of the pie than Republicans have. And if they truly are the better party, two years is all they’ll need to prove it.

FEMA: The new F.U.B.A.R.

2006-11-11T11:49:00.000-06:00

You know, I don't think the federal government is super popular in New Orleans right now. Just a hunch.

What winning means

2006-11-10T09:41:00.000-06:00

Mandasaurus is half of Friday Chick Blogging and wore emerald green heels adorned with gems to Tuesday's DCCC fete.

Winning is awesome. I love the cheering, the celebration, the hop victory puts in your step. I love that on Wednesday (and each day after, I hope) I woke up to a better America.

I feel proud and ecstatic. I was invited (if that's what you call getting an invitation forwarded to you) to the DCCC's party Tuesday night. I stood beside liberals of many walks of life (union guys, staffers, college students, older people with political pins running up and down their outfits - real people) and we cheered. We cheered for the ideals of our new leaders in Congress and for their challenges to the White House. And tipsy (Rahm Emmanuel's open bar might be his best contribution to the Democratic Party) liberals still want cooperation. We hooted and clapped for bipartisanship just as much as we did for the opposition Democrats will create toward bad policy.

See Elvis? He says "A little less conversation, a little more action." He's right. Action.

Winning means we act. We say what we mean and we mean what we say (as Seuss says). We act on our promises and we hold people accountable. That goes for voters too.

Contact your Congresspeople when you have something to say - good or bad. Keep phone numbers for the people who represent you in your phone. It's easy to call them anytime - while you wait for the bus, while you take a walk, while you take your lunch break - anytime!

Keep your eyes on them. I love liberals, but I know that Washington, D.C. can be a naughty place for all politicians. It's so easy to come to this city without representation and just rock out. Lobbyists practically line the street offering steak dinners. Young people wear next-to-nothing and will do whatever politicians say. D.C. is like Temptation Island. Watch the people you send here. Read Media Matters For America and other watchdog sites, as well as The Washington Post and other news to keep up.

Keep thinking. That's easy. You are smart.

And being smart we know that our actions speak louder than our words. Winning means we act.

Just the facts

2006-11-09T02:22:00.000-06:00

A lot will be written about this election. A lot already has been. According to various pundits and bloggers, this election is:

A genuine triumph of grassroots political activism.
The end of conservatism as a legitimate governing philosophy.
An affirmation of American democracy.
The inevitable result of the Southern Strategy.
The final collapse of Karl Rove's reputation for genius.
A repudiation of the politics of division.

Of course, Digby has my favorite take on it. Digby always has my favorite take.

I agree with all those assessments to some extent. But to me, the most important thing about this election is that it was a victory for objective reality.

The most frustrating thing about the past six years is the way in which politics has decisively trumped reality. This is not battle we should still have to be fighting. The Enlightenment was 300 years ago, but here were are, still arguing about whether we should use reason and empiricism as the basis for human affairs.

I don't rail against Republicans because I am a partisan. Shit, I voted for two Greens and two Republicans in addition to a whole host of Democrats on Tuesday. I rail against Republicans because, based solely on the facts, they have been bad for our country. Regardless of your ideology, by any set of objective criteria they have failed to govern effectively. They haven't even achieved any of their own stated policy goals! (Alan Wolfe has his own ideas why this is so.)

Yet through a combination of jingoism, scare tactics and plain old ignorance, the majority of Americans have ignored or been unaware of how objectively bad one-party Republican rule has been for the country. It's an unattractive quality of the left to assume that the only reason the public doesn't agree with them is because people are ignorant and uninformed. But in the case of this government, what other explanation is there? We very well may have simultaneously had both the worst president and worst congress in American history.

This neglect of the facts mirrors the way the government itself has been run. The Republican Party has rejected science in favor of religion, facts in favor of opinion, partisan loyalty over ability and experience. The examples are legion.

When Karl Rove was put in charge of policy at the White House, this was the final triumph of perception over reality. As Gordon has said, this would be the equivalent of Bill Clinton putting James Carville in a position of real authority. No sane Democrat would want that.

Rove is just the most extreme example of a cronyism that will be one of the worst legacies of the Bush era. Thousands of key executive-branch positions have been filled with people utterly unqualified for their jobs. During previous administrations, of both parties, positions were filled with people who actually knew what they were doing. There will always be political appointees. But it's a big country. It's certainly possible to find someone who shares your ideology and who's also good at what they do.

I have faith that government can be a force for good in the world, if we rely on empiricism. What are the problems facing us? What are the best ways to fix them? What combination of public and private initiatives can we take to implement those ideas? I addressed this idea a couple months ago and Billy Joe Mills wrote a really interesting in-depth response that I never got around to replying to. I plan to in the next couple weeks.

Relying on reason is not hard. I'm not saying the Democrats are or will be paragons of clear thinking. But the Republicans have wandered so far from the ideas of the Enlightenment that anything will be an improvement. If and when Democrats act like this, I'll rail against them.

Five things to look at in mid-term aftermath

2006-11-08T14:51:00.000-06:00

1. The 50/50 states. Virginia and possibly Montana may witness a long, drawn-out recount in the next few weeks. Experts at CNN insist the democrats’ margin of victory is more than enough to hold up, but we all may have to wait just a little longer for that elusive feeling of closure. (If that’s the case, Buck can wait a few more weeks before I pay him for our election bet.)

2. The independents. Joseph Lieberman is at least 90% democrat, but in a 51/49 senate, it’s all the ways he’s not a democrat that will make things interesting. Expect both sides to court the hell out of him before the end of the year—he should expect some pretty high leadership position offers, and he may get a few bones from Republicans as well.

3. Rummy’s replacement. Rumsfeld is out. Robert Gates is in. A former head of the CIA, Gates has served several presidents of both parties with distinction. But much like we witnessed with recent Supreme Court nominees, look for his record and character to be put under the microscope over the next few weeks. We should hear more than a few references to the Iran-Contra affair. Fun fun!

4. Obama’s presidential bid. He’s going to review his options, but by January we should know if everyone’s favorite Barak is running for president in 2008. As a moderate progressive from Illinois, it would be my wet dream if he won. Happy as I am that the democrats won yesterday, their leadership doesn’t thrill me; I can do without Hillary and Nancy, and Harry Reid couldn’t inspire his way out of a paper bag.

5. The first 100 hours. Forget the first 100 days—Nancy Pelosi has laid out a gameplan for the first 100 hours in power. Minimum wage increase, 9/11 commission review, healthcare… should be a helluva couple of days, unlike anything we’ve seen in Congress in over a decade. But will Bush veto anything, and if so, what?

It finally happened

2006-11-08T10:14:00.000-06:00

Almost 30 House seats. Likely control of the Senate. Six governorships. At least nine state legislative chambers. Do you know what this means?

It means I finally won a political bet with Gordon!!!

Savor it, America. And check out this video compilation that I can't stop watching.

Freedom!

You know what to do

2006-11-07T08:09:00.000-06:00

VOTE!!!

I have absolutely no idea why Election Day isn't a national holiday. Hell, in Illinois we get Pulaski Day off so Polish people won't feel left out, but have to work the one day when time off would serve a purpose other than extra time for sleeping.

If you want to do more than just vote today, here's some ideas. If you want to know what's at stake in this election, read this. And finally, here's some voting music to get your toes tapping as you step on down to the polls:

Mandasaurus adds:

I love today. I love visiting school gymnasiums and asking old ladies for ballots and "I voted" stickers. This is the best day.

Here's why:

You get to be heard! And it's your right. Your workplace must give you time to do the deed! (According to Wildman Harrold — which is a law firm, not a crazy dude named Harrold, unfortunately.) Most states require employers to give you time off. And since you're reading a blog in the middle of the day chances are you wouldn't be missing much anyway.
If you live in some states you can even tell your boss that he can be sent to jail if he doesn't let you go vote. I would love to do that, if I wasn't the boss at my work. (And, yes, I've already given many people time off to vote tomorrow.)
It's easy. And don't use that tired excuse about not knowing where to vote. Let me help you!
I know you and your silly reasons why you can't vote. Don't know enough? Read up. It's fast and easy.
Most of you get to vote for Congressional Representation (you know, Senators and Reps, Sharks and Jets). Residents of Washington, D.C. (including me) do not. We are taxed without representation. This is wrong. In fact, your representatives allegedly look out for our best interests. They don't do that. They look out for the best interests of the people who vote for them. Not D.C. residents. We're kinda screwed, although we do have awesome monuments. You should vote for us, please.
You get a sticker. The kids at my work are utterly in awe of stickers. You are too.
People who hurt America don't want you to vote.
When you go to your polling place you can be a lookout to make sure people aren't discriminated against. And you can stand up for them.
You will feel like a proud, important part of what America is all about. And that's exactly what a voter is. Thanks.

Happy Election Day, voters. You make us all proud.

e•lec•tion [i-LEK-shun]—noun. A political enema.

2006-11-07T01:51:00.000-06:00

I always feel particularly patriotic on Election Day; considerably more than I do on Independence Day, no doubt.

(I’m sure this is affected by my being born outside the U.S., having only earned a vote after my parents waited in countless long lines for well over a decade.)

So I thought I’d channel my inner patriot by sharing this quote from Noah Webster who, back in 1781, beat the British twice—once on the battlefield and once in the library (his dictionary single-handedly spawned American English).

In the nascent years of the Union, Webster explained what he saw as the enlightened American mindset:

America sees the absurdities—she sees the kingdoms of Europe, disturbed by wrangling sectaries, or their commerce, population and improvements of every kind cramped and retarded, because the human mind like the body is fettered and bound fast by the chords of policy and superstition.

America laughs at their folly and shuns their errors. She founds her empire upon the idea of universal toleration. She admits all religions into her bosom. She secures the sacred rights of every individual. And (astonishing absurdity to Europeans!) she sees a thousand discordant opinions living in the strictest harmony.

It will finally raise her to a pitch of greatness and lustre, before which the glory of ancient Greece and Rome shall dwindle to a point, and the splendor of modern Empires fade into obscurity.

The verdict is in: democracy rocks. So go vote already.

It's almost over

2006-11-06T14:36:00.000-06:00

(updated below)

I don't think this election is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Thank God election day is here — I'm sick of talking about pure politics with no substance behind it, and I'm sure you're tired of reading it. But then, that's what American politics have become, isn't it? I'm only 29, so my personal experience is rather limited. But I can't imagine there have been many election seasons more nasty, spiteful and absolutely substance-free than this one.

Has there been a single discussion of actual issues anywhere? Oh sure, there's been debates, and Q&A sessions with the candidates, and you can go on the candidates' Web sites for their stances on the issues. But the national and local media has been dominated by sound bites and slogans with nothing behind them.

Cut and run. Rubber stamp Congress. Handouts to illegal immigrants. Stay the course. Soft on terrorism. Too conservative. Too liberal. Right. Left. Blah blah fucking blah.

These are abstractions — while there might be some seed of truth buried deep down, they don't really mean anything anymore. They're all just code words now, and they all seem to come down to "Vote for this guy, and a giant crack will open up in the ground and suck the United States down into oblivion. Or worse."

Here's an illustrative quote from an independent Republican group paying for millions of Democrat-bashing, automated phone calls to voters around the country:

Mr. Swift said his group had tried to report each candidate's views accurately. But, he said, "it is very challenging to take something as complex as a person's background and track record and communicate it in a 30-second sound bite."

Ummm, yeah, it is. That's why you shouldn't try to do it. The democratic process is predicated on creating an informed electorate, not 30-second sound bites. My grandmother is actually trying to choose between candidates based on commercials, because her vision isn't great these days and she doesn't use the Web. Ugh.

The entire system seems to be groaning under its own weight. There's nothing but negative ads as far as the eye can see, with a good dose of outright lying for good measure. I've been out canvassing, and the sense of disillusion with the entire democratic process was almost palpable in everyone I met, no matter what their party affiliation.

There's a common misconception that both sides are equally culpable for this atmosphere. While the Democrats certainly aren't innocent, it's never been clearer which side are the bad guys, and we don't even have to talk policy — their techniques in this election have revealed the Republican party to be utterly amoral.

Let me give you a simple example that tells you all you need to know about the Republican party as it exists today. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has been dumping millions of dollars into automated calls in tight races all over the country. Here's Josh Marshall's succinct description of this tactic:

What we're seeing is an apparent coordinated effort from the NRCC — the House GOP committee — to place calls that appear to be from the local Democratic candidate and then automatically call the same number back as many as seven or eight times each time the caller hang-ups. If the caller listens to the whole message it goes on to bash the Democratic candidate. But if the caller hangs up prematurely, the computer calls right back. Hang-ups are the achilles heal of robo-calls. So this seems to be an attempt to cover for that weakness by making those who hang up think the Democratic candidate is basically harassing them with phone calls. The GOP wins either way.

I heard several people complain about these calls while canvassing for Tammy Duckworth, and did my best to explain that they did not come from her. But there's really no good way to counteract it, and anecdotal evidence suggests it's turning off a lot of likely Democratic voters.

Think about what this says about the Republican party. This is clearly a tactic intended to discourage people from voting and make them frustrated with the entire electoral process in general. Six, seven calls in a row! The phone ringing at 6 a.m.! How would you respond?

Yet the Republican party has not only admitted to this behavior (which is apparently legal in most states), but claims there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, some Republican candidates have asked the NRCC to stop the calls, but they've refused. Maybe I'm naive, but I like to think that even if tactics like these were used in years past, the perpetrators at least had the decency to look ashamed when they were caught. Now it's done right out in the open.

Issues, policy, substance? Screw that! We're just going to make everyone so disgusted that only our hard-core supporters vote.

I don't know how we got here. It might be as simple as evil, ~~amoral~~ self-obsessed men seizing the reins of Republican power — maybe things will return to some sort of normalcy once the party purges itself of Tom DeLay and Co. But I doubt it.

Does anyone have any ideas? Come what may tomorrow, we've got a long road ahead of us before we can once again claim that American democracy is functioning as its designers intended.

UPDATE:

More substance.

Try to imagine what was going through the minds of the people who produced this ad.

Just can it

2006-11-03T17:40:00.000-06:00

Julie Beth is half of Friday Chick Blogging. You can read more of her at It's an Outrage.

Can't they ever just can it?

Why is it that the teaming hoards of White House pack journalists seem to relish the days the president's spokesman hands them an easy story all wrapped up in pretty paper with ribbons? I think it's probably because they are a bunch of overworked but mostly lazy reporters. So they grab the gift, unwrap it, tediously pull out all the tissue paper and styrofoam peanuts, gush all over it for as long as the news cycle can bear and stop just before they start looking like complete morons.

That is exactly what happened this week when Sen. John Kerry, a decorated veteran who is not running for any office, uttered his immortal insult to U.S. troops. By the time White House press secretary Tony Snow took a softball question from a Fox News reporter, Kerry's remarks had already been reported in local newspapers, which are no doubt members of The Associated Press.

Yet White House reporters, who also work for organizations that are members of The Associated Press, didn't think it was a story until Snow started talking about it the next day. Then it metamorphosed into the lead story on nearly every national news broadcast, in most national papers and was the top story for quite a while on The New York Times' Web site.

I don't care if Karl Rove himself says young people might have to join the Army if they don't study. You will never convince me the story deserves top billing for nearly two news cycles. You will never convince me it deserves any significant attention at all. The proof is on the Times' site today, where the outrage that is John Kerry has suddenly fallen off the map. Why? Well, the federal government accidentally posted instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb on this very Internet. And on Tuesday, every state in the union is having a little something called Election Day. Also, it turns out they now have a much juicier story to latch onto involving sex, drugs and hypocrisy — too bad Snow couldn't hand a gift like that to the press corps.

Incidentally, the only mention of The Great Kerry Flap of 2006 on the Times' front today are letters in response to its editorial about it and a column by Thomas Friedman (which is unfortunately available only through TimesSelect) pointing out that making John Kerry's insult important is itself an insult:

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, "They must think I'm stupid." Because they surely do...

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His "genius" is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country's health, prove him wrong this time."

I'm pretty sure Friedman would also love to tell White House reporters, their editors and producers to just can it.

Blogging? What's that?

2006-11-02T16:46:00.000-06:00

I'm getting a new computer. This makes me happy.

My computer hates me.

Ordering a computer is a pretty crazy look at the modern world. After I place my order online, the computer gets picked up by FedEx in Shanghai, China. They then ship it to Anchorage, Alaska (taking the great circle route), where it gets held up a bit in customs. (And probably searched for child porn.) It then goes to a FedEx hub in Indianapolis, where it is put on a truck and quickly delivered to me in Chicago. Start to finish, the whole process takes about 4-5 days tops. And I can monitor each step on the FedEx Web site. Pretty cool.

Why the new computer (other than sheer embarrassment at being seen in public with the old one)? You may recall that I had to leave my job because I refused to take a drug test based on my right to privacy and the desire to maintain my impressive coke habit. (That there's a joke, all you future employers and girlfriends.)

Well, it turned out that my company couldn't really afford to let me leave, because their Web sites would have blown up. On one hand, that would have been fun to watch. But on the other hand, they're giving me lots of money. To work from home. For only 40 hours a week. Without taking a drug test.

Lesson: Stand up for your principles and you will be rewarded financially. And get to buy a tax-deductible computer.

Anyways, that (aside from my cat being kidnapped) is why I haven't been around here much recently. Seems like I should have a lot more free time now, but I've discovered that I kind of suck at "time management" and "not fucking around all the time." Plus, this get-paid-more-to-work-less gig isn't going to last forever, so I'm trying to start up my own Web business. I don't want to get rich, I just want to go the Ron Livingston route: sit on my ass and do nothing, or at least only as much as I absolutely need to.

Which isn't exactly the most ambitious plan ever, but will certainly leave more time for blogging. So, we all win.

In the meantime, since neither Gordon nor I seem capable of posting, you should check out an interesting discussion going on in the comments of his last post. Also, Friday chick blogger Julie Beth has been on a tear recently. Go read her at It's An Outrage.

Friday fungus blogging

2006-10-27T11:30:00.000-05:00

This is what's been growing in my kitchen.

World, I give you... potonions!

Back just in time

2006-10-26T15:16:00.000-05:00

Hey all.

The source of all the trouble.

So, my cat was kidnapped by these Bulgarians. They wanted 35 pounds of zinc for him. I can't afford copper, let alone zinc, so off to Bulgaria in pursuit it was. Several winding, fruitstand-destroying car chases in comically small European cars later, I'm back home with my cat, some duty-free chocolate and a scorching case of herpes.

Ha ha, just kidding. That duty-free stuff is a ripoff.

Which is to say, sorry about the not blogging thing. And here I come back to find the partisan rhetoric flowing like wine.

Despite some of the language thrown around here from time to time, I am usually not prone to partisan politics. And this blog was certainly never intended to be. Shit, Gordon has voted Libertarian more than once. I don't really agree with Mandasaurous in her disdain for Republicans. Personally, I find that kind of moral superiority hands down the most annoying thing about Democrats and the left. As I said before, I would have no problem voting for the right Republican. And though I can't imagine being friends with anyone who genuinely supports President Bush, in saner times I've known and liked many Republicans.

That said, these times are not sane. Gordon's "why don't both sides knock it off" message implies that both Democrats and Republicans (and both the left and the right) are responsible for the current state of our nation and our political discourse. That is, to put it nicely, fuckin' bullshite.

For the last six years, the Republican Party has dominated U.S. government and American politics in a way rarely seen before. Not only have they controlled all three branches of government (the judicial branch is mostly Republican appointees), they have taken unprecedented steps to secure and retain that control. From passing laws without allowing debate or amendments to guaranteeing elections through gerrymandering to excluding Democrats from legislative conferences between the houses, Republicans have changed the very way the legislative branch operates.

One of the most pernicious changes is the so-called majority-of-the-majority rule: Republican leadership in the House will only allow a vote on bills that have the support of a majority of Republican representatives. This means that if a law can only be passed by collecting some Democratic votes to go with some Republican votes, it will not be brought to the floor. Period. In one fell swoop, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert cut the Democratic party out of the legislative process.

There's plenty more; John Dean does a good job of detailing many of the institutional changes they've made in Conservatives Without Conscience. And of course that's just Congress. The executive branch is so ridden with unqualified Republican hacks and cronies that it will take years to undo the damage.

To put it another way, Democrats have spent the last six years recoiling from one big, long Republican bitch slap. Even if they want to get in on the fun and piss off some moderates, they've got to pick themselves off the floor first.

I'm hesitant to endorse a party simply because the other guys are even worse. But I'm not sure that's the case here. Tom called the Republicans the evil party and Democrats the stupid party, but it seems to me that Republicans embody both evil and stupidity a lot better than the Democrats these days. The Clinton years now seem like a relative paradise, and while the high-taxing, free-spending, hippy peacenik Democrat Party has been a right-wing boogeyman for years, I have yet to see much of it in practice.

I came of political age during the 90's, and have never been able to understand why the Republican Party has traditionally been the party of libertarians and "leave me alone" conservatives. Perhaps once upon a time Republicans represented those views better, but since I've been watching they've stood for government endorsement of religion, the scaling back of Constitutional rights, laws favorable to business at the expense of consumers, intrusion into citizens' private lives and large budgets supported by borrowing, rather than taxes.

Markos Moulitsas (aka Kos) recently published a piece for libertarian thinktank The Cato Institute making the case for the "libertarian Democrat," and I think it's a good one. Here's an even better one from Sifu Tweety:

If there's been one thing most galling about the Worst President Ever's era, by the way, it's been having to care about the opinions of rank idiots. That somebody jollily febrile enough to rationalize torture — torture! — or question evolution — evolution?! — is actually in a position to influence my own life one way or another is flat fucking offensive to my strong sense of idiot-free self-determination (very libertarian democrat!).

Tom is right — there's been nothing remotely conservative about the Bush administration and this Republican Congress. Or as he put it, "some kind of bastardized corporate-lobbied state giving government support to rapacious, evil men." Sounds about right.

Help oust Republicans!

Give money

Volunteer:

Even if you don't like the Democrats, it's clear to most people that Republican one-party rule has been an absolute disaster for America. It will take years for the United States to regain the prominence in the world it once had and reverse some of the damage Republican polices have had at home.

In a few years, we can go back to judging candidates individually on the merits. But right now we have to get these crazy assholes out of power before they mess up the country and the world any worse.

You've still got time to help the cause of idiot-free self-determination. Give some money to Democratic candidates, and if you live in the Chicagoland area, consider volunteering for Melissa Bean or Tammy Duckworth, who are both in fairly close House races.

And make sure to vote!! I've got a $40 bet with Gordon that rides on the Democrats retaking both houses. After losing to him the last two elections, I could use the cash.

Seven things Dems and Reps should do to avoid pissing off moderates

2006-10-24T12:12:00.000-05:00

Some words of wisdom from the extreme middle:

Democrats: stop turning global politics into a popularity contest. Though an America that’s loved has more potential power than an America that’s despised, you have to acknowledge that large populations will always dislike and blame us for reasons beyond our control. (We represent the status quo, and unhappy people hate the status quo.) America requires just enough popularity to retain authority in an increasingly democratic world—any less and we’re pariahs, any more and we’re suckers. That being said, we’re a long way from that minimal level of popularity.

Republicans: stop working religion where it doesn’t belong. Hundreds of years ago, a couple of heretics named Copernicus and Galileo dared to engage science free of religious intervention, and that seems to have worked out for everyone. Today, we need to follow that example by keeping creationism and “intelligent design” out of classrooms, by pursuing stem cell research like a first-world nation, and by acknowledging abortion as a proven way to reduce poverty and crime. Let the scientific Renaissance live on. Jesus will understand.

Democrats: Stop pushing for nationalized healthcare. Europe’s cushy healthcare structure is so expensive, it currently threatens to bring down entire economies when Baby Boomers start retiring in five years. So while a significant chunk of Americans can’t afford medical care, we need to approach this with our heads, not our hearts. That means baby steps: start by making preventative and critical care more available, then find a way to give insurance companies an incentive for adjusting prices and accommodating subsidies at the state and federal level. Our goals should be realistic—if we can’t get the healthcare we want for ourselves, let’s aim to get it for our grandchildren.

Republicans: stop blocking gay rights. Republicans may claim a history of defending civil rights, but a political party is defined by what it is, not what it was—and what you currently are is a party searching for a Constitutional Amendment that takes rights away from a specific group of people. At some point, you need to realize that gays are the new blacks, and they’ll eventually get the rights they deserve, so stop embarrassing yourselves and let this one take its course.

Democrats: stop thinking only with your hearts. The concept of “redistribution of wealth” is shortsighted, socialist and (to most red-blooded Americans) truly sinful. A government collects taxes with the permission of its citizens, and it does so with the understanding that it will use the money in a manner that best benefits the nation as a whole—at the very least, better than if those dollars were spent privately. Just remember: tax revenues and social programs are a means to an end, so don’t be surprised (or upset) if your dollar goes to pesticide research instead of the homeless.

Republicans: stop thinking only with your wallets. Adam Smith was dead-on when he said “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” But that’s not to say that what’s best for your particular bank account is always best for America as a whole. Sometimes we should embrace that small extra tax or fee (within reason, of course) that may improve our aggregate social health or snowball into economic growth. Just realize that a true laissez-faire economy exists only in textbooks, and a helping hand doesn’t have to be associated with a bleeding heart.

Everyone: Start keeping an open mind. Generally speaking, the other side’s extremes are not much more evil or idiotic than your own—they just see the world through a different lens, emphasize different details and draw different conclusions. Most Americans want a country that is strong, smart and successful, but what that means and how to get there vary person to person, and sometimes even one person’s means and ends don’t line up. So let’s think before we make blanket accusations, avoid the name-calling and try to minimize selective reasoning. You’ll be doing yourself—and your party—a huge favor.

I'm not ready to make nice, either.

2006-10-22T21:19:00.000-05:00

Right on, Dixies.

My recent post about my personal refusal to date Republicans was met with some criticism. I'm pretty thick-skinned so my response here isn't meant as a defense. It might even be meant as something more — a call to stand up and get mad.

This topic came up recently as I watched West Wing with my dear friend who called the show "liberal porn." He said that the West Wing makes us think that Republicans are reasonable. And in real life, in Washington at least, that's not true.

Republicans (professional ones, especially) are bad. Republican policies are hurting America.

Schools in America are worse for the policies that Republicans have put into action. More children are dropping out of school, or finishing school without an education that could help them go further. Healthcare isn't improving like it could. Civil rights are being curtailed in favor of a vague notion of security. More than 2,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq.

This isn't right. And I'm not going to be wishy-washy or compromising about it. I'm going to stomp my feet, yell, vote and tell my friends to vote too. I'm giving money to candidates I support, and I might volunteer my rowdy ass on Election Day.

I'm going to take lies spouted by Republicans as personal offenses and I'm going to shout the truth from the rooftops. I'm going to call people out on being racist, sexist and discriminating in other ways. (George Allen, I'm taking about you.) I'm not fooled by Republicans shrugging their shoulders about corruption.

I'm not saying I hate you if you're a Republican. You're probably perfectly nice, and you're probably confused about why you've been led astray. But I am saying that you're wrong. And you're hurting America.

How do you fix things without switching over the dark side? Stand up, too. Tell Republican policy makers and pundits that they're hurting the party. Tell them that Republican ideals don't match this nonsense. Scream from the hilltops that you, a Republican at heart, think that all people deserve equal treatment — equally fair shots at education, equal right to marry someone we love, equal opportunity to be great.

The Dixies are right. We shouldn't make nice, back down. Let's be mad as hell. And do something about it.

Int'l Power Rankings | 10.10.06 Edition

2006-10-09T22:48:00.000-05:00

The Politically Incorrect International Power Rankings

Power Rankings and political incorrectness go hand in hand—after all, who’s to say that one country is more important than another? But the fact is, some nations are more powerful than others, some really don’t matter at all on the international stage, and some could really use a swift kick in the ass.

So for this fourth installation of the International Power Rankings, let’s spice things up a bit with a rare dose of brutal honesty. Grab a drink, kick back and read the brutally honest truth about the world’s 25 most significant countries.

Previous rankings: 6.19.06 | 7.5.06 | 8.28.06

1. America. A half dozen books on international power politics have taught me three basic things: A) Though historically unique in many ways, the United States is undeniably an empire. B) Events of the past 15 years suggest that the United States fits the classic mold of an empire in decline. C) Empires do not decline gracefully.

2. China. In 1997, I made a $20,000 wager with a friend, betting that China would surpass the United States either militarily or economically within 50 years. Most political analyses point to the year 2045 as a good over-under. That’s right—if you want to predict the future, follow the gamblers.

3. Russia. Let’s face it—Russians enjoy watching America squirm over Iran. After all, America hasn’t done much to help Russia prosper under democracy or capitalism, and now the Russian people are understandably bitter and untrusting. As a result, we can probably expect them to root for any future challengers to America’s global prominence from now on.

4. Japan. New prime minister means new opportunity to warm things up with China. I suggest his first diplomatic move should be to NOT VISIT THAT DAMN WWII WAR DEAD SHRINE. Seriously. Oh, and get an air force already.

5. France. It’s quite possible that within three or four generations, America will be nothing more than a second tier power in the shadow of a massive empire or two, at which point we’ll have to get better at using shrewd diplomacy to balance delicate alliances slightly in our favor. In other words, we’re gonna be France someday, so we may as well take notes now.

6. Britain. I miss Tony Blair already—particularly the old school Tony Blair, who was little more than a witty, Clintonesque playboy always one step away from a sex scandal. Politics are just so much more fun when they involve sex scandals, dontcha think?

7. Germany. When is Germany going to grow a pair and stop being France’s bitch in EU matters? They’re like that cartoon gangster’s sidekick who’s bigger and stronger than the head guy, and you just sit back and wonder why he always takes the abuse.

8. India. Why does America support a nuclear India? Because when the day comes that a Sino-Russian alliance starts divvying up Asia, we’ll need the world’s largest democracy on our side. So enjoy the nukes, boys, and let us know if we can get you anything else.

9. Pakistan. Musharraf better not fucking get shot. That’s all I have to say.

10. Iran. America will not—I repeat, will not—attack Iran before 2008. We just don’t have the resources to follow through. To bad they don’t have a strong, relatively secular neighbor willing to stand up to them… oh wait, they used to! Remember Saddam “Buffer” Hussein?

11. Italy. If I were Italy, and I was watching the highfalutin trio of France, Germany and Britain enjoy their global role as the E3, I’d rally the other E22 and establish myself as top dog. I’m sure they could at least get Poland on board.

12. Israel. All those people wishing Prime Minister Olmert out of office over the Lebanon fiasco should understand that if elections were held today, Likud leader Bibi Netanyahu would probably win. For those who don’t know him, Netanyahu’s hawkish rhetoric makes Ariel Sharon look like Gandhi.

13. South Korea. So your boy Ban Ki-moon is about to become the next Secretary General of the UN. Big whoop. Ghana just had Kofi Annan in there for the past 10 years, and what did that do for Ghana?

14. Turkey. A Christian Turk hijacked a plane as a “stay away” message to the Pope. So now what—does the Pope cancel? Or does he visit, and risk getting shot? When these are issues in Turkey of all places, you know we’re in trouble.

15. Brazil. First I called Brazil a potential superpower. Then a regional leader. By now, let’s just say they’re the world’s most powerful Portuguese-speaking country. (Portugal’s a not-too-distant second.)

16. Australia. I love Australia. They seem to get it. Maybe we should start prisoner colonies on distant islands more often.

17. Canada. Canada is like that pothead neighbor who might have a lot of potential, but is far more interested in being comfortable than accomplishing anything.

18. Saudi Arabia. Let’s see if those Saudis come through for W and lower those gas prices just a little bit more. While we’re at it, why don’t we just kill two birds with one stone and convert gas stations into voting booths this November?

19. Poland. Alliances and diplomat conflict with America and France (respectively) make Poland look like a big man on campus. Perhaps they should be a little more concerned with Russia, Ukraine and Georgia making noise in their own backyard.

20. Egypt. When it came to Israel and Hezbollah, Egypt gambled on mediation and lost. Now they’ve lost international clout as well as street cred in their own cities. But without oil, they still need American financial support to keep them afloat. What a shitty position to be in.

21. Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is becoming an extremely popular anti-American world leader, polling highest among Middle Easterners—may of whom prefer him to their own leaders. Kinda wish we paid more attention to Latin America now, huh?

22. Mexico. You ever wish Mexico would just take over all those little Central American countries so we wouldn’t have to remember so many names? Would anyone really notice?

23. North Korea. Kim Jung-il is the saddest excuse for a world leader there ever was—and yet, his little game of nuclear blackmail will, at some point, probably end up paying off.

24. Ukraine. Life in Eastern Europe is so much easier when you just kiss Russia’s ass.

25. Syria. When America’s neocons realize they can’t make a military move on Iran, you think they’ll take it out on Syria? Mark my word: Bashar al-Assad will be a household name by 2008.

Close, but no cigar: Palestine, South Africa, Indonesia, Spain, Belgium. (Yes, that Belgium.)

Republicans Lie, Or How I Created Deal Breakers and Learned I Really Love Liberals

2006-10-08T19:22:00.000-05:00

In honor of her day off, Mandasaurus brings Friday Chick Blogging to a - eeeek! - Monday. It's sure to cure your case of the Mondays or bring brightness to your celebration of Columbus and the woe he brought to America in 1492.

I'm open to just about anything. I give peace a chance. I try new and different foods. I read Parade Magazine on Sundays alongside the Washington Post Magazine (this proves openness, somehow).

But in the wide, wacky world of dating, I've drawn the line. Every dating person has a list: deal breakers. I won't date Republicans. And actually, I don't date people with strict loyalty to silly parties like the Green Party, Libertarians and the others. I also don't date people who spoil things for others by revealing information like who dies in the Harry Potter books.

This is not harsh. It's essential. My experience has taught me the wisdom of deal breakers.

Here's a secret. In college I had a Republican Crush. My R.C. seemed fun, had goofy hair, and let me visit an election returns party for his Republican club as a reporter. Months later I met the R.C. again at a bar. My friend's friend was dating his friend. So, the Republican and I chatted, flirted, drank cocktails and smooched. Whoa, I thought, I could date this cool Republican*.

Weeks later the R.C. (widely known henceforth by a much meaner nickname) lied to his friends about me! He told his friends terrible lies about me. He attacked my character. He told people I really liked him, which obviously was impossible. I don't like liars who besmirch me.

In short, the R.C. acted like a Republican. He told lies and made a smart, sassy, awesome woman appear to be a foolish, slutty idiot. Of course my friends didn't believe the Republican's nonsense, and I couldn't really blame him. It's like blaming a snake for biting. That's what snakes do, silly mouse.

Years later, I dated a sweet engineer who brought me flowers and drank Bass Ale. We got along like peas and carrots (he cooked me lasagna!) until the U.S. invaded Iraq. Quickly, I ended things. And then he called.

"Did you break up with me because I'm a Republican?" he asked, as the start of my first and only breakup debriefing.

"Oh, well, hmmmm. Yes," I replied, eventually.

I also refused to continue dating a Libertarian who asked me out on a bus and admitted he was balding over beers. And Bostonian claimed he "thought things over and now changed" into a Democrat. That won him my phone number, but no smooching.

Whenever I hear Republicans lie, I can't help but think back to my crush. It's wrong and it's hurting America, but I can't expect a tiger to change his stripes, not in dating at least.

But here's the lesson. We Americans can expect congressmen, appointed officials and public servants to change their stripes. It's their job. Lying isn't cool. It's not cool to lie about a hot chick. And it's really not cool to lie about whether you know about a congressman flirting with underage pages.

What I'm saying is that honesty is the best policy.

And while we're being honest, as bad as Republicans are at telling the truth -- they're really bad kissers.

* That's a trick! And it's a sign I wasn't thinking logically. Republicans aren't cool.

Give 'em hell, Nancy

2006-10-06T12:16:00.000-05:00

With the Republican party's collective head exploding, it grows increasingly likely that the Democrats will retake at least the House (and possibly the Senate), making Rep. Nancy Pelosi the first woman to server as Speaker of the House. What's not to like?

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats — in her fondest wish — win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history.

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

Can we roll back the bankruptcy bill, too? I think we can.

There has been so much bad law passed over the last six years that just the idea of the Democrats retaking the House has me salivating. I don't really consider myself a Democrat, although that's the way I have voted in every election. If I was presented with a Republican whom I really though was a better candidate, I would have no problem voting for him. Shit, I'd vote for almost anyone over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The guy makes Bush look brilliant. Too bad the Republican candidate, Judy Baar Topinka, has about as much brains as Rod with half the charm.

The fact is, one-party rule has made me more unabashedly liberal than I would have ever thought possible. This has been one of the most conservative administrations, and Congresses, in living memory. What we need right now is not bipartisanship. We need full on Liberalism, in all its glory, to undo the damage the Republican Party has done to our nation and its citizens over the past six years.

Maybe, after reversing the bankruptcy bill and the detainee bill, after prohibiting warrantless wiretaping and protecting net neutrality, after conducting hearings on the Iraq war and the War On Terror, after cleaning House, kicking ass and taking names... maybe then we can think about cooperation, if by then the Republican party has shed itself of its theocratic authoritarian leanings.

But if we don't first undo some of its worst excesses, we will be stuck with them.

I hope Pelosi comes out swinging, no holds barred. Send these fucking cockroaches scurrying for cover. Shine some light on one of the darker periods in U.S. government, and see what's lying in the shadows.

Give 'em hell, Nancy. Give 'em hell.

A tale of two Koreas

2006-10-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

(First off, let me just say that a post about the political sex scandal of the decade is a hard act to follow. Damn.)

In the same week that South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki Moon has emerged as the front-runner for secretary general of the United Nations, North Korean nutjob Kim Jung-il has made a nuclear testing threat that has even China saying ”knock that shit off.”

South Korea continues rising into an elite group of wealthy and peaceful nations (on par with Japan, Canada and Western Europe), and seems to be increasing its share of political leadership as well. Hard to imagine that 50 years ago, South Korea was considered no more than a Third World country—as opposed to North Korea, which today may require a new category (Fourth World? Seventh?) to properly label its downward spiral.

We often cite the transformation of post-WWII Germany and Japan when looking for an example of successful nation-building, but Korea may be the best case yet for American intervention (military, political and economic) abroad. Still, before comparing South Korea to Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s important to keep in mind that Korea was invaded from the north by Chinese- and Soviet-backed proxies (as opposed to struggling with its own violent leadership), and the Koreans welcomed American assistance in the conflict (unlike the Vietnamese). In that regard, South Korea is more like Kuwait than Iraq—and last I checked, Kuwait seems to like us just fine.

So apparently, here’s the equation for boosting your nation’s standing in the world: be geographically pivotal, get invaded by a significant power that opposes the US, and welcome American forces and dollars with open arms.

Heads up, Monaco.

Best. Sex Scandal. Ever.

2006-10-03T09:30:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

The Republican Party has been quietly imploding for a while now, but with all the school shootings and JonBenet Ramsey news, it's been hard to notice. What we've needed is a good old-fashioned sex scandal.

Thank you, Mark Foley! Seriously, thank you — the public (and more importantly, the press) doesn't really care about government until someone gets his dick sucked. We're not there yet, but man oh man, is this the gift that keeps on giving. If you were going to design the perfect sex scandal to drop right on some moralizing Republican heads, what would be some of the key elements?

Well first, it would have to be a gay scandal. Seeing as how homosexuals are the gravest threat to the nation since Larry Flynt, it'd be nice to find out one of their own has been helping destroy America. Check.

Second, since the Republican leadership was so absolutely appalled by Bill Clinton having an affair with a 22 year old, the objects of Congressional affection here should be underage. Check.

Hmm. What else? How about if the very same people who lorded their moral superiority over Clinton were themselves involved in a coverup? Check.

I'm telling you, this is the best. It's like one of those Russian dolls, except every time you pull out the smaller doll inside, it's a member of Congress doing something depraved.

Audio recordings would be nice. But instead, what about some nasty instant message exchanges? Check:

Maf54 (7:46:33 PM): did any girl give you a haand job this weekend

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:38 PM): lol no

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:40 PM): im single right now

Xxxxxxxxx (7:46:57 PM): my last gf and i broke up a few weeks agi

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): are you

Maf54 (7:47:11 PM): good so your getting horny

Xxxxxxxxx (7:47:29 PM): lol...a bit

Maf54 (7:48:00 PM): did you spank it this weekend yourself

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:04 PM): no

Xxxxxxxxx (7:48:16 PM): been too tired and too busy

Maf54 (7:48:33 PM): wow...

Maf54 (7:48:34 PM): i am never to busy haha

See, that's why I always turn on encryption before engaging in online pedophilia. (Note: The chats are much funnier if you imagine Foley saying everything in an Austin Powers voice.)

So, did Foley go beyond just instant messaging? Well, here's where I stop rooting for the scandal. It's one thing to cheer on the self-immolation of the "values party," it's another to hope that a nasty old man got his hands, and other parts, on a 16-year-old kid. But this exchange doesn't sound good:

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

Teen: ya I cant wait til dc

Maf54: :)

Teen: did you pick a night for dinner

Maf54: not yet...but likely Friday

Teen: ok...ill plan for Friday then

Maf54: that will be fun

Maf54: I want to see you

Teen: Like I said not til feb...then we will go to dinner

Maf54: and then what happens

Teen: we eat...we drink...who knows...hang out...late into the night

Maf54: and

Teen: I dunno

Maf54: dunno what

Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here...im not sure what I would be comfortable with...well see

Ugh. Leave it to a Republican to ruin a sex scandal for me. But I'm sure that we haven't heard the last, not by a long shot; the media is all over this. All you future politicians, remember: it's OK to mislead the country into war, litter the government with incompetents, embrace corruption like it's a hobby and run the national debt through the roof — but don't, under any circumstances, lie about your penis.

UPDATE:

More nasty instant messages are out. I could update this post endlessly, of course, but Josh Marshall's TPM Muckraker is a good place to start for the latest Foley news.

I mostly wanted to include the snippet below. Glenn Greenwald isn't exactly the funniest blogger around, but I thought this was hilarious.

The Big Revelation has not yet occurred. That is going to be the first confirmed report of Foley's having actual, in-person sex with one of the pages. At this point, there is no doubt that he did so. He wasn't inviting them over to his apartment to drink alcohol in order to watch television with them. Still, that hasn't been reported yet. We've been building up to it incrementally and Brian Ross is, I have no doubt, scouring his inbox at this moment for the lead that will take him there.

These endless, incremental disclosures are much more painful for the Republicans — not unlike Chinese Water Torture (which, coincidentally enough, is a technique that the President now has the power to use, thanks in part to legislation approved last week by Denny Hastert, John Boehner, Tom Reynolds and Mark Foley).

Out of the way!

2006-09-29T12:30:00.000-05:00

JB West and I have promised you Chicky Fridays, and we keep our promises.

What good is my awesome pink bike helmet? This smart researcher figured out that cars give bikers more room when they're sans helmet. The researcher was also hit by a truck during his study.

I really wish cars would be more thoughtful. Let's look at the logic.

Mandasaurus rides a bike.
Bikes do not cause traffic. Rather bicycles negate traffic.
Mandasaurus is making traffic better by riding her sweet bicycle.
Also, Mandasaurus is not threatening your car's self-esteem. Mandasaurus is slow on her bike. She won't beat you anywhere.

So why, why, why don't you just let me by?

This message about my bicycling extends to the White House and its "security" staff. The White House has a lovely, wide drive for bikes, walkers, protesters and very secure vehicles. Occasionally, like on Sept. 11 or when a cool foreign friend is visiting, security guards shoo me away from the White House. Rude!

So, party people, watch out on the streets! Bicyclists are excellent. Bikes are good for the environment. Bikes improve traffic.

Bicyclists are occasionally cute, sassy and awesome. Unless you hit them with your stupid car.

Unconscionable and unconstitutional

2006-09-28T23:50:00.000-05:00

I have never been more ashamed of my government than I am today.

I know a lot of non-citizens living in this country. My roommate's parents, for example. The detaineee bill passed today would allow President George Bush to order them seized from their apartment in New York City, tortured, and held indefinitely without the ability to challenge their imprisonment.

Is Bush likely to do this? No. But the system of government establish by our Founding Fathers does not depend on the better natures of our leaders. They had a rather dim view of human nature, in fact, and knew that even the best of men would be tempted to abuse power (and Bush is hardly the best of men). The rule of law and the Bill of Rights exist us to protect us from our government, not faith and hope.

This law guts that. Think I'm exaggerating?

"Buried in the complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

"This dangerous compromise," Professor Ackerman continued, "not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops 'during an armed conflict,' it also allows him to seize anybody who has 'purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.' This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison."

I'm too depressed to write much more. (Mandasaurous said "You are emotionally attached to the Constitution like I am emotionally attached to poor kids I've never met.") So I'll let a couple of Senators speak for me.

George Washington is Gordon's favorite president, for good reason. This is taken from the stirring speech delivered by Hillary Clinton (yeah, who'd a thunk it?) on the floor of the Senate today:

During the Revolutionary War, between the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which set our founding ideals to paper, and the writing of our Constitution, which fortified those ideals under the rule of law, our values – our beliefs as Americans — were already being tested.

We were at war and victory was hardly assured, in fact the situation was closer to the opposite. New York City and Long Island had been captured. General George Washington and the continental army retreated across New Jersey to Pennsylvania, suffering tremendous casualties and a body blow to the cause of American Independence.

It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, "These are the times that try men's souls." Soon afterward, Washington led his soldiers across the Delaware River and onto victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice.

How would General Washington treat these men? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Washington's Crossing," thousands of American prisoners of war were "treated with extreme cruelty by British captors." There are accounts of injured soldiers who surrendered being murdered instead of quartered. Countless Americans dying in prison hulks in New York harbor. Starvation and other acts of inhumanity perpetrated against Americans confined to churches in New York City.

The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days, years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it's easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren."

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world. We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.

Here's Harry Reid:

The Framers of our Constitution understood the need for checks and balances, but this bill discards them.

Many of the worst provisions were not in the Committee-reported bill, and were not in the compromise announced last Friday. They were added over the weekend after backroom meetings with White House lawyers.

We have tried to improve this legislation. Senator Levin proposed to substitute the bipartisan bill that was reported by the Armed Services Committee. That amendment was rejected.

Senators Specter and Leahy offered an amendment to restore the right to judicial review — that amendment was rejected.

Senator Rockefeller offered an amendment to improve congressional oversight of CIA programs — that amendment was rejected.

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that inhumane interrogation tactics prohibited by the Army Field manual could not be used on Americans or on others — that amendment was rejected.

And Senator Byrd offered an amendment to sunset military commissions so that Congress would simply be required to reconsider this far-reaching authority after five years of experience. Even that amendment was rejected.

I strongly believe this legislation is unconstitutional. It will almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court. And when that happens, we'll be back here several years from now debating how to bring terrorists to justice.

The families of the 9/11 victims and the nation have been waiting five years for the perpetrators of these attacks to be brought to justice. They should not have to wait longer. We should get this right now — and we are not doing so by passing this bill. The National security policies of this administration and Republican Congress may have been tough, but they haven't been smart. The American people are paying a price for their mistakes.

History will judge our actions here today. I am convinced that future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error. I wish to be recorded as one who voted against taking this step.

Our shameful Congress

2006-09-28T10:58:00.000-05:00

Today the Senate is debating a bill that essential allows the president of the United States to authorize torture and deny detainees the Great Writ of habeas corpus. The New York Times explains why this is such an awful bill, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

The House passed the bill yesterday. It may be too late to make any difference, but please, if you cherish the values this country has held dear since its founding, call your Senators and ask them to oppose this abomination. As the Times says, if there was ever a time for a filibuster, this is it.

More on this later tonight.

Don't mess with Musharraf

2006-09-26T15:51:00.000-05:00

updated below

Last week, Pakistan has accused the Bush administration of threatening it with military force if it did not cooperate in the War on Terror immediately following 9/11.

In a recently released memoir, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf stated that Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage declared that Pakistan would be “bombed back to the Stone Age” if he did not . (It should be noted that Armitage denies ever making such a statement, and is chalking it up to a gross mistranslation.)

Musharraf also declared that that America paid Pakistan millions of dollars in bounties for catching Al Qaida fighters in the past five years. While this is not necessarily criminal, it is an embarrassing exercise for the world’s City on a Hill to participate in.

These are bold allegations coming from a man I consider the most important man in the world. Why do I consider Musharraf so damn significant? It’s not that his country is the most powerful in the world (I actually rank Pakistan #9). But Pakistan is ranked #1 in my book in three noteworthy categories:

1. Pakistan is America’s most powerful partner in the War on Terror. Britain offers the most troops in Iraq and Israel may offer the most moral support, but Pakistan is the one on the front lines catching the actual terrorists in places others can’t.

2. Pakistan is the world’s most powerful entity that can believably be expected to switch sides. Russia may still resent America, China may challenge us in a generation and France may fight us diplomatically, but Pakistan is a country that could realistically become a true enemy along the lines of Iran or North Korea within a very short period of time—if they were motivated to do so.

3. Pakistan is the world’s most powerful country run entirely by one man. He’s a dictator who doesn’t have to answer to a Parliament, a Cabinet or any voters. And when that one man executes policies that benefit us but are opposed by the vast majority of his people, we should be increasingly concerned with his well being. A single well-aimed bullet could turn America’s key ally into America’s greatest foe. (Did I mention he has several attempts on his life each year?)

Needless to say, Musharraf is far too important a global player to piss off at this stage in the game. If the allegations are true, then we should all be concerned with his decision to accuse Bush Administration now. Because allies who break rank with talk sometimes follow that up with action.

UPDATE:

No more than six hours after I declare Pakistani President Musharraf the most significant man in the world, and he ends up being interviewed by the wittiest man in the world.

Catch Musharraf on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which originally aired on Tuesday, September 26. (My personal favorite moment: when Stewart asks Musharraf who would win an election in Pakistan between Bush and Bin Laden, and Musharraf responds "they'd both lose miserably."

Four young lives, stolen

2006-09-25T23:15:00.000-05:00

In East St. Louis, Ill., a woman named Tiffany Hall killed her friend Jimella Tunstall last week — a friend so close she called her "cousin."

Life in East St. Louis.

Tiffany Hall confessed and said she killed her friend, cut the fetus out of her belly with scissors, and left her to bleed to death in a field of weeds. Jimella Tunstall's three other children were found dead Saturday in a washer and a dryer.

The three kids — ages 7, 2 and 1 — were missing for six days. You can read the whole story.

This is a tragedy. It's horrific and scary.

I've spent time in East St. Louis, in particular with the East St. Louis Action Research Project, which sends University of Illinois students to one the state's poorest, most crime-ridden areas to bring college smarts and grassroots improvements to the city.

East St. Louis is one of the most striking places I've ever been. It's not much different than bad neighborhoods in most cities, but here it's a whole city that's poor. A city where Ike met Tina, where you can see the Gateway Arch from almost everywhere, a city that once had great jazz clubs and now has notorious strip clubs.

Today it's a place no one would want to visit. Buildings are abandoned and falling down. The only businesses that seem to thrive are churches, liquor stores and check-cashing joints. There are 72.5 males for every 100 females, and 97 percent of the population is black.

I don't believe that Tiffany Hall or Jimella Tunstall had what they deserved — in life or, in Jimella Tunstall's case, death.

We all make choices, and many would have you believe that all of us pick choices out of the same hat. But we don't.

I can't believe that Jimella Tunstall and Tiffany Hall had the opportunities that you and I had at age 16. Jimella Tunstall was pregnant by then. Update: So was Tiffany Hall. The Department of Children and Family Services intervened with both of their families. Both women had children who spent time in foster care.

I think that these women grew up in a place where desperation is an everyday emotion. I think that these women and children lived a scary, sad and difficult life through and through. Not because they were poor, but because they were poor in a place where poor is a fact of life.

I think that all the services that are available to help young mothers, poor mothers and uneducated mothers weren't enough. Poor is life in East St. Louis. Many girls drop out of high school there with swelling bellies and babies on the way. Another baby follows the first, and pretty soon Jimella Tunstall was 23 with baby No. 4 on the way. And even after Jimella Tunstall, the fetus in her womb, 7-year-old DeMond, 2-year-old Ivan and year-old Jinela died, no one came forward to say, "That baby is mine, too." Even days later no newspapers come out and call the situation an outrage.

This is our fault. We live in a rich, rich world.

Why can't we help women not have four kids before they turn 24? And why do I feel convinced that if the women and children in this story were white it'd be a tragedy, but since they're black, it's a fact of life in a shitty, poor city?

Tell me I'm wrong all you want. I'm an optimist. An idealist, even. But this is almost knocking me down. We can't live like this. Can we?

Survey says

2006-09-24T23:09:00.000-05:00

In another sign that Republicans might have trouble holding onto Congress in November, a poll commissioned by the Center for Rural Strategies found a majority of voters who live in rural areas believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. That might be bad news for all the president's men, who have gained enough small-town votes in the recent past to overtake Democratic strongholds in the more populous cities.

But small-town voters still like Dubya a bit more than the rest of the country — 47 percent of them approve of the bang-up (or not) job he is doing, as opposed to the 44 percent of the rest of the land.

Coups are dumb

2006-09-22T15:05:00.000-05:00

Julie Beth is half of Friday Chick Blogging. You can read more of her at It's an Outrage.

Allow me to repeat: Coups are dumb.

Let's examine the logic here. Or rather, not here, but in Thailand. Some People (not Everyone, not even close to Everyone) think their democratically-elected leader is bogus, a fraud, a bad man, a lying, cheating son of a bitch. It certainly sounds like he might be. I'll give that to Some People, if they'll grant me that George W. Bush is a lying, cheating ... well, you get it.

So Some People say, "This isn't democracy. This isn't the way it's supposed to work. We want democracy!"

Some People happen to have access to very large guns and tanks and plenty of yellow ribbon.

And in rabid pursuit of democracy, they use their weapons and pretty bows to surround the houses of government in the middle of the night while the Bad Man is out of town. Then, these self-proclaimed democracy lovers instantly rip up the constitution and warn the press that they will be arrested for saying or printing anything that interferes with Some People's ability to assemble a new, democratic government. Which might take a year or so. But in the meantime, no more than five people are allowed to assemble for political purposes, because that's what democracies call "a redress of grievances" and Some People can't have that. After all, they just redressed the grievances of Everyone for them.

How nice of Some People to take the initiative. Isn't it great how that works out for you, Some People?

Coups are dumb.

Love, hate and low prices

2006-09-21T17:55:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

Despite my dislike for Chicago's big-box-retailer law, among my friends and family I'm a well-known Wal-Mart hater. The only two times I've ever shopped there were in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and White Sands, New Mexico — sometimes, there's just nowhere else to buy firewood.

But ever since I first heard the argument that Wal-Mart's low prices actually help the poor more than enough to make up for its low wages, I've been a bit waffly. I love the idea of capitalism making people's lives better just by letting the market work its magic.

Hear yea, hear yea, behold the power of the free market: $4 prescription drugs!

Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, said it would begin selling generic versions of widely prescribed drugs to its workers and customers at sharply reduced prices, a move that could force rival pharmacies to do the same.

The giant discount chain, which has used its size to knock down the costs of toys, clothing and groceries, will sell 300 generic drugs for as low as $4 for a one-month supply. On average, generic drugs cost between $10 and $30 for a 30-day prescription.

I'm big on the power of technology to improve the lives of the world's less fortunate, whether they're living in the inner city or Sub-Saharan Africa. Though most its ability to offer lower prices comes from the leverage of being the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart has also done a lot to revolutionize logistics. You can guarantee no one knows how to move toilet paper from California to Connecticut for less than they do. That's what's happened here — Wal-Mart claims the drug savings are coming from making the supply-chain more efficient, rather than from pressuring manufacturers.

Since the federal government abdicated its role in bargaining with drug companies for lower Medicare drug prices, I guess it's up to Wal-Mart to save our healthcare system. Maybe they can start offering $10 checkups, too.

Goddamn you, Wal-Mart. Life was so much easier when I could just hate you in peace.

UPDATE:

Target is going to match Wal-Mart's generic drug prices. Boo-ya.

I guess we shouldn't get too carried away with the significance of this. The discounted drugs will mainly benefit those who pay for their drugs themselves, rather than through insurance. CVS, the nation's largest drugstore chain, says that cash sales represent less than less than 0.5 percent of its pharmacy sales. But it's a start.

This ain't Mickey Mouse

2006-09-20T22:50:00.000-05:00

Oh, don't blow your top.

It's come to my attention that the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest is not as widely-known as I assumed.

After the furor over the Muhammad cartoons earlier this year, many angry Muslims stressed that the West was hypocritical regarding freedom of speech, citing that Western media is quick to publish offensive renderings of the Prophet but would never print anything against the Holocaust.

In response to this, Iran ran a cartoon contest this past spring, asking people to send in cartoons about the Holocaust, offering rewards and opening a museum display specifically to showcase the best. Their rationale was that the Holocaust is an "unmentionable" subject in the West, and that this cartoon contest would not get much press.

In the end, it proved true that the Holocaust cartoon contest went mostly ignored by Western media (especially compared to coverage the Muhammad drawings) for any number of possible reasons: no following riots, global exhaustion with controversial cartoons, general Western squeamishness about Holocaust banter.

But instead of exploring these reasons today, I thought it might be interesting to show some of the better-drawn and more representative Holocaust cartoons the light of day — maybe because I'm Jewish, maybe because I'm a cartoonist, or maybe because sometimes it's constructive to grab controversy by the balls.

That being said, below are 11 of the more thought-provoking Holocaust cartoons I've seen. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; check out hundreds of Holocaust cartoons here.

A standard way of showing that Jewish actions today are the same as the Holocaust, only worse.

I'd say at least a billion people in the world believe the Holocaust is merely an excuse for UN inaction against Israel.

Jews are dung beetles and the Holocaust is a load of shit--doesn't get more straightforward than that.

The key to this is that the Holocaust hangs one Jew and the Jew hangs two Arabs, again suggesting that Israel took the Holocaust and stepped it up a notch.

This one's pretty intricate: the Holocaust elevates the Jew to a protected, lordly place, while they forbid any "needles" (probably representing "the truth") from coming near the fragile Holocaust balloon. Oh, and Arabs' heads keep the Jew balanced.

For me, the notable thing about this one is the artistic style--not the most flattering representation.

The Jew steals the wings and halo to fake goodness and victimhood. Again, what a scathing drawing! You don't see this artistic style much in West.

This one is pretty deep: the Holocaust is a prison that keeps the Palestinians down.

Uncle Sam is both Hitler (the moustache) and a Jew (the curly lock of hair). You'll see a lot of cartoons about how America is either Jewish or a tool of the Jews.

This one impresses me: no mention of the Jew at all, just shows that the Nazi legacy is making the Palestinian path brutal (I assume via the Holocaust).

Among these comics, you'll see a recurring image of this "world" character, obviously representing the entire world outside of Jews and Arabs. The "world" is often shown to be simple, misguided or distracted from today's harsh reality.

Respect rankings

2006-09-20T10:17:00.000-05:00

The Respect Rankings are the brainchild of Billy Joe Mills and Brian Pierce at Urbanagora, a list of those politicians who best embody what you're looking for in a public official.

While Billy Joe's list is based on "respect, integrity, character and honesty," I'm a pragmatist. The politicians I respect are not necessarily those who are most morally upstanding, or ideologically pure, or even honest — they're generally the ones who are the most effective. While not being complete assholes.

I feel like I'm biting off them even more because two of my four are taken from Pierce's first list, but what can I say — he's got good taste. And yes, my liberal sensibilities are vaguely bothered that these are all white males.

Man, is this one long. In no particular order:

Mayor Richard M. Daley

To paraphrase the Stainless Steel Rat, just as a snake is a perfect snake and a lion is a perfect lion, Daley is a perfect Chicago politician. Criticizing him for being corrupt is like criticizing a snake for biting you — we knew his nature when we elected him, so no one should be surprised.

A word here about political corruption. It may be hypocritical to overlook local corruption, even on the scale of Chicago's, while harping on corruption on the national level. But there are several reasons for this.

For one, corruption on the local level, whether it's Chicago, Des Moines or Nome, is primarily concerned with greasing the wheels. With so many ingrained interests, it's almost impossible to actually get something done in Chicago without taking care of the right people. Try to clean up Chicago politics and what you'll get is ineffective government.

Corruption on the national level is much more disturbing. The most obvious reason is the sheer scale — more than $50 billion has been handed out to private companies in Iraq, with little to no oversight. That's about ten times Chicago's entire budget.

More insidiously, most federal corruption is not about hooking up a senator's boyhood friend, or getting the secretary of labor's neighbor a job. It's about rewarding your campaign contributors, mostly large corporations, by passing or rewriting fundamental legislation that effects every citizen of the country for the worse.

But back to Daley. Chicago is, to put it simply, the greatest it has ever been. The Hog Butcher to the World has been remade into a financial center, tourist mecca and burgeoning technology hub. Chicago has been designated one of the world's ten "alpha cities," and most long-time residents will tell you that the city has never been cleaner, more crime free or just damn nice to live in. I could do without some of the gentrification, but if that's the price we have to pay for the ascendancy of my city, I'll take it.

All this has come about because of Daley. He's corrupt, yes. But much more than that, he loves Chicago and ultimately does what's in the best interests of the city and its people. Some taxes dollars may go awry in the process, but the net result is positive improvements.

Plus, he's a lot like a benevolent dictator, which is my favorite form of government.

Russ Feingold

I may be a pragmatist, but I love Feingold mostly for his stubborn adherence to his principles. He's been more than willing to buck the leadership of the Democratic party, introducing a censure motion when the rest of the Democrats were (are) too pussified to say "boo" to Bush, and has been one of the few members of Congress to talk openly about impeachment.

But where he really shines is his crusading on the subject of campaign reform. I like to think of myself as a free-speech absolutist, but I guess I'm disqualified because I don't believe money equates with speech, especially in the realm of elections. Legal bribing of candidates is a must greater threat to democracy than limitations on contributions.

So I'm all down with campaign finance reform, though I understand why a lot of people on both side of the aisle (including my beloved ACLU) are against it. Whatever you think of it, however, you have to admire and respect Feingold's willingness to face re-election with self-imposed spending limits. Check out this description from Wikipedia:

During his 1998 re-election campaign, Feingold once again eschewed big-money campaigning, despite the fact that the National Republican Senatorial Committee had targeted him for defeat. Feingold placed a cap on his own fundraising, refusing to raise or spend more than $3.8 million (one dollar for every citizen of Wisconsin) during the campaign. In addition, he placed the same limits on his fundraising that he would have faced under the McCain-Feingold bill. He refused to allow his party to raise any soft money to air ads favoring him and he requested that several special interest groups, including the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters, refrain from airing pro-Feingold "issue ads." His Republican opponent, Congressman Mark Neumann, also limited himself to $3.8 million in spending, but allowed soft money to be used in his favor by a variety of pro-Republican groups. Other Democrats and supporters were angry at Feingold for "putting his career at risk" with these self-imposed limits. On election day, an extraordinarily strong showing in the Democratic strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison allowed Feingold to win by around two percent.

If you wrote a "Profiles in Courage" based on elections rather than governing, that would be right up there.

Elliot Spitzer

I'm generally in favor of business deregulation, but there are a lot of laws on the books that exist solely to protect consumers from unethical business practices. The various federal agencies responsible for this (the Securities and Exchange Commission in particular) have really fallen down on the job, especially since the Bush administration took over. (See: Enron, Worldcom, etc.)

Enter Elliot Spitzer. Almost single-handedly as attorney general of New York State, Spitzer has managed to force sweeping changes upon several industries that effect almost every person in the country.

How? Well, most financial firms have their headquarters in New York, which gives Spitzer jurisdiction. And the state's 1921 Martin Act gives wide-ranging power to the New York attorney general unavailable to prosecutors anywhere else. By making an example of leading firms, and skillfully using the effect his investigations have on companies' stock prices, Spitzer has managed to managed to make entire industries stop uncompetitive and dishonest practices they'd been using for years.

He cleaned up securities trading, the mutual fund industry, price fixing in computer-chip manufacturing, payola, and even got $50 million in unpaid royalties given back to musicians.

It's refreshing to see that one man really can make a difference, given the right tools. Though there's obviously plenty of self-interest involved (he's going to be elected governor of New York in a couple months, after all), I've yet to see evidence that Spitzer is anything but a dedicated public servant. If we had a few dozen more of him look out for consumers' interests, I'd be a lot less worried about the future of our country.

Howard Dean

I was a Dean supporter from not long after he first emerged as a possible Democratic presidential candidate. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative and a supporter of Second Amendment rights to boot — my kind of guy! The only reason he was tagged as a left-fringe candidate was because of his opposition to the Iraq war, a view which now puts him in the solid majority of Americans.

But what I really admire is his choice to seek and win the leadership of the Democratic National Committee after his failed presidential bid. There were undoubtedly a lot of options open to him with his new-found political fame, but he chose the one where he could make the greatest impact — while simultaneously guaranteeing he would be out of the political limelight. I doubt one person in 50 could tell you what Dean is doing right now if you asked them. He's certainly not helping any future aspiration for political office he might have.

He's also making a lot of enemies amongst the current Democratic leadership who were pissed that an outsider got control of the DNC and don't agree with his "50-state strategy." I love it, though. I wouldn't call myself a Democrat, but considering what the Republican party has become over the past six years (home of theocrats and authoritarians), I'm all about defeating them through any means necessary.

Here's my description of the 50-state strategy from an e-mail exchange I had with Josh Rohrscheib:

It's not about winning, it's about competing. When you make Republicans spend money and resources to defend states and districts they normally win going away, that leaves them less resources to attack the Dems in areas that are more competitive.

At first this might not make any sense: "Yeah, but if the Democrats spend money in order to make the Republicans spend an equal amount of money, then it's a wash."

But what makes this plan genius is that, like everything else, returns on political investment are diminishing. So the first $100,000 you spend in a state will be to be a lot more valuable then the tenth $100,000.

And in states like Mississippi and Alabama which the Democratic party essentially abandoned a long time ago, Dean was pretty much starting from ground zero. So that first infusion of money might set up a new statewide office, recruit a bunch of volunteers and hire a full-time political coordinator, all of which instantly puts tons more pressure on the Republicans. They might have to spend three or four times that much to counteract it. Take the California 50th: Republicans had to spend twice as much money as the Dems, not to mention send 200 volunteers, just to defend a reliably Republican stronghold.

And you know why the Republicans can't afford to just not respond? The Republican national Committee knows damn well that Bush is incredibly unpopular, and that the GOP champions a lot of views that don't jibe with those of most Americans. A lot of people would like to oppose the GOP, but there isn't any sort of real Democratic party organization in their area.

Just look at Kansas. There's been a spate of high-profile defections in recent months as people grow fed up with the religious right. Which, surprise surprise, is a small minority in this country. The book was called "What's The Matter With Kansas?" for a reason, but it seems like people are finally starting to wake up.

Maybe his role at the DNC will eventually end up working to his benefit, but it seems to me that Dean sacrificed a lot of his political capital to work for the good of the party, and ultimately, the nation.

Just missed the cut

Barack Obama. I love Obama (who doesn't?), and am proud to have him as my senator. But I need to see a bit more of what he can do. Like Brian, I think he's still too unproven to judge.

Not-so-quiet riots

2006-09-19T11:17:00.000-05:00

What Gordon the Gnome
really looks like.

Stop rioting. Seriously. Just stop. Civilized people don't firebomb churches when they hear comments they don't like.

The pope quotes a 14th century text and suddenly, before you can blink, fires break out all over the Middle East. And surprise surprise, everyone from Al Qaida to Iran is egging on the raging masses.

So is this how it's going to be from now on? Something is said about the Prophet and we have to just accept that hundreds of thousands of people rioting, breaking things and burning people in effigy is a reasonable response?

Well guess what: it's not a reasonable response. That's not how we do things in the 21st century. I don't care how much it offends you or your God, I don't care if it's cartoons about Muhammad or cartoons about the Holocaust—if you want to be viewed as a "people of peace," just write a complaint letter, organize a peaceful demonstration or attempt to form a representative government.

And only when that last option is impossible in your country, it may be time to grab your torches.

Pretty pictures

2006-09-17T23:50:00.000-05:00

This photo by George Steinmetz was taken from directly overhead. The black outlines are just the shadows — the actual camels are the small white lines. More information at Snopes.

The pictures below, of microscopic sculptures by Willard Wigen, are also from Snopes.

Carved from grains of rice and sand and made of dust particles and sugar crystals, these sculptures are measured in thousandths of an inch. Most can only be viewed through a microscope. Yes, those are needles and pinheads.

Unserious about... well, everything

2006-09-16T19:25:00.000-05:00

Hey, what do you get when you take incompetence, mix it with political favoritism in hiring and toss in some crackpot ideology just for fun?

A failed state in the middle of the desert, that's what!

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans — restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance — but had applied for a White House job — was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation that sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated — and ultimately hobbled — by administration ideologues.

"We didn't tap — and it should have started from the White House on down — just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."

Of course, Republicans are the only ones we can trust to be serious about protecting the country from terrorism. And remember, Iraq is supposed to be the central front in the War On Terror, a struggle so epic that it threatens the very future of Western Society.

Way to protect the nation, guys.

Raise some hell

2006-09-15T02:05:00.000-05:00

Manda is half of Friday Chick Blogging.

I'm a bit sad.

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards died Wednesday. She's the kind of woman who is often called a "firecracker" — outspoken, driven and spunky.

Firecracker!

Most people can genuinely enjoy the fact that Richards gave George W. Bush a run for his money (though he beat her for Texas Governor in 1994). At the 1988 Democratic National Convention she was talking about our current president's father when she said, "Poor George, he can't help it — he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Schnap!

Buck would like Ann Richards because she refused to answer questions about her past drug use. Accusations came at her during her first, successful run for governor stemming from her friendship with Willie Nelson.

"By continuing to raise these questions," she said when asked about the charges in a debate, "I think we are sending a very sad message to a lot of people who think that if they seek treatment they will forever bear the stigma of their addiction."

Even after defeat, when Bush beat Richards in her incumbent run for Texas Governor, she spoke of her defeat gracefully and defiantly. As one of the last Democrats elected to statewide office in Texas, Richards said if she could do it all again, she'd, "Raise some more hell."

I admire Ann Richards for working her ass off and still getting a laugh out of it. As governor, Richards appointed minorities and women to commissions and boards without them. She expanded prisons, but did so thoughtfully by starting programs to help inmates with addiction problems.

Seeing leaders of today makes me long for a firecracker like Ann Richards. An honest, direct person who tells it like it is. Who does that today? Who?! Unlike leaders today, Richards' words were genuine, thoughtful, sassy and smart. And she didn't put up with shit, either.

In honor of a great politician who worked for progress, equal rights and change — in the Lone Star State, of all places — raise a little hell. It'll probably help a lot more than it'll hurt. And if you find yourself in a pickle, listen to the words of a wise woman.

"I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back."

Buck adds:

And let's not forget that Richards is the person against whom Karl Rove and Co. refined their smear-campaign playbook. In much the same way that John Kerry's patriotic military service to our country was called into question by supposedly independent groups (i.e. the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), Richards was accused of being a lesbian. In Texas.

The same inclusiveness that Manda mentions was an invitation for the unscrupulous to torpedo her campaign:

Ann Richards was a socially progressive and inclusive governor of Texas, appointing a few gays and lesbians to state boards and commissions. In 1994, Rove pinpointed this as an issue certain to help George W. Bush win election in a conservative state. Of course, Rove was not about to let his candidate broach the subject himself. Instead, he worked through Republican operatives in East Texas. Rumors soon began to circulate through coffee shops and agricultural co-ops that implied Gov. Richards, an unmarried woman, might be a lesbian. Without identifying the topic, she acknowledged she was being hurt. "You know what it's about," she told reporters, dismissively, after being asked about the rumors. "And I'm not talking about it."

But Republican state Sen. Bill Ratliff from East Texas, who was also Bush's regional coordinator for that part of the state, was quoted in newspapers as criticizing Richards for "appointing avowed homosexual activists" to state jobs. The rumors were then given a form of legitimacy and widely reported. Then just as he did with Kerry and the Swift Boat controversy, Rove had Bush step forward as a voice of understanding and reason. "The senator doesn't speak for me," Bush told reporters. "I don't know anything about what he's talking about. I'm trying to run an issues-oriented campaign."

'45 is alive and well

2006-09-14T12:04:00.000-05:00

The world was made in 1945.

Not really. But the current order still reflects the mid- to late forties, when World War II ended and world was introduced to nuclear weapons, the United Nations, and the United States as the dominant global player. Even today, the UN Security Council (which is the closest thing to the authority of law and order in the world) is chaired by the five victors of WWII: America, Russia, Britain, China and France.

But like a middle-aged man who never grew past his days as a star high school quarterback, the current world order reflects a simpler, black-and-white era that has not adapted well to the modern day. As such, it’s always interesting to observe international political philosophers justify their positions by drawing comparisons to the Second World War and the events that immediately followed.

Neoconservatives (or Neocons, to their friends) constantly cite WWII as evidence that overgenerous diplomacy doesn’t work, that an appropriate display of muscle can keep evil at bay, and that an ounce of pre-emption is worth a pound of retaliation.

To Neocons, 1930-1945 presented a two-part saga. The first chapter tells of an appeasing Chamberlain and France that allowed Hitler to rearm, even sacrificing allied nations (Czechoslovakia, Austria) to avoid confrontation—only to come to the aid of Poland and the rest of Europe years too late. Episode Two puts the spotlight on a strong and unwavering Churchill, long ignored by peaceniks who refused to foresee the rise of Hitler, rolling up his sleeves and saving western civilization with blood, sweat, tears and Roosevelt.

Today, Neocons always want to see bold, cold leaders willing and able to do some dirty work for the greater good—and they’ll be the first to compare any international threat to Hitler, the very symbol of evil raised by appeasement. Essentially, Neocons await a Messiah in the form of a Churchillian leader, which is why I dub the school of Neoconservatism “The Church of Churchill.”

Institutionalists see the development, empowerment and legitimization of international organizations (e.g. the United Nations, World Bank, International Criminal Court) as the solution to the absence of international law and order.

Most Institutionalists (particularly those in Europe) view the carnage of WWII as evidence that war is a horror which should be, at worst, a last resort, and at best taken off the table entirely. They cite the generous Marshall Plan as proof that providing aid and promoting peaceful behavior is the sure way to defuse violent attitudes. Despite their worship of the Marshall Plan, Institutionalists seem to ignore that it was only made possible after Germany had surrendered as a result of total military defeat and destruction.

As for the United Nations, Institutionalists see a strong and impartial authority of acting as judge, jury and executioner as necessary—regardless of the fact that the UN is not particularly strong (we’re in Baghdad, aren’t we?) or impartial, and therefore not much of an authority.

Isolationists believe that each country (particularly the US) should do its best to avoid international meddling, and would benefit most by focusing on economic issues and its own social and technological advancement.

With the approach that little good can come from political entanglements, Isolationists point to the fact that both World Wars were the result of the Franz Ferdinand assassination in the Balkans. Wars have existed since the beginning of mankind, but the World Wars (generally accepted as humanity’s worst events) are the direct result of sending your own boys to fight someone else’s battle. Tens of millions dead, the destruction of countless cities, nations and even empires, and the reversal of economic advancement—these are the casualties of getting too involved overseas.

Even today, Isolationists believe any US political or military involvement abroad does more damage than good, and suggest that the billions of dollars spent each year on defense could vastly improve our social services while propelling our economy well past the reach of others.

International Realists cite that in the end, the world is not a struggle of good versus evil, but rather an arena of strong and weak nations that may combine or oppose one another for their own ends.

The Realist suggests that WWII ended when the most powerful combination of nations won thanks to superior firepower, better coordination and geographic advantage. Democracy had nothing to do with it—after all, the defeat of Hitler was mostly thanks to the strength of Soviet Russia—and we would be keen to arrange our alliances today based on mutual interests rather than political ideology. In this regard, it doesn’t matter if our allies are democracies or dictators, as long as they make us stronger and help us work towards our goals.

A pure Realist may see 9/11 as our own Pearl Harbor: the jolt that woke a sleeping giant and, for better or for worse, led to grander events.

World War II, its causes and its aftermath may be the most heavily measured and analyzed case study in history. As a result, nearly any international political philosopher can prove their own point—and disprove the position of their opponents—by selectively citing any set of stimuli and results that best represents their view.

In the end, we must acknowledge that the world has changed since 1945 (even if the UN Security Council has not), and we should stop overusing WWII analogies. Unless, of course, you want to know who the next Hitler will be.

Would you want to have a beer with this man?

2006-09-14T00:36:00.000-05:00

Man, posting videos is so much easier than actually blogging. Here's Matt Lauer, of all people, grilling President Bush in the Oval Office on Monday about the blatantly illegal methods he's authorized against suspected terrorists.

Remember all the talk about how Bush was the candidate most Americans would rather have a beer with, how Kerry was stiff and people couldn't relate to him?

Well, if I was having a beer with the guy in this video, I'd be hard-pressed to keep from punching him in his ~~smirking face~~ grill. He's smug, rude, constantly repeats himself, shifts randomly between defensiveness and aggression, and every time he points his finger at Lauer I'm amazed Matt doesn't tell him to knock it the fuck off. This man is our president?

Also notice how cavalier Bush is about the interrogation technique called waterboarding, which he claims he won't discuss even while engaging in a little wink wink, nudge nudge about how it's all legal like. Here's a little primer on waterboarding:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

Ugh. I can't even watch the video all the way through. It makes me sad and ashamed.

Neoconversation

2006-09-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

In the waning hours of Tuesday, Sept. 12, Buck B. and I shared an interesting instant messenger back-and-forth regarding the validity of Neoconservatism as a rational ideology. It began as all great political and philosophical debates do: by dissecting the beliefs of our fathers.

Buck B.: Does your dad really like Bush?

Gordon the Gnome: He's not wild about the guy personally; he just feels that something needs to be done in the form of America projecting its strength in the face of rising Islamic radicalism.

Buck: Ok, that's reasonable. Kind of.

Gordon: He's really more of a "speak softly and carry a big stick" guy, but believes that if speaking softly is necessary to keep order, you need to occasionally use the stick. Otherwise you lose the big stick, and you get chaos. He often half-jokingly uses the phrase "when raw force doesn't work, use more raw force."

Buck: That's the opposite of realpolitiks.

Gordon: He's a Neocon. Not quite the opposite of a Realist... I'd say the opposite of a Neocon is an Isolationist.

Buck: Crazy motherfuckers. "Empiricism? What's that?" I just don't get it.

Gordon: I get it. I just don't agree.

Buck: The Neocons had their way, and it's had exactly the opposite effect. It's made Iran and North Korea more willing to oppose the West, and made Iran stronger. But instead of saying "Ok, maybe this doesn't work, let's try something else," they decide we just need to kill MORE people and use MORE force.

Gordon: Yeah, but here's the rub: according to Fukuyama, the Neocons feel they were proved right against all odds when the USSR collapsed after Reagan's "take no shit" approach.

Buck: That's bullshit...the Neocons wanted open confrontation! Containment is the opposite of Neocon policy. Not to mention that they were opposed to Glasnost, too. The Cold War and our victory COMPLETELY disproved them.

Buck: Every single theory of theirs has been proven wrong, and yet they insist they're right. That's why it's not a rational ideology.

Gordon: Well, what Reagan did wasn't entirely containment. His escalation of the arms race was more confrontation than it was containment.

Buck: Yeah, but that's not what the Neocons wanted. They were more into Iran-Contra type stuff and proxy wars.

Gordon: Not true. That's exactly what they wanted. Arms escalation and proxy wars go hand in hand. They're not mutually exclusive strategies...in fact, they're quite complementary.

Buck: Are you reading accounts written after the fact, or before? Because those guys lie like they breathe.

Gordon: Reading both. Again, Fukuyama...who was a hardcore Neocon until around 2004, when he said "I had an idea of how the world works, and I saw it in practice, and it DIDN'T work, and now I can admit that, and my fellow Neocons need to get with the program."

Buck: Yes. Exactly. Those that haven't are delusional.

Buck: Do you consider Communism a rational viewpoint?

Gordon: Eh... yes and no. By the way, the founding fathers of Neoconservatism were former Communists.

Gordon: Communism is irrational purely because it suggests that the selfish nature of man is an aberration that can be "cured" through suppression, which is bullshit.

Buck: So is the idea that nations and people can be cowed into doing as we wish. These guys just made up some stuff because they thought it sounded good and fit their preconceived notions about how the world should work. It's no more rational than me deciding that war would disappear if we bought every single person on Earth a puppy.

Gordon: Well, the core of their belief is that America is a shining light that everyone wants to have as their friend and everyone wants to be like, so we only need to use force against the rebellious few. Doesn't work when 90 percent of the world opposes your actions.

Buck: There's the rub.

Gordon: Yeah. And then when that happens, they say "it's not a popularity contest," and undoubtedly recite a historical anecdote that includes three words: Hitler, Chamberlain and appeasement.

Buck: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Buck: You don't need to go back to World War II to understand that sometimes the weak will try to appease the evil. That happens every day all around the world.

Gordon: World War II was more than just that. It was a Great Power war, the kind that affects more lives and changes the balance of the world more than 100 million deaths in Africa ever could. That, my friend, is realpolitiks.

Gordon: Churchill is the Neocon God. Hitler is the Neocon necessity.

Buck: That confluence of people and politics will not be coming 'round again.

Gordon: I'm sure it will in some form or another. History always repeats itself.

Buck: People always say that.

Gordon: Because it's true.

Buck: Eh. I don't agree.

Gordon: The only way history won't repeat itself is if people learn. And not nearly enough people learn.

Buck: I just think every situation is different enough that the repetition is only superficial, caused by the fact that human beings are fairly predictable. It's the people that are repeating, not the history.

Gordon: Sure, the cast changes, and the exact order of events changes, but the basics are the same. You call the basics superficial...I call them fundamental.

Buck: Yes, but Neocons don't stick to the basics. They insist that the whole package is the same, not just human nature. And that's simply not true.

Buck: The fundamental motivations may be the same, but the specifics, and the solutions, are completely different.

Gordon: I agree halfway. I think the motivations are the same, and the solutions end up the same about half the time.

News and notes

2006-09-12T20:30:00.000-05:00

Hizzoner.

1.) Man, Daley is totally my boy. On Monday, exercising the veto for the first time in his 17 years in office, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley slapped down the big-box ordinance approved by the City Council last month. (Like many influential Chicagoans, Daley is a frequent reader of this blog.)

The City Council could still override the veto Wednesday, and the original ordinance passed by a large enough margin to do so. But a badass like Daley would never have used the veto, especially for the first time ever, unless he was confident it wouldn't be overridden. In fact, three of the bill's original supporters have already switched sides.

This is a huge political win for Daley, of course, and will teach the Council to think twice before crossing him. But it's also a victory for Chicago itself, especially those poorer communities which most stand to benefit from the new stores that will now proceed as planned. For all his corruption, Daley almost always ends up doing what's in the best interests of the city. Look for more on this in the Respect Rankings I'll be posting later this week. (Respect Rankings concept borrowed/stolen from Mills and Pierce at Urbanagora.)

2.) Speaking of Mills and Pierce, last week they linked to us and proclaimed Gordon and me their favorite former-and-current-Illini bloggers, amongst heavy competition. (To all of you taking notes, yes, flattery is the surest way to get a link back.)

Naturally, it was during a week where we weren't posting much, mostly because I was a little freaked about losing my job and Gordon... well, Gordon's just a lazy bum. Sorry about that.

Anyways, they're pretty good too, and you should check them out.

3.) This is shaping up to be one of the most important mid-term elections in American history; I don't think we can survive another two years of unfettered Republican control. If you're feeling slightly guilty because you haven't done anything, giving money is always an easy way to assuage guilt.

I've got a page where you can contribute to the campaigns of three guys running against the worst the GOP has to offer. Even if it's only $10, every little bit helps — I give about $20 every couple weeks or so.

Come on, it'll make feel good about yourself. Always works for me.

4.) The demonization of Katrina victims is a topic I've returned to several times. In my most recent post on the subject, I attributed a lot of it to the simple human desire to blame victims for their fate. While acknowledging that racism contributed to the problem, I didn't consider it the driving factor.

Digby, blogging about Katrina for most of a week, wasn't having any of that. Here's a couple snippets that made my toes curl; I can't believe I'd never heard about these before.

BATON ROUGE, La. — They locked down the entrance doors Thursday at the Baton Rouge hotel where I'm staying alongside hundreds of New Orleans residents driven from their homes by Hurricane Katrina.

"Because of the riots," the hotel managers explained. Armed Gunmen from New Orleans were headed this way, they had heard.

"It's the blacks," whispered one white woman in the elevator. "We always worried this would happen."

***

We organized ourselves and the 200 of us set off for the bridge with great excitement and hope. As we marched past the convention center, many locals saw our determined and optimistic group and asked where we were headed. We told them about the great news. Families immediately grabbed their few belongings and quickly our numbers doubled and then doubled again. Babies in strollers now joined us, people using crutches, elderly clasping walkers and others people in wheelchairs. We marched the 2-3 miles to the freeway and up the steep incline to the Bridge. It now began to pour down rain, but it did not dampen our enthusiasm.

[...]

As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander’s assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied to us to get us to move.

We questioned why we couldn’t cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little traffic on the six-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their city. These were code words for if you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting out of New Orleans.

Read the whole post. It really lays bare the open racism of those chaotic days, now just over a year ago.

Bush gets taken to the woodshed

2006-09-12T16:44:00.000-05:00

Keith Olbermann has had my respect for a while, if for no other reason than his long-standing feud with Bill O'Reilly. But K.O. has really been cranking them out of the park recently. His evisceration of Donald Rumsfeld, where he slickly compared the Secretary of Defense to to Neville Chamberlain, was nice enough. But his 9/11 commentary on Bush simply takes it to another level. It's about nine minutes long, but well worth watching.

The video, and a transcript, can also be found on Crooks and Liars. And there's a compelling interview with him in Monday's Salon.

Blue Rice returns

2006-09-11T22:49:00.001-05:00

UPDATE: Blue Rice strips old and new are up at bluericecomic.com

Welcome to the comic strip formerly known as Blue Rice.

From 1999 to 2002, I regularly wrote and drew Blue Rice for the University of Illinois school newspaper, The Daily Illini, where 20 thousand students per day followed the exploits of a mouthy gnome, a witty snail, a drunk duck and other bizarre critters.

Over time, the characters gradually came into their own, and the writing eventually came to encompass local issues, national politics and pop culture, not to mention more than its fair share of idiosyncratic nonsense. But before it was an award-winning satire that culminated with a fictional gnome winning student body president, Blue Rice was an oddly-drawn cartoon just trying to find its footing on the comics page.

So for the first time, the (nearly) complete Blue Rice series will appear online right here at America vs The World, starting with the original eight strips I submitted to the Daily Illini graphics editor to pitch myself as a cartoonist.

For the next year or so, we'll periodically post Blue Rice strips—sometimes individually, sometimes grouped together as appropriate (i.e. to accelerate the poorly-drawn randomness that was Season One.) As we go, I'll post a running commentary to provide some context for those who seek it, plus some fun facts about any controversy that may have stirred up in the process. The most recent addition will always be in the sidebar to the left.

Here's to reliving your college days!

Pissed off

2006-09-11T10:57:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

Last week, my company asked me to give them a cup full of my pee.

One of my new job duties.

This is not normally part of my job. I sit at a computer most of the day and move bits around; when I do make trips to the bathroom, I return empty-handed. I don't operate heavy machinery, fly a jet plane or investigate drug dealers. There's about as much point in drug testing a Web designer as requiring a janitor to take a typing test.

Naturally, I told them to go fuck themselves. Not in those words, of course...though I was tempted. After a year's worth of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, I'd like to at least get a recommendation out of this job, or even some future consulting work. So we've managed to work out an amicable separation.

But I'm offended and infuriated that a company that operates television stations would institute mandatory, company-wide drug testing. That they would so callously invade the privacy of hundreds of employees, leaving them no other options than to resign or, more likely, be fired. No matter that some of these employees have been working for the stations recently acquired by my company for 10, 15, 20 years. Quality service and loyalty to the company are meaningless compared to the overwhelming need to collect their urine.

It's easy for me to walk away. I have no wife, no children — only a cat and a car to support. As an Internet nerd, I'm eminently employable and have no doubt I'll find a new job before my last four weeks here is up. But I know that there are many people who likewise find these tests to be a invasion of their privacy but don't have to the option of standing on their principles. If you're a television production engineer in Columbia, MO, there's not exactly a lot of other places to jump to.

Many executives absolutely love the idea of drug testing — it seems like a great no-lose, cover-your-ass proposition. Let's test everyone, and then if one of our employees is ever involved in an accident and found to be under the influence, we can point to our policy and say we did everything we could. Plus, it makes management feel like good, responsible citizens who are doing their part in the War On Drugs.

In reality, drug testing is a huge waste of resources with almost no tangible benefit. Most harder drugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, pass through the body within 1-2 days, leaving no trace. So the only drug that testing reliably detects is that scourge of workplaces everywhere, marijuana. And of course there's no test for the drug that has caused more lost productivity, missed days and workplace accidents than any other — alcohol.

If companies can make the case that they should be able to drug test their employees, than what's to stop them from firing someone for off-hours drinking? Smoking and bad eating habits can affect insurance premiums and lead to lost work time from health complications, so they're out, too. If you don't like it, you can go somewhere else — except the conglomerate down the block has the same policies, sorry.

Many visions of the future hold corporations to be as big a threat to our future liberties as centralized government. What better way to start than by regulating employees' behavior outside the workplace?

My whole body just recoils from the idea of giving a genetic sample to my employer. The thought of taking a break from sitting at my computer to drive off to a lab, pee in a cup and hand it over to someone revolts me. I would no sooner take a drug test at work than I would consent to a search of my home without a warrant or allow the government to tell me what I can and cannot say.

What possible right does my company have to this information? A drug test can tell many other things besides whether the person has gotten high in the past couple weeks. It can indicate what prescription drugs he is taking — many employers might be interested to learn which employees are on anti-depressants, or have heart conditions. And of course there's no better way than a urine test to detect pregnancy.

Unions are traditionally the best bulwark against employers' infringements like these. But union participation is a dying thing, leaving most workers unprotected against employer invasions of their privacy. And as much as it burns my biscuits, I don't think government regulation is the answer; it almost never is.

The only real hedge that I can see against policies like these is if companies know that by implementing them, they will lose talented staff. Unfortunately, most people are unable or unwilling to sacrifice a job in a stand for privacy rights. And so, in the same quixotic way I don't shop at Wal-Mart or buy CDs produced by members of the RIAA, I will never work for a company that drug tests (at least until that fighter-pilot gig comes through). What matter it will make, I don't know. But I can't control others' behavior; I can only do what I think is right and hope it makes some small difference.

I'm sure my soon-to-be-former bosses think I'm just a drug-addled loser who doesn't want to fail a test, but I leave it to the ACLU to sum up why this is a matter of principle.

There was a time in the United States when your business was also your boss's business. At the turn of the century, company snooping was pervasive and privacy almost nonexistent. Your boss had the right to know who you lived with, what you drank, whether you went to church, or to what political groups you belonged.

With the growth of the trade union movement and heightened awareness of the importance of individual rights, American workers came to insist that life off the job was their private affair not to be scrutinized by employers. But major chinks have begun to appear in the wall that has separated life on and off the job, largely due to the advent of new technologies that make it possible for employers to monitor their employees' off-duty activities. Today, millions of American workers every year, in both the public and private sectors are subjected to urinalysis drug tests as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes indiscriminate urine testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. It is unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs, and whose job performance is satisfactory, to "prove" their innocence through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal privacy. Such tests are unnecessary because they cannot detect impairment and, thus, in no way enhance an employer's ability to evaluate or predict job performance. Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about drug testing in the workplace.

UPDATE:

Here's my letter of resignation, carefully worded to keep everyone happy:

"As a lifelong member of the ACLU and a staunch advocate for individual rights, I feel that mandatory drug testing is an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy. While I understand [Company]'s reasons for instituting such a policy, and respect their right to do so, it goes against some of my deepest-held personal beliefs. Consequently, please accept my resignation effective Oct. 6, 2006.

"This was a very difficult decision for me to make; I have enjoyed both my job and the opportunity to work with such a talented and dedicated group of people. I look forward to working with the company to make this transition go smoothly, and wish everyone involved continued success."

Rules are rules

2006-09-08T15:00:00.000-05:00

Manda is half of Friday Chick Blogging.

I swear I'm not a strict person, but my teaching career has made me believe that rules are the best. The may be frustrating a times, but they're for the benefit of both kids and teachers.

As the acting director of a child development center, a lot of my day consists of following rules that may seem pointless but were put in place for a reason. Let's go through my long and busy day to see rules in action...

7:30 — I'm at work. By 8 I'm sitting at a table with five kids smushing playdoh into "balls," "fish" and other important things. Soon enough I hear "I finished." and before the kids flee they toss their dough into a pail. "Remember to clean up! Thanks!"

8:45 — Reading Where the Wild Things Are to two year olds (who are dazzled by wild things, but not so interested in Max's long adventure). I'm called to a mobile infant room to look at poop. According to our exclusion policies, kids leave if there's blood in their poop. So, I call the family and send her home. "The baby is constipated!" they say. "Well, that's fine. I just need a doctor's note saying that. It's our rule — I'm not a doctor so I can't tell." Parents agree without argument! Victory for Acting Director!

9 a.m. — I flee to bathroom where I read the newspaper for five minutes.

10 a.m. — Other teachers and I shuffle children around so every classroom is in ratio. That means there's one adult for every four kids under 2.5 years and 1:8 for anyone older. Argh.

11:15 — A child returns after one day out with head lice. I research lice and type a notice to put up so parents can check heads for lice and nits. As I do this I have a 15-minute argument with another administrator about the notice. "You do whatever you want," that person says.

"Well, I follow the rules. That's what I want to do." Jeez.

12:30 — Child sent home earlier returns with note from doctor. Excellent!

1:15 — Lunch delayed as I wait for mover and electrician to stop by. Mover moves filing cabinet so that the "way of egress" from behind the desk is big enough. I can totally fit, I tell him. But I'm speedy and fit. So, we have to follow the rules written for the not-so-fit. Electrician promises to undo what he did last week since the rules weren't clear. He and I learn a whole lot about Certified Safety Outlets.

2:30 — Complete immunization report — giant document of children's names, birthdates, lead test dates and TB test dates. Spend half the time trying to read messy handwriting and faxed health forms. Fax machines suck.

4:30 — Time for me to go. But no. There are wayyyyy too many toddlers and not enough teachers. I play outside with the little 'uns to get us in ratio. Sweet children feed me "pasta, cheese, pears, juice and cookies" — all made from dirt and sticks. Delicious! Only one child eats grass! "Yuck, yuck! Don't eat grass. That's not food. We have to pretend to eat outside."

6:00 — Trying to leave out, I hear it from teachers who want days off, parents who want to know an odd array of things (do you have a container for caterpillars? will my kid get lice? do you have change for $20?).

6:20 — I finally leave! With my bike helmet. It's not a rule for me to wear one, since I'm an adult. But heck, who needs a rule? It's smart just the same.

Bye Bye Blairie

2006-09-07T11:21:00.000-05:00

Bush is running out of European buddies. Mere months after Berlusconi lost one of those too-close-to-call elections, Tony Blair has just announced that he too will step down soon—and none of his likely successors seem to be pushing a pro-American agenda too hard.

But don’t take this as big score for Europe against the US. First off, Blair announced his imminent retirement even before he won his record third term, so this is hardly shocking news. And let’s not forget that while several pro-Bush leaders have gone by the wayside (Aznar, Berlusconi), we’ve also seen the most anti-Bush leader of all—Germany’s Schroeder—replaced by the more conservative (and pro-American) Merkel. Even the stereotype of the anti-American Old Europe is fading away; as Bush plays nice with E3 powers over Iran, images of the asshole cowboy are becoming increasingly confined to San Francisco newspapers and university blogs.

Finally, individual members of the EU seem to prefer the more laissez faire economic style of America and Britain than the pseudo-socialist French model—and let’s not forget that the competitive nature of capitalism is as core an American value as democracy.

So as we bid farewell to Teflon Tony, we should recognize that he’s leaving behind a Europe that leans toward the Atlantic. Take that, Chirac.

End of a cotton-pickin' nation

2006-09-01T10:18:00.000-05:00

Julie Beth is half of Friday Chick Blogging. You can read more of her at It's an Outrage.

Do you ever think about where the cotton you're wearing came from? A bit of it might have come from West Africa, where a lot of cotton is grown by impoverished farmers and sold at dirt cheap prices because enormous American cotton subsidies keep world cotton prices artificially low.

In fact, American cotton subsides cost many poor, cotton-growing countries more than the United States gives them in aid. And yet the Bush administration has steadfastly fought to retain the subsidies and has only recently begun to buckle under World Trade Organization pressure and mandates.

Oxfam says:

The economic losses inflicted by the US cotton subsidy program far outweigh the benefits of its aid. Mali received $37m in aid in 2001 but lost $43m as a result of lower export earnings...The financial damage inflicted by US cotton subsidies has grave implications for poverty. Cotton growers in the US can shift relatively easily to other crops, but the scope for substitution is much more limited in the Sahel. Grown alongside maize and other cereals, cotton is the main cash crop for a large section of the rural population.

The problem, of course, is that kidnapped West Africans were enslaved so American southern plantations owners could grow and process cotton with little overhead and keep prices low. Even though those farmers can't do that anymore, they continue to enslave West Africans from afar by accepting astronomical subsidies that prop up American cotton prices and keep West African farmers from breaking even.

Cotton farmer sleeping at the market day in Gorom Gorom, Burkina Faso.

The American South can no longer produce cotton as well or as cheaply as other areas of the world can. That means the long legacy of the United States as a cotton-growing (and picking) nation is in its last days. Families that have grown cotton for generations and hundreds of years will now have to grow something else, or get out of the growing business entirely.

It's sad when traditions like that die, but it's not tragic. It's a tragedy when American calls for free and open markets fall on deaf ears all over the world because they know what we really mean is, "Free markets for us, but not for you."

And it's a tragedy when millions of West African children go hungry during growing season so that an American farmer can get rich on tax dollars and still be able to say that he grows cotton just like his daddy did, and his daddy before him.

Sudan follows Bush's lead

2006-08-31T10:14:00.000-05:00

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that Paul Salopek, Mandasaurous's favorite reporter, has been arrested and charged with espionage in Sudan.

Paul Salopek, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, was charged with espionage and two other criminal counts in a Sudanese court Saturday, three weeks after he was detained by pro-government forces in the war-torn province of Darfur.

Salopek, 44, who was on a freelance assignment for National Geographic magazine, was arrested with two Chadian citizens, his interpreter and driver. If convicted, they could be imprisoned for years.

Chicago Tribune Editor and Senior Vice President Ann Marie Lipinski called Salopek "one of the most accomplished and admired journalists of our time. He is not a spy."

By all accounts, Salopek is a man deeply committed to using the power of the press to make a positive difference in the world. Which is why he was taking the risk of being in the Sudan in the first place. Committed reporters are natural enemies of corrupt and repressive regimes, and suppression of the press is one of the hallmarks of such regimes.

Unfortunately, the Sudanese government's position is not much different than that of the Bush administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonazles has asserted the administration has the power to imprison journalists who reveal "state secrets" (specifically citing the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program), and prosecuting and imprisoning journalists is something of a crusade among many right-wing bloggers; Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on this.

When you find yourself arguing the positions espoused by African dictatorships, I suggest you might be on the wrong track. To the Sudanese government, espionage is defined as publishing or investigating anything the government doesn't want you to. If you embarrass the government, you're hurting national security.

This is essentially what the Bush administration is saying when it asserts its right to prosecute journalists for publishing stories about warrantless wiretapping. There is simply no legitimate argument to be made that revealing this program harms national security. None. Terrorists who view America as the all-powerful Great Satan threatening to take over the world already believe that our government will stop at nothing, certainly not warrants, to catch them. That's assuming that people who come from monarchies like Saudi Arabia even understand the concept of warrants.

Such stories do hurt the Bush administration, that's true — the public tends to look down on lawbreaking by their government. But hurting the current occupants of the White House is not the same thing as hurting the nation, and Bush's inability or unwillingness to make that distinction is more than a little scary. We've often been told that criticizing Bush only helps the terrorists — should that kind of speech be illegal too?

Perhaps this is why there has yet been no official response from the State Department on Salopek's detention; it's difficult to put pressure on people that are echoing your own words. Much like allowing torture and mistreatment of captured enemy soldiers puts our own soldiers at risk when they are captured, so does talk of prosecuting reporters hurt our ability to argue against the imprisonment of journalists by other governments (one of China's favorite things in the whole world.).

Sen. Barack Obama was speaking about Salopek in the Sudan, but he could as easily been talking about our own country: "Press freedom is like tending a garden; it's never done. It continually has to be nurtured and cultivated and the citizenry has to value it. It's one of those things that can slip away if we don't tend to it."

Superman for president

2006-08-30T00:09:00.000-05:00

I saw the new Superman movie not too long ago. Not a bad flick overall (I'd give it a B or B-), but one scene in particular really rubbed me the wrong way.

At one point, Superman flies up into the upper atmosphere and just sort of hovers for a moment. Then, you can hear a montage of sounds that suggest Superman can listen in on just about any noise on the continent (random talking, music playing, etc).

Suddenly, he perks up for a moment, then dives down below to the world again, clearly acting on something urgent he just heard. And there he goes, descending on some major American city to help the police stop some maniac with a big gun.

So why does this scene bother me so? Because he's Superman, dammit, and he's wasting his time with one nut who—at worst—is threatening the lives of a dozen people. Is that really the biggest threat to humanity at that time? Is there nothing else Superman can do to save more lives, or improve more lives, or do some lasting good?

Cinematic Superman suffers from what I call "acting small": he can do nearly anything he wants, but besides those days when a real supervillian steps up, he passes his weeks and months saving people one at a time. Thousands of people are being massacred off in Sudan that same day, but Fluffy got caught in a tree in Metropolis, and Fluffy comes first.

So in the spirit of following the game of international power politics, I ask you: if you were Superman and wanted to make the biggest positive impact on the world, what would you do first? Find Bin Laden? Blackmail Bush? Go on permanent tsunami watch?

Think about it.

Torture is in the eye of the beholder

2006-08-28T16:20:00.000-05:00

(updated below)

Sweet:

Saddam Hussein has been forced to watch South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, according to the film's co-creator Matt Stone.

The former Iraqi leader is portrayed in the movie as a homosexual who is in a relationship with the devil, and Stone claims the prisoner is being forced to watch it "repeatedly" as he is held by US Marines.

The South Park movie was banned on release in Iraq seven years ago.

Stone reveals: "I have it on pretty good information from the Marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie. That's really adding insult to injury. I bet that made him really happy."

UPDATE:

John Tierney has a column in the NYT talking about South Park conservatives. Seems Trey Parker and Matt Stone are a little disillusioned with the Republican Party these days.

Stone and Parker told me they'd previously seen the G.O.P. as a relief from the big-government liberals, particularly the ones preaching to America from Hollywood. "We see these people lying, cheating, whoring," Stone said. "They're our friends, but seriously, they're not people you want to listen to."

The religious right used to be a better alternative, Parker said. "The Republicans didn't want the government to run your life, because Jesus should. That was really part of their thing: less government, more Jesus. Now it's like, how about more government and Jesus?"

Ayup. That pretty much sums it up for me.