The Best Photo You'll See All Day

Courtesy HuffPo

That's a lunar eclipse, from behind the moon.

RIP, Cecil

Racism and White America

Racism is about power. It's about realizing that each of us in powerless in this great big world, and so we band together, and find some way to grab a little power for ourselves. Strength in numbers.

It's easier to find power if you've got people who are even more powerless than you are. That's where the racism comes in. That's where the bigotry and hate comes in, because at some level, we understand that, but for the grace of God, that could be me. And that terrifies us.

So rather than fight the power -- which would entail actually putting some skin (no pun intended) in the game and putting our necks on the chopping block -- rather than pick up a pitchfork or a torch and go storming the castle and grabbing power where it actually lies, we're content to snipe power where we can find it, even if it means hurting innocent people. 

Party like it's 1992

In a hilarious, and profoundly obtuse, op-ed in Wednesday's The New York Times, Peter Wehner, a "senior fellow" at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, asks "Have Democrats Pulled Too Far Left?" And, as with most headlines that end in a question mark, the answer is No, they have not. What has moved to the left is the American people.

Wehner, who "served in the last three Republican administrations,” immediately shows just how out of touch he and the right are by comparing 1992 to 2015. He tries desperately to show that Barack Obama is so much further to the left of -- get this -- Bill Clinton. Alternatively, the GOP "hasn't moved very much from where it was during the Gingrich era in the mid-1990s"; as if that's a good thing.

For Wehner, this is a big problem for the Democrats because they lost BIG in the 2014 elections, which had the lowest voter turnout since WWII. He doesn't  mention that. He also doesn’t mention GOP gerrymandering, or gutted voter ID laws.

What he does mention are a lot of scary things —  if you haven't had a new idea since the 1990s.

"Mr. Obama is more liberal than Mr. Clinton was on gay rights, religious liberties, abortion rights, drug legalization, and climate change," explains Wehner, apparently not realizing that is a new millennium.

I can’t believe I have to explain this but, American thinking on every single one of those things have shifted.

He even claims that at one point that the nation is “more conservative today than it was in the mid-1990s.” This idea is inferred from  a “recent Pew poll’ (that I could not find) that says the country agrees with Republicans on foreign policy and taxes. On Taxes, here’s a Pew poll disagreeing with Wehner and the GOP.  

"[Obama] has focused far more attention on income inequality than did Mr. Clinton, who stressed opportunity and mobility," he continues, not caring that wages have stayed flat for the last 30 years, which include the 23 years he is comparing, siphoning wealth upwards. Way harsh, Tai.

For effect, the bitter, pointless screed goes on to name other lefties like Holder, Hillary, FDR, de Blasio, and Warren, and Ed Miliband for some reason.

But, if you listen to the folks that Wehner does not call out — any of GOP presidential candidates — they are all promoting the same slogan: "Still The Same After 25 Years.” That isn’t what the country wants and that’s why the Right is trying to fix things, one-person-one-vote at a time.

Barack Obama: Two Time Nobelist?

You'll no doubt recall the hue and cry when Barack Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his stand on nuclear non-proliferation and his attempts to engage the Muslim world. Both the right and left in this country had great sport at this -- and here I'll agree -- premature awarding of a prize to a man with few signal accomplishments in foreign policy, apart from being "not Bush".

Six years later and I think it's time to give him the Prize for real this time. Think about this past year: for a man who started his administration hoping to hit singles and doubles in foreign policy (consumed as he had to be by the domestic economic crisis), he's kind of knocked a couple out of the park, provoking admiration from aboard and from mainstream Americans, and consternation from the idiot fringe that will sit on perches and poop all day, parroting "Obama bad, BRAWK!"

In general, his foreign policy across six years has been pragmatic rather than bold: he's taken a backseat in Syria and Libya despite being the single largest presence in either conflict. Of course, this makes the Ex-Parrots all squawk that he's done nothing, despite the fact that America has, if not the largest, certainly a large military and diplomatic presence in both of those conflicts.

He hasn't quite confronted Putin in Ukraine, a potential European Union and NATO member, to be sure, but then Russia has its own internal mess that prevents Putin from being as aggressive as he probably believes he can be. It's hard to invade a neighboring nation when your own people are having a hard time buying bread because you've banned food imports (shades of the Soviet!) Obama really hasn't had to take much action against Putin. You know the old saying: when your enemy is drowning, don't throw him a life saver.

This also served to silence his squawkers....er, critics domestically, as well, all of whom marveled at the magnificence of Putin's strong aggressive display. The traitors. The same traitors who decided to cast their lot with Netanyahu over their own President, only to have it blow up in their faces as Americans decided, "You know? Enough is enough, guys."

The other intractable problem remains ISIS (and their sworn ally, Boko Haram), but here too, Obama has been working quietly in sync with allies in the region. It's a muddle, to be sure, so bad that Jon Stewart has remarked that the United States is actually fighting the United States, but it's better than our boots on the ground and gives political cover to the local nations to solve the problems that were ultimately imposed by western nations on their own terms.

Which brings me to Iran, of course.  Here, Obama has taken bold action, action that scares the living daylights out of his conured critics, so much so that they attempted to undermine any agreement with Iran (and five other nations, I want to quickly add) only to have that, too, explode in their faces like a trick cigar.

A nuclear non-proliferation treaty with a nation that is far smaller than Russia, a treaty backed by Russia and China, one that can now be implemented to if not prevent, delay development of nuclear energy by Iran until we have had a chance to incorporate them into the world at large. Think it can't be done?

Is Iran any worse than Germany or Japan of the 1940s? Yet there we have two thriving members of the global community, trusted allies and partners.

And finally, there's Cuba. A sixty year old Cold War ended with the last regime standing. While de facto this freeze out ended after the Elian Gonzalez fiasco (and I say "fiasco" with respect to the Cuban-American mafia that forced politicians to genuflect to their whims in order to deliver Florida's electorate), it took an additional twenty years and a new generation of Cuban Americans to say "We'd really like to visit our relatives now." It was inevitable. Obama did the pragmatic yet bold thing, and he did it the right way.

Going forward, we see John Kerry making overtures to the what can only laughingly be called "government" of Somalia. I anticipate next on the agenda will be the conflict in Mali (rebel forces there have aligned with Islamist extremists) and perhaps forcing Mugabe out of Zimbabwe, or at least holding his feet closer to the fire.

Obama will not be able to single-handedly in eight years create peace in the world, but the overall arc of his efforts has been towards that goal, reducing violent extremism in the world while creating economic opportunity in places it did not exist before. For instance, his advances in Africa and in South Asia will help make shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean a little safer from piracy when pirates no longer have chaotic ports to seek safe harbor in.

Despite the daily news reports, he's been generally successful in that goal: remember, when he took office, all those extremists had two honey pots to fly to, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the terrible tolls in those nations never really entered our consciousness because we became inured to the numbers and the stories and they all blurred together. Today, the death tolls from extremists worldwide (with the exception of Syria) are down and trending down.

This 2009 Nobel Prize, possibly not his last one, may have been the most prescient pick for the Nobel committee ever.

The Future Has A Price

NASA, the space agency that has developed such technological wonders as Velcro, braces, Dippin' Dots, and is close to forcing man kind to answering some deeply philosophical questions, is at the mercy of blatant political partisanship and a poor understanding of science.  

The agency's budget for Earth science and research is being reallocated (read: cut) for space flight technologies to the tune of 40%. The National Science Foundation's funding for Earth Sciences will also be slashed dramatically, and will no longer receive any funding for social sciences.

While it may sound obvious for the agency to conduct spaceflight missions, part of NASA's Vision includes "Conduct[ing] airborne remote sensing and science missions." In other words, NASA is responsible for studying Earth, which is in space. This recent budgetary issue appears to stem from the GOP's near-unanimous refusal to accept climate change as real and happening.

This literal denial of climate change can be seen most recently in Florida, where administration officials were ostensibly banned from even uttering the phrase.

For another example, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith wrote an op-ed titled "The Climate-Change Religion." In the piece, Smith rails against Obama for making climate change so scary and claiming that it's even real. The title is especially weird because I thought Republicans were respectful of deeply held religious beliefs, going as far as passing bills to allow people to discriminate against others who do not adhere to those beliefs. But this time it's different because Mr. Lamar (nor his donors) does not share those beliefs, and so he disregards them; despite the fact that there is an ever-increasing amount of data telling us that climate change is real and human activity plays a part. But, then again, these are peer-reviewed science papers, not the Bible or campaign checks, so point taken, I guess.

In the op-ed, Mr. Lamar makes some rather dubious claims about the threat, or lack of, from climate change including, that, over the last 15 years, the warming of the planet has stopped. Data shows that it have slowed, thanks to efforts by governments to curb emissions. He also claimed that climate change does not cause more severe storms, which is wrong. Climate change has been linked to stronger hurricanes and longer droughts, for instance.

It should be noted that Mr. Lamar, like many Republicans, is not a scientist. He was a lawyer before getting elected to the House in 1986. It is strange that he would ignore the advice of the world's scientists at the peril of the country and the world for petty politics. Would you ignore your lawyer's law advice?

What is especially confusing is Mr. Lamar's introduction of the STEM Education Act of 2014 of which he, admirably, says "we have to capture and hold the desire of our nation's youth to study science and engineering so they will want to pursue these careers. A health and viable STEM workforce, literate in all STEM subjects including computer science, is critical to American industries. We must work to ensure that students continue to go into these fields so that their ideas can lead to a more innovative and prosperous America."

Except, of course, if the work of those future scientists hurt some of his donors.

It appears that instead of selling out the planet, Mr. Lamar and his colleagues should start investing in it. Otherwise, some day, it may never be cold enough to enjoy some Dippin' Dots. 

Mike Huckabee vows to fight the modern world

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took time away from selling snake oil to old people to pre-announce his annoucement to run for president. Or his book isn't doing too well.

In a two-minute video, Pastor Mike previews the themes of his candidacy and almost immediately mentions the Clintons. Granted, Huckabee never actually beat Bill Clinton. Huckabee assumed the governorship after Gov. Jim Guy Tucker resigned but that's not the point. Who's going to remember way back to 1996?

Be damned sure that Huckabee will mention religion a lot. Most recently he said the the Supreme Court cannot "overrule God" on gay marriage. Too bad your religion does not trump the rights of others, Pastor.

But that's not the weirdest thing he has said. He has also recently complained that "we are rapidly moving toward the criminalization of Christianity," which, is odd because he's running for president. If Christianity was soon to be outlawed, one would think he'd be in Jesus Jail instead of on national TV all the time. In reality, he's just upset that some Christians can't openly hate on gays without being called bigots.

He has gone further off the deep end, telling potential military recruits to wait to join up until after Obama leaves office. Why? You guessed it, because of the Obama Administration's perceived hostility to the Christian faith. What those two have to do with one another is an excellent question.

Down the rabbit hole we fall.

As a regular contestant on the horrific Family Research Council's Washington Watch program, Huckabee recently claimed that gays won't rest until "there are no more churches." What the actual hell? It's more likely the other way around.

If anything, Huckabee has all the super-right-wing rhetoric down pat: gay marriage is like the ISIS threat; if someone breaks into his home, he calls 911 to tell them where to pick up the body; contraception is tryanny; America is going down the tubes and we should pray for fire from heaven; etc. (I think that last one is a liberals-cause-volcanos reference).

It appears that the world is passing Huckabee by, and I hope flipping him the bird as it passes.

As one 5-star reviewer of Huckabee's book (#62, 954 Amazon Sales rank) says: "Easy read for an older guy like me. Makes a lot of sense about the sad state of our country, not the USA I grew up in!"

Thank God for that.

Ted Cruz and the Race to the Bottom of the Barrel

As he runs for president, Senator Ted Cruz is still in the news, even though he will never be president. After the kerfuffle surrounding him and some prominent gay hoteliers, he's back on the stump reminding folks that Barack Obama is black and it is the president's words that are causing cops to kill other black people.

As Politico reports, Cruz, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, insists that it is not systemic poverty or militarized police forces or unfair drug laws that are inflaming racial divides, but rather the Obama Administration's rhetoric.

"...[Mr Obama has] made decisions that I think have inflamed racial tensions that have divided us rather than bringing us together.”

Similar to his campaign platform, Mr Cruz doesn't give many specifics. He mentions one quote made in 2012 by Vice President Joe Biden, who said that the GOP is trying to put people back in chains. Damning stuff.

He also, for some reason, links the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy to racial and societal divides. Gun are too unfairly treated in this country, I assume.

President Obama, in his inflaming way, recently called police violence a "crisis" and condemned the neglect of the poor. How incendiary! The poor are neglected and unfairly treated by police and the judicial system?! I never. For his part, Mr Obama seemed frustrated that people are more concerned with broken windows than broken necks. A reasonable, sober response, in this blogger's cheeto-stained opinion.

Is this the "incendiary" language Mr Cruz speaks of? Or is he just pandering. Nah, couldn't be: “I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47 percent," Mr Cruz said with a straight face.

In true Cruz fashion, when pressed to discuss something about his own platform, namely Obamacare and immigration reform, he dodged and weaved like the true pandering asshole he is, saying only: “What you’re hearing me say is, my message is going to be consistent.”

That message being what, exactly?

Update

It's been a busy winter/spring around Chez212. I've been pursuing multiple career options -- photography, writing and acting -- all while managing a rookie softball team. To boot, I've decided I'm bored and want a job again, so I've been searching for that, too.

I had a dream in the early morning today that I'd like to share:

I was walking with a group of people in some ravine or valley. We needed to climb up to a plateau to get to where we needed to get. We had two choices: walk up the built-in stairway into the cliffside, or climb a fairly treacherous rock face about four or five hundred feet high.

We had already been on the plateau earlier before descending into the valley (there may have been a festival up there. That bit of the dream is really fuzzy.) We wanted to return.

I couldn't see my companions but perhaps six of us were walking.

Anyway, I started to climb the rock. It was a very smooth surface, like granite that time, water and wind had scrubbed smooth. Some footholds and handholds, enough to make the climb doable without lines or harnesses.

Now, I have a terrible fear of heights.

No, let me rephrase that: I have a terrible fear of falling from heights. But unusually for me, I climbed and kept climbing, even after I looked down and swallowed my fear hard.

I reached the top. Almost. I was literally a hand-hold away. I could reach out and grab a pinnacle, but the pinnacle crumbled in my grip. I reached for a hand-hold of granite, and the granite shuddered and fell away. I could almost grip the top, the plateau, my goal, but every time I tried, it fell away.

I slinked back down. As I began to make for the stairs, this being of slime and goop started to climb. He -- because I'm assuming -- climbed the same route I did, but faster and with more confidence.

When he reached the top, he didn't grab hold of anything, he leaped from the pinnacle to the cliff face and hoisted himself up. I woke.

Did you ever have a dream where, when you woke up, even though it was a metaphor and even though the imagery was completely irrelevant to your life, you knew exactly what it meant?

That was this dream. I get my message.

SighCarly

Noted golden-parachute owner Carly Fiorina is running for president. Or she has a book coming out -- no one is sure. In the meantime, she continues to prove why HP wanted her gone so badly because she knows so little about technology. Somehow, she was able to double-click MS Word and type nearly 800 of the wrong words about the menace of net neutrality.

Ms Firoina's missive has got it all: scare quotes, poor analogies, complaints of laws having too many pages, and, of course, an early mention of her running an $87-billion company. But, strangely, no mention that she was such a hapless, terrible CEO that the company threw lots of money at her to go away.

To quickly recap (and hopefully explain to Ms Fiorina) proponents of net neutrality argue that content owners (Netflix, HBO, Google, terrible bloggers) should all be equal. Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, like Verizon and Comcast, should not treat content differently. And, in turn, they should not charge for content differently. This is the crux of the argument: if ISPs create two different Internets, that could spell trouble for the innovation that Fiorina knows nothing about, because not everyone can afford to be in the alleged fast lane.

In other words, these laws prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking content in exchange for fees

Fiornia's argument that the internet will now be governed by antiquated 20th century laws is bullshit. This have been oft repeated by similarly uninformed opponents/liars of net neutrality.

"Whereas the old Internet was 'permissionless,'" she writes. "The new Internet will require bureaucratic approval for the most mind-numbing minutiae and create huge areas of uncertainty."

This is flat out wrong and shame on CNN for publishing this, even with the standard "the views and opinions are of the author's alone" claptrap.

The Internet was never "permissionless." There are lots of rules regulating the internet. Her assertion is absurd on its face. But, not as absurd as Fiorina's presidential aspirations.

Currently, even with an open internet, there is no innovation or competition. Verizon and Comcast fight tooth and nail to prevent competition. They even wink-and-dod at each for turf; a literal The Wire.

Fiorina also tries to compare the internet access between Europe and the U.S., which is hilarious because net neutrality is all but kaput in the Europe., thanks to the lobbying power of its telecoms.

Then comes the usual whining about financial regulations (some are her best friends/bankers donated mightily to her campagin), Obamacare (how dare the government not let people go bankrupt because of hospital bills), and "everything in between" (which is pretty vague even for Fiorina).

I don't pretend to know how to run a large tech company, but I do understand net neutrality; Carly Fiorina pretends she knows both.

Happy Spring Holiday

I pray for peace to us all, and a renewal of the vow that we are all equals in the eyes of the universe.

Heartland Institute: Reporters Refuse to Report Nonsense Paid for by Our Donors

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, took to the oil-money-soaked pages of the Heartland Institute to wax pathetic about the lack "of views of researchers skeptical of the theory humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change" in the news.

Mr. Cohen tells us about a recent study by George Mason University called "Covering Global Warming in Dubious Times: Enviromental Reporters in the New Media Ecosystem". I assume he does not link to the study because he does not know how, but he does know that global warming is not happening.

What is dubious about these times, you ask? I'm not sure. But I guess it has to do with what year Cohen thinks it is.   

The authors of the study interviewed "nearly a dozen journalists" who regularly report on the artist formerly known as global warming and found that the journalists find it "irrelevant" to include denialists in their reporting. I pray there is a fainting couch in the Heartland Instititue's office.

As Cohem complains, news editors urge reporters to deny that there is a debate over climate change. This is because, as Cohen omits, there is no debate; 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and humans contribute it. To most reasonable people this is called "journalism," which is not what Cohen is concerned about. Cohen is concerned about The Witch Hunt.

Jay Lehr, science director at the Institute, is quoted as saying, "What is going on now is a witch hunt, proving there are no longer any supportable facts that indicate mankind has any significant role in determining climate. All that remains is to vilify those in opposition.”

Now, I may just be a blogger hopped up on nicotine and a false sense of entitlement but, it seems that Lehr is projecting. Or lying. To say that the scientific community is all out of facts about the existence of climate change that they are reduced to maligning skeptics in an article maligning writers who won't report unscientific claims seems disingenuous. And stupid.

But hey, who are you to believe? Those egg heads at NASA, or Donner Cohen and his friends in the business of causing climate change?

The Other Reason

In the history of the United States, only three Presidents have ever been elected to the office of President of the United States directly out of the US Senate.

Of those, only Barack Obama failed to complete his first term (ironically, the other two, Warren Harding and John Kennedy, were elected as their first term in the Senate was ending.)

As I was writing my most recent post about the frustrations and difficulties either Elizabeth Warren or Rand Paul would face in getting elected (and I mentioned the difficulties Barack Obama had in governing), this post sort of popped up and started coalescing.

It's easy to blame racism for the reaction Republicans have had to Barack Obama. It is undeniable that the Republican and conservative base is racist and they pressure their leaders to conform to their thinking. It is also undeniable that the Congress is, taken as the whole, a white legislation. In particular, the Republican contingent, which if memory serves has precisely three black members.

I mean, it's hard to understand a people if you never ever meet one, except in an elevator or deli. Obama has a lot working against him on the skin color front, to be sure.

But there's another aspect to the abject hatred he engenders, a layer on top of the racism that might even justify the racism in the mind of the racists: a simple truth.

Barack Obama hadn't earned his place in line.

As with so much about this remarkable and historic figure, it's hard to make comparisons. Both Harding and Kennedy failed to finish out their terms, as both died in office.

Harding, however, was under investigation in the Teapot Dome scandal and a raft of other shady dealings and people. Ironically, Harding was accused of being secretly black. These should give a sense of the level of hatred he engendered in the opposition.

Kennedy, too, had a very virulent strain of haters across the country, in large part because he was the first Catholic elected to the Presidency, echoing Obama's dilemma fifty years down the road. Indeed, in the city where he was assassinated, Kennedy was vilified and excoriated in manners that, too, would echo in Barack Obama's administrations.

But let's focus on the microcosm that is the Senate. It's a very traditional chamber, an old boy network that relishes in the fact it is the place where hot-headed measures and rants go to die (lately....? Ted Cruz puts paid to that notion). And there is a very definite pecking order. New Senators are expected to sit in the back, keep quiet and listen.

That both Cruz and Tom Cotton of Arkansas are now perceived amongst their peers as idiots speaks volumes about this system. That Rand Paul is making as many waves as he is says a lot about his chances to gain the support of his Senate peers beyond the obligatory speechifying.

In short, the Senate will not be put in a corner. And I'm sure they've had quite enough of being seen as a step on a career climber's ladder. Should the next President come out of the Senate after less than one term, there will be hell to pay.

Too, spending time in the chamber and paying your dues allows you to create a network that you can work with (altho nowadays...?). On the other hand, it creates a paper trail of legislation that you;ve voted on, along with every amendment. Thus is why you see these bizarre ads about "voting for/against abortion" when no bill about abortion was ever put in the hopper. It's usually tacked on as an amendment to another bill that either gets voted up or down.

Obama suffered a lot for this, I think, because you'll note that some of the opposition to him in the first term came from his own party (Max Baucus leaps to mind). That a Democrat would publicly flout his opposition to Obama's signal accomplishment speaks volumes to the resentment folks felt.

It will take a long time for the Senate to overcome this bias, if it ever does. Obama's skin color merely allows Senators to ignore their more insidious bias.

Reality in Politics

I love me some Paultards.

Some of what I'm going to say applies to another candidate's supporters, but I want to draw a very careful distinction between the believers in Rand Paul and the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and liberals outside the party.

Rand Paul is cuckoo. Rand Paul will never be President, even if he somehow manages to survive the primaries. His dad, Ron, made a great if futile run and so paved some paths for Rand, but Ron didn't have the same personal baggage that Rand has. Ron had some racist and crackpot newsletters, but they were published twenty years earlier, to be sure.

Rand? Well... let's just say "Google 'Rand Paul Aqua Buddha'" and go from there. Or "disabilities". Or the "Civil Rights Act". Or "Israel". Or...

He doesn't stand a chance. Even his political organizers have pretty much given up on him and we're a year out from the first primaries.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, would make a fine President, and apart from that annoying "Cherokee" thing, really has no bizarre past that she'll have to spend hours explaining away. If she was to jump in the ring against Hillary (assuming she's running), I would be hard pressed to choose between the two. Both would make great Presidents. Only one would make a great candidate in an era where issues don't matter anymore, tho.

Some of her supporters, whom I'll call Warrenterrorists just to distinguish them from sober, thoughtful folks, are supporting her out of spite for Hillary. Those people are the equivalents of Paultards, I think. My comments apply to them as well.

It's wonderful to live in a world where you can hang your hopes and aspirations on other people. Rand Paul (and with the codicils mentioned above, Elizabeth Warren) represents a fantasy figure, a chimera.

Rand Paul is Tinkerbell and boys and girls, if we all just clap our hands together, clap them real hard and real loud, Paul (Warren) can win! We like him! We really want him!

We can try, but it's not going to happen, less so for Warren than for Paul. But I get the metaphor: they represent some form of purity and morality -- or at least concise thinking that can be easily digested in a bite or two -- that people gravitate to in a nation bereft of truth and lacking a common point that we can all agree upon. We don't have a focus anymore.

Truth is, we've lacked one for many decades now, ever since the Soviets folded up. The American people weren't prepared for what came next, altho we should have been, the signs were there. The war on Americans, by Americans. The class war.

We're finally just waking up now, and if Paultards and Warrenterrorists want to, they can take comfort in the fact they are on the vanguard of that awakening and awareness. Small beer, I know, but I've been there on the edge of political change and it's exciting while you're there but even more exciting to see it take root.

The truth is, I really want a Lamborghini but I'm not willing to mortgage my income until 2119 to buy one so it's a fantasy. Yes, it's a great car to drive, and I could thumb my nose at so many criticisms and concerns because, Lamborghini.

So I buy a Toyota, and bite my tongue about it not being a Lamborghini and yes my Toyota, which I will call "Hillary," has her own issues that anyone else can pick on -- it contributes to pollution, the Clintons Toyota Motor Corporation has safety and quality issues and make massive amounts of money in this corporatist world --  but at the end of the day, it was the car I could afford that was the best compromise I could find.

At the end of the day, we all have to make them. Right now, Warren is my Lamborghini. But she's not going to win the 2016 election, at least not from this far out (things change, so I keep an open mind). I would love it if she did, but she won't. And I won't mortgage my daughter's future to the Republicans to tear the party apart in a losing cause.

This won't satisfy many die-hard Warren supporters, so I'm merely going to say that the frothy support of Warren now reminds me a lot -- A LOT -- of the same starry-eyed support a young man from Chicago had at about the same point in the election cycle of 2008.

How'd that work out for ya?

I seem to recall hearing an awful lot of supporters of President Barack Obama howl in desperation about his weakness and inability to get the campaign agenda put in place (by the way, in two years, he completed more of his checklist than Reagan did in eight), about how even with a (two month long) Congressional majority in both houses he couldn't pass a major policy (um, no, he did) and how now all he does is play golf and issue executive orders that conservatives tear apart.

Let me ask you: do you think any of that would change under Rand Paul? Elizabeth Warren? Paul might get a boost from Congress, but Paul is going to lose the Senate before he's inaugurated. Warren might get a boost from that same Senate (she's played the politics of the Hill rather nicely, it seems) but....well, let's just say that "Warren is the new black" is the mantra for 2017 should she win.

And yes when Hillary wins, none of that changes, and Republicans will make it tougher for her but heres the thing: she's been there, done that, seen it for twenty five years now. And she gives back with a tuned and measured response that not only deflates the criticism, but points out its flaws and foibles to the point of embarrassing folks.

In other words, she'll silence her critics. And then get stuff done. Even the Republicans will have to work with her or be exposed as sitting in Washington for sixteen years on their hands. Weaker Boener doesn't want that to be his legacy. Neither does McConnell.

And then maybe, just maybe, we can all take a long nap. We've earned it after the 24 hour temper tantrum that is the reality of politics today.

The Liberal Line Up

In case you haven't heard, MSNBC -- which has always had some pretty shaky ratings but can usually point to one or two juicy plums in their book -- has been suffering miserably since their most recent prime time shakeup:

Amid the cable news network’s declining ratings, insiders tell TheWrap changes are coming soon and “everything is on the table”

When President Obama was reelected in 2012, MSNBC was “leaning forward” and smiling wide as Obama 2.0 propelled it to record ratings and a firm grasp on the No. 2 spot in cable news.

Over two years later, the network has fallen backwards. January ratings revealed double-digit declines compared with January, 2014 in all ratings measurements. During the day, MSNBC was down 20 percent in viewers and 37 percent in the advertising-coveted 25-54 demo. In primetime, it fell 23 percent in viewers and 39 percent in demo.

The Whistle In the Wind

Poor Jon Chait.

He had the audacity to question whether the right of free speech comes with a responsibility on the part of both the speaker and the listener, and got hammered for it. In other words, he took on "political correctness" and in what may be one of the grandest moments of self-reinforcing demonstration, got spanked by the very movement he sought to critique.

First, let me say this: the First Amendment is the one nearest and dearest to my heart, and in particular, the right to speak my mind freely. It's what allows me to maintain this blog, and allows you to read it. Voltaire was credited* with once saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is what the First Amendment should embody. 

Second, Chait's article, the examples he raises within it, and the backlash he's received from the posting have nothing to do with free speech as you and I understand it. Our right to free speech is a contract between ourselves and our government, as it should be. In exchange for freely allowing us to speak our minds, the government is asking us to frame that speech with moderation, respect and tolerance; in other words, to self-govern. Self-government goes directly to the heart of the nation. 

Even John Stuart Mill agreed that free will is fine, in moderation. He deplored the act of imposing your will on someone else. The famous example he raised was doing harm to yourself, which is fine, so long as you harm no one around you -- including harm by omission, such as the case of not saving a drowning child, or failing to pay your taxes. (This is why -- despite the fact that #JeSuisCharlie -- I have a problem with Charlie Hebdo, but I digress.) 

Mill even goes so far as to postulate that a nation of barbarians does not deserve freedom, that despotism may be the only legitimate form of governance for a people like that. 

In short, Mill argues that every freedom comes with a responsibility: the greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility. To speech in particular, Mill points out that it needs to be unfettered, because even in the most objectionable idea lies a kernel of truth. 

It may not be the kernel of truth that the speaker intends, to be sure, but there is a truth in every viewpoint. For instance, if I say "I hate Brussels sprouts," the truth may not be that Brussels sprouts are horrible disgusting vile things that make me retch, but that I've never had them properly prepared. You can extrapolate from there the kinds of free speech that can come up and what truths they may contain.

Note then that this comes under the banner of responsibility. The individual speaking his mind needs to keep in his thoughts that he is addressing people who may not agree with him, and so needs to exercise some self-governance. For instance, instead of saying "I hate Brussels sprouts," I could say, "I dislike..." or "They leave a bad taste in my mouth." The speaker, keeping in mind he may cause damage to someone, needs to be circumspect in his words.

Here's the tricky part: in a "polite society," there is also a responsibility on the part of the listener to something objectionable, and here's where Chait is onto something. 

Since every opinion contains a kernel of truth and therefore has equal right to be spoken, every opinion has to be weighed on its merits and sifted through for the truth it contains. This implies a duty on behalf of the listener to stop, breathe, and think. To ask questions. 

If, after that, there is still a vehement disagreement, then it's a difference of opinion. This doe snot mean that one opinion is better than the other, but that truths have been revealed and it's up to us to decide the truths on their merits. 

Let's beat the dead horse of Brussels sprouts: you make the case that they are nutritious, full of fibre and vitamins, and when properly prepared, can be quite tasty (not in my book, that;s for damned sure). I make the case that all that's fine, but if I can't eat them, how will I benefit?

We may not come to an agreement, but society as a while now has a body of evidence upon which to make judgements for the greater good. Perhaps the majority will influence eating habits by encouraging the sale of Brussels sprouts, thus showing me to be the loser in the argument.

It won't change my opinion. Take it one step further: suppose now society decides that anyone who doesn't like Brussels sprouts is to be made to conform? Or, they exercise what Mill called "the tyranny of the majority"? 

Here's where Mill raises an interesting point: it's one thing for a majority to socially suppress an unpopular opinion, but it becomes a real problem when that majority resorts to the laws and government as a strong-arm tactic to suppress an unpopular opinion. 

We're seeing this more and more in America and that scares me a little. How many states have passed laws banning abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade? Or have tried to codify Creationism into the education curricula? 

It's one thing for university students to petition to ban Bill Maher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking on campus, it's quite another for a community to ban hoodies. 

Chait raises the spectre of this in his article, wight he example of Hannah Rosin:

Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.

Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.

It is kind of brutal that a mass of dissenters descended on Rosin and effectively silenced her. Goodness knows, there have been plenty of times I've risked friendships for my feelings and opinions, no matter how carefully and sensitively I've phrased and expressed them, and I confess a certain clumsiness in both those arenas when faced with ignorance. 

And Amanda Marcotte's article (linked to above) points out that, indeed, there is a need on the left for a vigorous debate on unpopular opinions and not an immediate silencing and, more important, censoring of dissenters. 

It is easy to claim the mantle of victim when you read or hear something that offends you. I say I support Israel, but that Netanyahu is the wrong man for her leader, and suddenly I'm pro-Palestinian. Rather than judge the merits of that statement, people will read what they want to into it (that statement is an accurate reflection of my feelings, I should note), ignoring the fact that Netanyahu may have annoyed me for other reasons, like his attempt to grandstand in Congress this year or his signal disapproval of our President and his encouragement of conservatives' attempts to degrade and debase President Obama. 

All I'm saying is to keep a civil tongue and a civil ear. And to listen, really hard, for the whistle in the wind. 



* it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, which is why you never see this rendered in French.

The Cowardice of Extremism

The radical Islam movement shares some things in common with the radical Reactionaries in America. Among them is the promotion of fear as a way to both unify and discipline those who would nominally identify superficially with their cause.

To-wit, let me bring in Juan Cole:

The Cowardice of Mortality

A couple of studies floated to the surface last year in the debate about ammosexuality that I found interesting, not so much for what they concluded -- we all sort of knew this stuff instinctually -- but for the implicit underlying meaning when you put two and two together.

A Year Gone to Pot

This past year has been one of so many developments in American culture that it would be hard to pick any one thing as a signal event in the course of our nation.

From the full implementation of the surprisingly effective Obamacare to the grand jury decisions in New York and Ferguson, MO, with stopovers at the broad expansion of marriage equality and Ebola outbreaks both in Africa and here, there's a lot to mull over, a lot that will move forward with us into the new year and beyond.

For all the world, it looked like it would be a horrible year for President Obama, despite the success of the ACA. The 2014 mid-term elections were a disaster (sort of. More in a few.) and it looked like an earnest effort to impeach him might gain traction in the House next year, backed by a newly-minted Republican Senate. Democrats and Progressives seemed as tho their work was cut out for them.

And then Obama -- finally -- flexed a little muscle. From immigration reform to the renewal of relations with Cuba, Obama single-handedly salvaged a terrible year and turned it into one of the most successful years of any President in history. Abe Lincoln might have had a more successful year in 1865 if he hadn't been assassinated in April.

We saw the darling of conservatives, Vladimir Putin, be revealed as a thug just ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics in his home nation -- which probably didn't diminish him in the eyes of the folks who brought you PNAC.  (Now thankfully dormant) We saw the rise of that creation of George W. Bush, ISIS, in Syria and Iraq, the suspension of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Boko Haram kidnap and terrorize women up and down the continent of Africa, a coup in Thailand, a World Cup in Brazil complete with protests over the wasteful spending, three passenger airliners disappear over the southern seas, and the deaths of icons like Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall. Stephen Colbert ended his Comedy Central show.

And that barely scratches the surface.

For my money, the story that will affect America long after the confetti is swept up tonight is, well, pot. Two states implemented the legal recreational use of the drug, and many more signaled they would allow at least medical marijuana (including New York State). Quietly, the Federal government has agreed to allow Native American tribes to grow marijuana on their reservations, and the spending bill passed earlier this month blocks federal funds from being used to prosecute citizens who legally use pot (i.e. for medicinal purposes under their state laws, as well as recreational use). This despite the fact that the same bill tries to overturn a referendum that sought to legalize use in the DC area.

Maine is now set to become the third state to legalize marijuana, and Vermont has already begun a statewide dialogue on it. As we saw with marriage equality, the cascade begins shortly after a handful of states give it a go.

So why do I think this is the story that will have legs long after all the others?

Think about the economics of pot as an illegal drug. I don't mean drug cartels and all that. I mean, prisons.

Specifically, prisons and the populations of non-white males incarcerated for merely smoking a joint as a third strike offense. Think of how many of these men and women will no go free, but more, think about the numbers of them that will be protected going forward from having a criminal record due to overzealous policing -- yet another side effect of illegal pot.

There are kids out there who won't see the inside of a jail cell, have their lives ruined by a criminal record, and forced to work menial jobs because of a criminal record (never mind the drug testing that goes along with employment nowadays). Who can stay in school and get an education. Get a good job and support a family. Improve their lot in life the way conservatives always demand they do: working for a better life.

The economic benefits that will accrue to America from that are nearly unimaginable: the rise of a larger middle class of blacks and Latinos is a big one. Access to mortgages for houses and student loans means a more involved minority community. More minorities teaching classes in school and policing their own communities means more respect for both professions. More involvement and more respect means a bigger voice in the political process, and that means fewer successful attempts at abrogating democracy will be made by old white men.

Pot is not a cure-all for all of society's ills, no. For one thing, DUIs under pot are increasing and its hard to develop tests that determine a legal limit for ingesting grass. That's a problem that will have to be sorted out, one of many.

But it occurs to me that the influx of "new citizens" welcomed into society rather than shunned can't help but be a net good.

Thought Experiment

You work for the only business of any substance in town. You make a nice income.

Your boss decides he needs to build a spite fence around a store all the way across town because it threatens his supply of some widget he needs to keep the company going, and he's afraid, terrified, if the price of that widget rises, he'll have to work harder to keep prices in check. Also, employees of another store have been seen shopping in his store, and those guys play rough. He tells you that you have to take a pay cut, because he and his friends will need to spend a lot of money building this defense and putting up a new security system around the shop, and his friends don't work cheap.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

Now, let's say that same boss comes to you and tells you that the janitor, George, is in deep trouble: his family can't afford food or medical care, his wife works two jobs, as does George, but they still can't make ends meet. He tells you that he needs to slice a tiny fraction of everyone's salary to help him stay at this job, because he works hard.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

This is 21st Century America, in a nutshell.