Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) I didn't realize "dignity" was an issue for Barack Obama? Especially after a clowncar President like Bush?

 

2) Sometimes life imitates art. Godspeed, Natasha. Good luck, Liam and sons.

 

3) Personally, I can't wait for this to come out, so I can finally listen to music while walking down the street and not worry about missing a phone call.

 

4) Finally, some sensible use of the White House lawn! We need to encourage the "locally grown" movement as part of an energy strategy, and that Bush and his cronies didn't do even this simple gesture speaks volumes about their cynical attitude towards the nation's future.

 

5) By the way, I watched "W." last night. As to be expected from an Oliver Stone film, it was massively overhyped. It was also scarily watchable. I put it on the level of a first year drama production at the local community college. It doesn't tell you much you didn't already know, but Stone does give it all a context that he supposes was behind some of the more egregious decisions made. Rent it, or wait for it to come out on cable, but it's not a keeper.

 

6) Spring has sprung. Winter seems longer each year.

 

7) I dunno...I read this and immediately think of the movie "Americathon".

 

8) Title this one "Robbing Robbers And The Robbers Who Rob Them."

 

9) I think it's safe to say this spider lived up to its name.

10) I thought Bush was the Special Education President?

Too Juice Not To Take A Swipe At

Sometimes, I have to let my inner imp out:

Former President George W. Bush, who once famously called himself "The Decider," is writing a book about decisions.

 

"I want people to understand the environment in which I was making decisions. I want people to get a sense of how decisions were made and I want people to understand the options that were placed before me," Bush said in an interview Wednesday from his office in Dallas.

News of the book emerged Tuesday when Bush spoke in Canada. Tentatively called "Decision Points," the book is scheduled for a 2010 release by Crown, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, which in turn is a division of Random House Inc. Financial details were not disclosed. Instead of telling his life story, Bush will concentrate on about a dozen personal and presidential choices, including giving up drinking, picking Dick Cheney as his vice president and sending troops to Iraq.

Clearly, this is an important book, important enough that it will be released by Scholastic Books under the Cozy Corner brand.

 

Now, former president Bush (Oh....thank GOD!) says he'll write about a dozen or so decisions he's made in his life. This means you can expect five serious topics, since that's how many fingers he'll have free once he puts crayon to coloring book. In this mathematical regard, Bush is like the idiot savant in RainMan, only not savant.

 

Once his editor...you know, Laura?...points out to him that a dozen is more than five, and even removes his shoe to help him count that high, Bush will suddenly realize he'll have to pad his book out in order to make it biggerer. My suspicion is, by the end of the book (you know, the pages you can't color in) he will be talking about his choice of breakfast cereals.

I, I could have gone with the tiger's flakes, y'know (they ain't payin' me for endorsements, so I ain't mentionin' names!), but Laura tells me those have ingredients, so she helped me pull the box of them "oatie O's" *winkwink* off the top shelf. It's good to be the Decider!

 

LOL!!!!!!!!11eleventyo!nemillion11onethousan!deleventyone!!!!

What's probably going to piss him off more than anything else is that this book will be marketed as remaindered fiction, alongside OJ's "If I Did It", thus becoming the second book in history to be binned during the first edition.

 

Now, I've received an advance galley of "Decision Points", and while I can't claim this is how the book will ultimately be released, I wanted to share with you some of the decisions Mr. Bush has made in his life:

 

1. Ginger v. Maryann - He comes firmly down on the side of Maryann, although he has some very nice things to say about Ginger's tits. This took 85 pages, if you count the obscene doodles with palm trees and Lovey Howell.
   
2. Boxers v. briefs - Ultimately, he decides he doesn't like lawyers very much, but that Rocky fella seems like a nice guy. He wonders why he only fought the six times, since he made a helluva champion.
   
3. Coke v. Pepsi - This one, he's very decisive about: Coke. As he puts it, "Pepsi tickles your nose when you snort it."

 

Much of the book seems to ramble in a fairly incoherent manner, but that might be due to the fact I was reading it watching Bill O'Reilly last night. Or perhaps he wrote it watching Bill O'Reilly last night. I'm not sure. It is short, coming in at a crackling 184 pages, which includes five pages copied directly from "The Pet Goat".

 

I expect any moment now to receive an email from HumanEvents.com offering me a free copy or twenty with any paid subscription, along with Ann Coulter's latest book, two books by Michelle Malkin, and a SlapChop.

The Hobgoblin Of Small Minds

Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh, but at least he's consistent:

During the March 17 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh -- "a great leader for conservatives" -- defended American International Group (AIG) from criticism of the company's controversial employee retention bonuses. Limbaugh declared, "A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration." Limbaugh later claimed, "This $500,000 limit on executive pay -- let me tell you why it won't work. New York City will die. New York City needs a whole bunch of people being paid a whole lot of money, so they can tax their butts off, so that the city can maintain its stupid streets, potholes, and welfare state. Without the super wealthy in New York, it's over. ... This -- it's just a populist ruse. It's just designed to people go, 'Yeah, yeah!' "

Most people have focused on Limbaugh's "ginned up" comments. Some have focused on the fact that underlying what Limbaugh has said, there's a kernel of populist truth there: people are angry about the bonuses because they are rather hideous. 

 

And there's also something miniscule to be said in defense of the fact that New York City's economy is tied to the economic health of the brokerages and more, the brokers in them. As New York's economy goes, so goes the Northeast. As the Northeast goes, so goes much of the east coast. As the east coast goes...and so on.

 

It would take a better apologist than Rush Limbaugh to make that case, however.

 

I choose, however, to focus on the fact that this kind of statement is consistent with the kind of parody-conservatism that Limbaugh has preached for decades now.

 

I hope he lives a long life and continues to feed this malevolence into the mainstream media.

 

There is a saying that politics is the art of the possible. There is also a saying that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Let's take a closer look at those, shall we.

 

The art of the possible is attributed to Otto von Bismarck in 1867, although no one can cite the precise words he said. John Kenneth Galbraith had an interesting corrollary in which he said politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.

 

I tend to think that Bismarck was warning us (meaning people) that politics was an avenue by which that which can be done is done. He's also widely credited with the saying that the making of laws and sausages are two things which entail things you really don't want to know about, which dovetails nicely with this saying.

 

You see, politics is about compromise. Politics is about recognizing there are opposing factions who have a different agenda than yours, and trying to include those people in your political stances and actions.

 

It is, in short, about what degree of compromise you are willing, or more important, need, to go to get things done.

 

A foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds is pretty self-evident, and Ralph Waldo Emerson was spot on when he talked about this. The full quote is even more revealing:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Certainly describes the far right of this country to a tee. It also describes the far left in this country, but they don't have the megaphone that small minds like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have. A foolish consistency bellowed at high decibels is to be admired for the breathtaking stupidity it entails. As Abe Lincoln used to say, better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

 

By jumping through the hoops of fire that he has, Limbaugh has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is consistent.

 

And a fool.

Does It Matter?

One small step for men, one small step for mankind:

The United States and Britain have welcomed the Pakistani government's decision to peacefully resolve its political crisis by reinstating deposed Supreme Court justices.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the resolution a first step towards reconciliation.

 

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband separately praised Pakistan's president and opposition leader for putting the country's interests first.

 

The diplomats had urged Pakistan's leaders to defuse the week-long crisis, expressing concern it would divert Islamabad's attention from the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

 Truly, this is good news and a positive step for the world.

 

I'm just not sure what it's going to mean in the grand scheme of things. I did some thinking over the weekend, the kind of thinking that back in 2006 made me realize that the country was going to hell in a handbasket very quickly. Some of my more economically savvy friends laughed at me back then but they ain't laughing now.

 

Even I had my doubts that I might be overstating the case for a long-overdue collapse.

 

I think things have hit bottom, now. I don't have any evidence of this beyond some broad sense of things. I called the bottom of the market at around 7,000, and I seem to have been pretty accurate, based on a similar seat-of-the-pants call.

 

That's not to say the way ahead will be easy. It won't. We won't magically zoom back up to the middling levels of 2005, nevermind the levels of 1999. It will be a slog and many people will be hurting, but we'll make it back. 2011, I think, will show some clear and positive signs for this nation. 2010 will show some stirrings. Even Christmas this year will have some reasons to celebrate.

 

I think.

 

But...

 

The longer the US economy is weighted down the way it is, the more dangerous the world will become. Poverty has a way of bringing out the worst in people and if you need any evidence, you need look no further than Al Qaeda's support structure. The way they recruit new terrorist foot soldiers is to go to the poorest sections of Muslim populations and talk up life everafter and the promise of jihad.

 

Sounds like Christian missionaries, when you come right down to it.

 

The longer this downturn lasts, the more poverty there will be, and the more fertile ground for recruitment. That Pakistan has chosen to make this largely symbolic gesture towards freedom is nice and all that, but the bottom line is, they can't hold back the tide of fundamentalism without a thriving economy and I just don't see that happening anytime soon over there.

 

Indeed, if we are lucky, and cooler heads prevail over the next decade, it's possible we might avoid another widespread, global conflict that marries itself to our economic recovery. It will require luck. Too many things can go wrong between now and prosperity for us to rely solely on the goodwill and small gestures of men and women in power.

 

Link: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-17-voa10.cfm

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Riffing off what Katrina posted yesterday, here is the full episode of the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart turkey shoot. As a bonus, here are some outtakes, which are even more brutal than what was aired.

 

2) It took two and a half games to figure out who won this one game.

 

3) Rumblings from the East are foreboding.

 

4) Now, this stimulus bill...no Republicans actually voted for it, except the three Senators, right? Liberals save the day. Once again!

 

5) Poor Michael Steele. Looks like he'll have to apologize to Rush once again. Even his clarification calls into question the Republican party platform, since he has officially acknowledged that states have rights over the body of a woman.

 

6) He probably peed his diaper, as well.

 

7) The more I read of Michael Phelps, the more I like. Today, he's admitting that letting himself be photographed openly was a mistake in judgement. It's a step up from saying that marijuana is bad and that he's ashamed he's using it. Step by step, pot is making it to the legal list. But as Lewis Black notes, this could be a bad thing.

 

8) There will be much more spitting going on in New Jersey. Reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield joke: "She told me to kiss her where it smells, so I drove her to New Jersey!"

 

9) Let's see....sex all over the world, man in diapers running through airport security door, Michael Steele gaffes on abortion....now, who could be causing all this?....Oh, I don't know....could it be SATANNNNNNNNNNNNNNN?

 

10) Watch this become the GOP's latest talking point.

I Love Jon Stewart

Even more than I loved Stephen Colbert when he did the 2006 White House Correspondent's Dinner.
Which I didn't think was possible.
That is all.

God And Guns

I've always thought it ironic that the people who most demand guns as protection are the ones who claim to be good Christians.

 

We're taught in Sunday School that vengeance is God's, that God will provide and God will protect us.

 

And yet....

He spared no one, not his mother, not his grandparents, not the children, not even the family dogs.

Investigators following the 24-mile trail of death through southern Alabama are still trying to determine what set Michael McLendon on a murderous shooting rampage that led to the deaths of 11 people, including himself.

"He cleaned his family out," Coffee County coroner Robert Preachers said. "We don't know what triggered it."

Savage attack, to be sure, and likely we'll never fully understand what drove him to madness. But there's a clue in the fact that this happened in the Deep South, where people are, how to put this?, a little less flexible in their tolerance of unconformity, of difference.

 

I chalk it up to God. Not my God, my Jesus, who preaches tolerance and love, but the God of "great vengeance and furious anger" and who commands fear, not respect, abasement, not humility.

 

The God of the South, altho in truth, He can be found anywhere Christians gather.

 

You know, it's funny, but the right wing warns all the time about the murderous Muslims and the Koranic calls to wipe out the infidels, conveniently forgetting that the God they worship actually did that once. You might recall the story of Noah. And while He left his covenant never to do that again, the rainbow, that's no guarantee that he won't do everything short of wiping life off the face of the earth.

 

I wonder why conservative Christians forget that little bit when raging about Muslim jihads?

 

It is an angry God, this God of the South. I wonder why? After all, if there was to be anyplace that would be considered "godly" in this country, it would be down there, if you believe the God of the South is the one true god.

 

Which of course, he clearly isnt, else why is such iniquity and pain dealt with such fierce regularity upon the people of the South?

 

Obviously, I write all this tongue in cheek. God has nothing to do with the deranged mind of a serial killer who has released his own furious anger upon what he perceived as iniquities. Indeed, I suspect before the day is out, a significant number of right wingers will be painting this madman as a liberal.

 

Which of course, he wasn't. Probably. I don't know, but I think I'm on pretty firm ground here.

 

What is it, tho, about the right wing, particularly the extreme right wing, that leads them so easily to violence? After all, with the exception of perhaps the Basque Separatists and maybe the extreme "Real IRA", no one from the left ever feels compelled to go on mass murder rampages.

 

We understand that society has rules and regulations and try to abide by them, even if the short term price is to watch our country be dismantled by thieves and robber barons. Believe me, if ANYTHING could have provoked me to violence, it was watching 8 years of a bush presidency.

 

So folks, discuss: what makes the right wing go ballistic? Literally?

Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure

This eye-popping story began last week and has now taken an intriguing turn:

Mr Mugabe made his first public comments on last week's fatal crash, reportedly telling mourners at Tuesday's church service: "I plead with you to accept it, it's the hand of God."

Suspicions have swirled over Mrs Tsvangirai's death given past acrimony between the prime minister and president.

But Mr Tsvangirai said on Monday it was unlikely foul play took a part in the collision, which involved an aid lorry.

You have to know, tho, that Tsvangirai is playing his cards close to his chest. That it took Mugabe nearly a week to come out and say anything publicly about the death of the wife of his alleged "partner" in governance...well, imagine if Jill Biden died in a car crash in which Joe Biden was also injured. How quickly would Barack Obama offer his condolences and sympathy?

 

And too, it's a curious comment to make at a memorial, the "hand of God" bit. Almost sounds as if the reporter is signalling to the world that Mugabe, who is not exactly known for his subtleties, had a hand in this.

 

We're all familiar with the classic line from The Godfather: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Is there anyplace closer as president than to have your sworn enemy and rival as Prime Minister, where you can keep a eye on him?

 

It seems pretty clear what Mugabe's intent is here, if you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion and take the background of the election at its face: Mugabe, having lost the popular vote to Tsvangirai, rammed through a Bush SCOTUS-like overturn of the election results.

 

And now that he has what he wants, he intends to kill Tsvangirai. Indeed, it is something of a miracle that he survived the crash.

How a convoy of three vehicles, with one in the middle carrying the second most important person in the land, got involved in a car crash, is what has perplexed many people.

The oncoming lorry, which apparently belonged to a partner of the US government aid agency USAID, is thought to have crossed into the prime minister's path, sideswiping the right bumper of Mr Tsvangirai's Land Cruiser, which then rolled off the highway.

You read that correctly. This magic truck managed to pick off the middle vehicle of a heavily armed convoy. What makes this story troubling to us here in the States is the apparent if probably unintentional involvement of a truck with ties to the United States. 

 

What to make of this, assuming that indeed it was an assassination attempt? Was it an attempt to draw the US into the African conflagration? Was it a clumsy and ham-handed assassination plot? Or was it just a fortuitous happenstance? Who the intended audience for that message is will be the factor that decides what the motivation for using that truck is.  

 

Sadly, it will not surprise me if, when the uproar over the USAid truck gathers momentum, the right wing in this country starts using this incident to prove Obama's Muslim ties run deeper than a dalliance in a school in Indonesia.

 

Nevermind that millions if not billions of lives hang in the balance in this part of Africa and the effect this assassination would have beyond Zimbabwe's borders (to North Africa, China, and the Middle East). These numbnuts will focus on a truck that was probably planted.

 

Just a coincidence. I'm sure.

And So It Begins

Nevermind the markets. Nevermind the jobs reports. If you want to understand how deep this country is mired in Depression, take a look at this:

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- McDonald’s Corp., the world’s largest restaurant company, said global sales rose 1.4 percent in February as diners sought cheaper food.

Sales at U.S. restaurants open at least 13 months climbed 2.8 percent, while European orders fell 0.2 percent, Oak Brook, Illinois-based McDonald’s said today in a statement. Sales in Asia, the Middle East and Africa gained 0.7 percent.

Value meals, chicken sandwiches and Egg McMuffins are lifting McDonald’s sales in the U.S., where unemployment reached 8.1 percent in February, the highest in more than 25 years. Slowing economies in the U.K., Russia, Australia and Japan are also spurring sales of snack-sized sandwiches and chicken wraps.

People are eating crappier food more often. That right there, in a nutshell, is all you really need to hear to understand how badly the economy has collapsed in the wake of horrendous Republican oversight.

While this has not always been the case, people tend to turn to McDonald's and other fast food restaurants when money gets tight. This is also why you see so many of these kinds of establishments in neighborhoods that have significant numbers of poor and lower-middle class families.

It's not that fast food is cheaper. It's not, at least no cheaper than buying the raw ingredients and cooking it up yourself.

It is, however, easier. Quicker. More convenient. And there's the rub. For any variety of reasons that have little to do with taste or cost, people are eating Mickey D's: because they can pick it up on the way home, they can munch a quick burger in between job interviews, they won't spend an hour in a sit-down restaurant while prices there still hover in the unreasonable range.

Call it the new comfort food for cash-strapped consumers.

"It's cheap and full of calories, and you know what you are getting," said Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics and chair of New York University's nutrition and food studies department.

And of course, this raises a host of other issues that will impact Americans for a long time to come, and put that much more pressure on the Obama administration.

I speak, of course, about the health issues. Things like obesity, high blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes, which tend to run parallel to communities where fast food consumption is its highest.

I'm not suggesting a causality, others have already done that, and McDonald's has done yeoman work to silence those critics.

But more than a coincidence, I think it's safe to say. And as more and more Americans slip deeper and deeper into poverty, we're looking at a potential epidemic.

As part of Obama's energy policy, I would really like to see a stress on local production of food, and the use of local vegetables and meat sources in restaurants and supermarkets.

For one thing, it would diversify our diets, for another, it would mark an end to the homogenization of eating that sees Americans in China stop in the McDonald's near Tiananmen Square, as opposed to grabbing an authentic Chinese meal in any of a number of restaurants right there on the block, nevermind Chicagoans eating at McDonald's in Times Square.

This would, as Martha Stewart might say, be a good thing.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) You were very nearly dead on Monday.

2) Republicans might think about logging onto this website.

3) It's nice to see they are as fucking loony as ever, and perhaps more so.

4) Poor iddle boombooms, works 100 hours a week to be rich! And I bet he has a housewife who raises his kids and sees them off to school, and yada yada yada, cuz you know what? That's a 168 hour workweek and you don't get three hours to edit a frikkin' crybaby rant, you lousy scumsucking pencilneck!

5) It's as if the entire state of Nevada lost their jobs. 8.1% unemployment. And to think, this could all have been fixed back in 2007 when I was warning people about this.

6) Wild shrimp really ARE wild!

7) Um, Too Much Information?

8) Hang on...you mean you can find sex on Craigslist? And here I was using it to sell old furniture!

9) If you're able to save money, you're hardly "getting by" and shouldn't bill yourself as such.

10) And to take this full circle, we might all be dead next Friday, too.

The Rush To Cluelessness

Lord, I rarely pray for anything for myself, but please, PLEASE, let this come to pass:

Limbaugh, clearly enjoying the attention, upped the ante Wednesday by challenging Obama to a debate on his radio show - while conceding that, yes, he is the GOP's "last man standing." The White House declined to comment.

"If you can wipe me out in a debate ... do you realize you will own the United States of America?" Limbaugh said on-air. "You will have no opposition."

The schadenfreude would be so tasty.

Indeed, I endorse Limbaugh's boast, and second his recommendation.

Rush, since I know you read this blog from time to time, I have the following strategy outlined for you. Now, this is off the top of my head so please pardon the napkin.

OK, so, first, announce your candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2012. This is the only way you'll ever get to debate Barack Obama is if he views you as his equal, because Presidents can't be bothered debating the common private citizen. It might take away from unimportant things like, say, running the country or fixing the mess Bush left behind.

You'll have to resign your radio post, naturally, in order to devote as much time as possible to campaigning, but a rich man like yourself can afford to do this, even if you'll have to cut corners here and there.

Next, it seems your image will require a make-over. Only 11% of Republicans believe you speak for the party and a similar percentage of voters under 30 think you have any relevance in politics.

See, if you don't resign your radio post, other Republican candidates would be entitled to equal air time, plus your radio network would be socked with FEC penalties, since it would be donating to your campaign on a daily basis to the extent of any advertising revenue they share with the stations they give the program to.

That's right: Rush's program is given away to stations, in exchange for a percentage of the ad revenues those stations enjoy. This is common for right wing radions.

So you're not really losing any income, since the radio program per se makes no income on its own merit.

Too, all those advertisers would be forced to stop paying their fees, since those too would be construed as campaign contributions, and while they'll happy pony up ad money to get your listeners' ears, based on that whole "11%" number up there, they sure as heck would run, not walk, away from being seen as endorsing you.

Well, maybe some of the male enhancement products you shill might stick around. After all, three divorces with a fat tub of goo body and a nasty ugly mouth and mind to match, you must have something going on in those trousers.

Like your wallet. I hope you don't think any of your wives actually loved you. Or your mommy, for that matter.

But I digress. Back to campaign advice.

OK, so to make you relevant again, here's what I propose: a sex scandal, preferably one involving illegal drugs. After all, if Barack Obama could win a landslide election after admitting cocaine use in his autobiography, it ought to be a slamdunk for you to abuse, say, Oxycontin with illegal prescriptions.

Or maybe Viagra. Bob Dole uses it, and look what it's done for his political career!

So that takes care of the drug end, but to make doubly sure to make you "hip" we need to get you to put "sexay" back into that swagger. I'm thinking a series of affairs with women young enough to be your grandkids.

Now, I know, in America this would be illegal, and possibly get you married for a fourth time to a kid in a Miley Cyrus T-shirt, so we probably want to import these girls.

Or boys! All the kids experiment with their sexuality, and certainly Larry Craig and Mark Foley weren't tarnished at all by their dalliances in public.

So. Now. Having made you relevant to the kids...we need to find a way to make you stand out from the other candidates. As you've so often pointed out, Barack Obama stood out from the other candidates by the colour of his skin, and I'm thinking that's the way to go here.

I propose we make you the anti-Barack. We paint your skin white...no, I mean even whiter than it is now. Mime white. And to highlight your porcine eyes, so that people won't think you're squinting, we find a good make up artist to put eyeshadow and mascara on you.

Also, blush. There are already rampant rumours after your speech at CPAC that you're dying, and painting you really white will make people think you have lung cancer or something. We need to put some of those rosy cheeks back on you! Also, since pure white tends to flatten and distort contours, I suggest perhaps a fake nose, one that stands out a bit. Maybe round. And red! Yes, that's it!

OK, I see you have the baggy pants thing down. Good. We don't want to frighten women out there with the size of your wallet, or frankly, the dust on it (I hear things). Keep them baggy. In fact, you can go even baggier. There's no such thing as too baggy, you should know.

Your feet, though. Those seem freakishly small and if there's one thing Americans can't stand, it's someone who can't fill the shoes of the man preceding him, and Obama has some big-ass shoes you'd have to fill.

In order to distract people from this, I suggest you wear shoes a few sizes too big. In fact, you could go way over the top here to demonstrate your ability to fill anybody's shoes, and wear like a size thirty.

We'll want to call attention to this outrageous shoe size of yours...you know what they say, big shoes big socks...so the shoes should be really red and make a honking noise or something.

Now, your shirts are usually pretty nice altho I think you want to draw attention away from the fact that your throat usually oozes out of the neckline. I suggest a really broad collar.

I know you have your own line of ties, and I've seen them. I think they are perfect for what we are trying to accomplish here. They attract attention, they are bright, and they really put your torso into perspective. Keep those.

Now, it troubles me to go here, but...your hair.

I think you might have too much for a white man to run for President these days. It reminds people that Bush had hair, and the last person you want to be compared with is George Bush, at least until history has its say.

I think you need to go balder. OK, you don't have to shave. Maybe a bald wig, or at least a balding wig. With fringes of hair around the side. Yea, that ought to do it. And so that people notice you've lost your hair, I suggest a change from the mousy brown to something bold. After all, you're all about bold, so how about neon yellow or bright orange?

Now I think you're ready to run for President. You'll stand out and truly, you will represent that 11% of a 28% minority of this nation that you claim as your followers!


UPDATE: David Frum, of all people, gets it, and compares Limbaugh of the 00s to Jesse Jackson of the 80s. Clever boy!

Twit-Ters

Twitter is for twits.

I'm not basing this on Jon Stewart's breathtaking analysis of the phenomenon. I'm judging this solely on the seat-of-the-pants reaction I have to a) the concept and b) the fact that the Republicans are treating it as the end-all and be-all of the next wave of politics.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Twitter Frenzy

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

The idiotic concept:

Jack Dorsey had grown interested in the simple idea of being able to know what his friends were doing. Specifically, Jack wondered if there might be an opportunity to build something compelling around this simple status concept. When he brought the idea up to his colleagues, it was decided that a prototype should be built.

Now, how many people could possibly be so vain that they think the rest of the entire fucking planet gives a rat's ass about what they are doing on a blow-by-blow basis?

People are dying in wars in Africa and Asia. People here at home are hanging onto their homes by their fingernails. We have a budget crisis unlike anything that's ever come before, coupled with an economic disaster the size of the universe and you mean to tell me the most interesting thing you can think of is some friend missed brushing his teeth this morning????

My god, and then you wonder how the hell the Republican party remains relevant to the national dialogue?

The folks at Twitter will tell you this is just another means of "staying connected".

Right. Maybe that's a really bad idea? Maybe the ability of someone to instantly beam that they've just masturbated to your phone or e-mail is invasive, nasty, and just too much information? Maybe the idea that I need to know what my Congresscritter's thoughts on bass fishing is a bad one?

I'm sure, if used properly, Twitter makes sense. Maybe if you are keeping track of some sales agents in the field or something. But here's the thing: we're humans. We don't USE things properly. We alter them, distort them, and customize them to how we see fit.

And so you have enormous amounts of bandwidth wasted on messages that tell the rest of the planet "Hey! I'm eating pasta for dinner!"

My god, how lonely do you have to be to send that? Worse, how lonely do you have to be to read that?

The Republicans have jumped on the Twitter like flies to shit, and here's why: you can soundbite your way to renown. You don't have to explain, you don't have to detail, you can send messages to your followers, errr, such as they are, without saying a whole lot.

In effect, Twittering is the American Idol of communication. Soft, plump, fluffy, and intrusive and ultimately without any merit or value and likely destructive in the long term. Like a marshmallow Rambo.

If there was no other reason available not to Twitter, the fact that the "Know Nothings" have jumped in with both feet should be enough to give you pause.

Now, I know I've just pissed off a bunch of people who I like and even respect, because I see Twits all over the place. They can consider this an intervention, if they like, a shaking at the shoulders and a slap across the face saying, "Good god, where is your humanity???"

Or if they want to continue in denial, then they can consider this the cranky rant of a crackpot. Either way, it makes no difference. I've got it off my chest, and I could do it in more than 140 characters.

Epic Fail

Often, I hear the accusation from right wingers who visit my humble little blog that I use a quotation from a fictitious character at the top of the page to defend my liberalism.

True. It was a line of dialogue from a character, Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits), on the West Wing.

Quoting a fictitious character has one great advantage, however. I don't have to defend his life to anyone:

The conventional strategy in such cases is for the administration in power to avoid talking about a mere radio critic. That would elevate him to the level of the president.

Which, it turns out, is exactly what the Obama team wants.

On Sunday's "Face the Nation," Rahm Emanuel was more than happy to build up Rush: "He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party, and he has been up front about what he views, and hasn't stepped back from that, which is he hopes for failure. He said it, and I compliment him on his honesty. But that's their philosophy that's enunciated by Rush Limbaugh and I think that's the wrong philosophy for America."

Rush has this coming, to be sure. He has spent the past thirty years deconstructing, even destroying, good politicians and policies not for the greater good of the nation, but for the greater good of Rush Limbaugh's wallet.

And called himself a "comedian" to boot. Remember, nothing he says should be taken seriously, yet it almost always is by the ignorant rabble that infest this great nation.

I made an observation on another blog yesterday that stupid and evil share a symbiotic relationship. There are sweet spots in this symbiotic relationship which can be and are exploited.

"Wingnut welfare" it's been called: the inability of a certain class of people to get and hold productive jobs has created a class of people whose only job is to mock and tear the rest of us who actually DO produce things of value down.

What do these untermenschen want? To quote from Lance Mannion:

They need an alternative history in which being angry, selfish, resentful, greedy, and defensive of nothing but their own right to be angry, selfish, resentful, and greedy is the definition of patriotism and in which instead of standing in the way of progress it's the way to bring it about.

Hear hear!

The grunt work for this newspeak is done not by the people who most loudly advocate for it, no no! That would be heroic, but it would also mean taking a public stance which would immediately erode their influence!

Instead, the grunt work is done by the commoners, even if those commoners hold fairly respectable positions like Member of Congress, Senator, or even Party Chair. It is they who have to defend him, defend his statements and comments, and ultimately defend his life for him.

These watercarriers genuflect at the altar of the Pronouncers merely because the Pronouncers have a microphone and a network of some sort. Limbaugh has 13.5 million listeners in a single week.

That's not many in a land of 310 million, to be sure, but in a Republican party that has seen its base contract from roughly parity with the Democratic party to being ten percent behind the Democrats after eight years of Bush.

In other words, if I'm Michael Steele, I'm not apologizing, I'm sending Limbaugh packing! But 13.5 million people in a party of less than 28 million, he can't do that easily, without destroying the party itself.

It's hard to believe that less than eight years ago, Karl Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority.

By putting Limbaugh front and center in the line of fire, Emanuel is doing what a draft board could not do: making Rush pick up a gun and defend himself.

We know from Limbaugh's history that he cannot do this, face to face. Remember the time he was to host the Pat Sajak show in 1990, and when confronted by hecklers for ACT UP, they emptied the studio out and a visibly shaken Rush was forced to kowtow to his guests?

And the clue that he has been married and divorced three times tells us that strength in the face of his rageaholism, ultimately, beats him down, that he would rather fail and give up than fight for something, anything, worth having.

Unless he's going to admit that the women he's "loved" are disposable.

Bring the sad, sadistic little clown out of hiding, and take away his microphone and his little studio, with the thick walls and the lonely little sound board. Put him in front of people and make him answer for his hatred and his terrorism.

It's like popping a big fat pus-filled angry inflamed zit: it will hurt to do, but once it's done, you can bandage up and move on.

Dog Bites Man

And conservatives consume porn faster than liberals:

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

OK, here's the issue with this.

It's not about moral hypocrisy. People have confessed one faith while worshipping at the altar of others for millennia.

It's about economic hypocrisy. I get the sense that conservatives would like porn to be kept under the covers, errrr, so to speak, in order to monopolize the market on it.

If we lived in a truly free market enterprise society, then porn would likely be the second largest business, right after alcohol and other narcotics (I'm including cigarettes).

Period. Look at, even as tightly regulated as those markets are, how much is spent in America alone.

Porn could be the stimulus package, errrrrrrr, so to speak, that would help America recover its economy.

So what really keeps porn off the free market? Morals?

We send soldiers overseas to kill for us, yet the Bible tells us not to kill, but nothing about looking at naked men or women.

We open shops and businesses seven days a week (mostly) even though the Bible says to keep the Sabbath holy.

Indeed, about the only two outright bans on any sexuality in the Bible are the story of Onan's masturbation and the commandment that states, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and even that was less a moral statement than a statement not to screw around with your neighbor's wife (a social commentary).

So how is it on the one hand, conservatives can claim moral higher ground in preventing the distribution of pornography, and on the other hand, utilize it so dramatically?

Errr, so to speak.

The only logical reason I can come up with, errrr, so to speak, is to monopolize the market on it, to prevent those who might limit the supply conservatives have enjoyed from obtaining it.

You know, teenagers.

Which brings up an entire other can of worms regarding the attitudes of this nation towards horny teenagers and sex.

But that, I'm afraid, is probably best left to another column. Or to Bristol Palin.

March Snowstorm

snow day 003
Originally uploaded by actor212

Yes. We had a significant snowfall for the first time this season.

No, I did not get a snow day.

Rat fucking bastards...

Buy More Tea

The ridiculous sight of a few dozen assholes corporate sheeple braving the chilly airs off Lake Michigan notwithstanding, it turns out the entire Chicago Tea Party (and the sister movement in DC, as well as others) was a sham, orchestrated and staged by the conservative wing of the Republican party:

What we discovered is that Santelli’s “rant” was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a “Chicago Tea Party” was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..,and the proof?

“Within hours of Santelli’s rant, a website called ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang to life. Essentially inactive until that day, it now featured a YouTube video of Santelli’s “tea party” rant and billed itself as the official home of the Chicago Tea Party. The domain was registered in August, 2008 by Zack Christenson, a dweeby Twitter Republican and producer for a popular Chicago rightwing radio host Milt Rosenberg—a familiar name to Obama campaign people. Last August, Rosenberg, who looks like Martin Short’s Irving Cohen character, caused an outcry when he interviewed Stanley Kurtz, the conservative writer who first “exposed” a personal link between Obama and former Weather Undergound leader Bill Ayers. As a result of Rosenberg’s radio interview, the Ayers story was given a major push through the Republican media echo chamber, culminating in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” That Rosenberg’s producer owns the “chicagoteaparty.com” site is already weird—but what’s even stranger is that he first bought the domain last August, right around the time of Rosenburg’s launch of the “Obama is a terrorist” campaign. It’s as if they held this “Chicago tea party” campaign in reserve, like a sleeper-site. Which is exactly what it was.

(hat tip to Barry Ritholtz for making sure this hit the spotlights)

Which now makes Santelli's fifteen minutes of fame extension (e.g. the claim that Obama's White House was now investigating him based on some really crappy evidence that only a real paranoid, a coward, or a Republican (which by definition is a paranoid coward) would dare extrapolate from.

Just in case, you know, you thought the Republicans were done being rat bastards...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

1) Could this be Atlantis? No, not the resort, you knucklehead, the lost city! You know...

Knowing her fate, Atlantis sent out ships to all corners of the Earth.

On board were the Twelve:

The poet, the physician, the farmer, the scientist,

The magician and the other so-called Gods of our legends.

 

2)  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over, Santelli. Shut up and stop being so paranoid.

 

3) A see-through fish has been discovered and photographed. (see also item 8)

 

4) And then they wonder why they lost the election...

 

5) Of course, it's fun to watch Tucker Carlson be the voice of reason...

 

6) This CPAP, excuse me, CPAC conference is a bundle-o-laughs. When I read this, I immediately thought of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, getting run over by the panicked mob while begging them to remain calm.

 

7) Basically, the economy gave Bush a push out the door.

 

8) Bizarre aquatic animal news is not limited to transparent fish this week.

 

9) Apparently, there's a market for worn-out vaginas, in case, you know, you were wondering.

 

10) Run a $750 billion company into the groundand get paid $500 billion for the privilege. Accused of stealing $2 in bottle deposits, YOU'RE FIRED!

Way To Go!

A big shout out and "Attaboy!" to my good blogging buddy, Gort42 for being interviewed by a Dutch newspaper because he was all over the "locking up kids for cash" scandal in northeast Pennsylvania.

If you aren't aware of this story, go read up on it at Gort's place.

Greed Is God

This week seems to be my week to explore humanity and the emotional states underlying our current national crises of the economy and the political atmosphere.

So let's take this from a different perspective and try to tie them together.

Fortuitously, I was reading an article in National Geographic magazine about the burgeoning oil sand industry in Canada.

Lest you think that natural resource exploitation and the ravaging of native lands only happens in tropical climes, you need to read that article. However, it's this quote that caught my eye and got me thinking:

"It's my belief that when government attempts to manipulate the free market, bad things happen," Premier Stelmach told a gathering of oil industry executives that year. "The free-market system will solve this."

But the free market does not consider the effects of the mines on the river or the forest, or on the people who live there, unless it is forced to. Nor, left to itself, will it consider the effects of the oil sands on climate. Jim Boucher has collaborated with the oil sands industry in order to build a new economy for his people, to replace the one they lost, to provide a new future for kids who no longer hunt ptarmigan in the moonlight. But he is aware of the trade-offs. "It's a struggle to balance the needs of today and tomorrow when you look at the environment we're going to live in," he says. In northern Alberta the question of how to strike that balance has been left to the free market, and its answer has been to forget about tomorrow. Tomorrow is not its job. 

Today v. tomorrow. The now v. the then. Hmmmm...sounds familiar...

And this is the struggle that President Obama as well as every other world leader faces today, the juggling of the efficiencies of the free market against the need to protect the environment and the people, to state the general case.

There are no simple answers to be had here, as much as the conservatives would like you to believe. They want you to believe that because in an environment (pun intended) that is bereft of ideas, we cling to the past, to ideas that work sometimes if at all. The simple answer is to let the market sort it out.

I've said before that the power of the market, the real strength of it, is to weed out weakness, to promote a sort of economic evolution.

When it works well, it's extremely good at this. I don't think the market has worked well since the Reagan administration, and I'm not completely sure why.

Certainly, with Reagan, we saw the fledgling crony capitalist markets. The amount of money suddenly available in the junk bond market, the extraction of mythical valuations of "goodwill" and the raping of pension plans for the cash they contained, all combined to create barriers to entry in industries as diverse as banking and retail.

If you're wondering why Wal-Mart is ubiquitous, but you can't find an Alexander's or a Gimbel's (sorry, I'm Noo Yawk oriented), this is why: they were swept up in junk bond mania.

At first, this was an efficiency exercise. Truly there were companies that were wasting resources, paying, you know, salaries and pensions, among other things. The wave of mergers and acquisitions probably, at first, cut a lot of fat out of the marketplace, setting the stage for the enormous growth of the 1990s.

However, all good things become bad in due time, and the wolves howling at the door stopped wanting just fat and wanted the real meat.

The market, rather than be efficient, became cannibalistic.

We've seen this time and time again in America: they call it a "bubble" but in truth, it's the self-feeding cycle of cannibalism, developed through what Greenspan called "irrational exuberance".

Another Reagan-era monstrosity is the flow of corporate money into politics. A nonsensical and absurd ruling (1978 Boston v Bellotti) by the SCOTUS allowed that corporations, which are basically money magnets, have the same free speech rights as persons, and so should be allowed to contribute to politicians and to have a say in the running of the country.

All that money that had been paid out in dividends and re-invested in making the company more efficient and more responsive to their customers now became a cudgel to force legislators to bend the rules of commerce in their favor.

And now we have what we have: a Congress beholden to special interest groups, because the rewards of all that contributed money is more money to spend on advertising, which means the price of campaigning skyrockets, which means the only way a person can afford to run (even Obama) is to suckle at the teat of corporate America.

The Chinese have a saying: all feasts must have an end.

As well, governmental regulation has its good points, and its absurdities. Too much regulation can stifle creativity. Too little regulation, and you get salmonella in your peanut butter. The tendency in this swing of the pendulum is to enforce "just right sized" rules, but eventually, there will be too many and they will be too burdensome.

So which becomes the bigger burden? Too much regulation or too much money floating around?

Neither. Both. And there's the problem.

We'll continue this whipsaw back and forth until someone has the gumption to stand up and say "enough". No more corporate political contributions, get that stupid decision overturned and finally work for the people, the individuals, and not the aggolmerations of capital and political power that have worked to effectively disenfranchise the entire nation.

This is not a Republican issue (altho it tends to affect Republican administrations more than Democratic) or a Democratic issue, but a national issue.

Greed is god in this country, and it's time to tear down the idols and expose the feets of clay.

On The Clock

Each morning, I sit and read my e-mail in the bathroom.

This morning, at precisely six, ThumbPer meowed. He meowed the meow of a cat who was patiently waiting his turn. It was time to go meditate with a cup of coffee and a cat.

At precisely six. I wondered how he knew, what biological mechanism made his clock tick at that exact moment? Can he read a clock? Does he own a watch?

Then I began to think about the world. We're all run on clocks and calendars. Most people in this country, and many more in the world outside it, have to live by a clock. We log into work, we run to catch a train, our TV shows are on at a specific time.

And then I thought about my job, and something odd occured to me: the people who own the company, they aren't really beholden to clocks. Things get done when they want them to get done, on their schedule. Yes, to a degree, where necessary they have to genuflect to time.

But not as often as you might think.

All this leads me to some thoughts about Barack Obama's address last night:

[W]e have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

He's right, you know, and he didn't single out anybody, didn't exempt you or me, the rich or the poor, the bankers or the brokers (well, maybe the bankers a little), or Democrats or Republicans.

We've all lived as though time was a renewable resource. But it's not. Time is the avenger. Time is what happens when you've lived one way, always looking in the other direction. Time is the wall you run into.

The most curious struggle within life is to balance two things: now and then.

We should all plan for the future and make contingencies for what happens then.

We should all "live in the now," as we say in acting classes.

Funny thing is, we've failed miserably at both.

We've had a thirty year headstart on renewable energy, a fairly simple, logical, and healthier alternative to burning mushed dinosaur soup. We import more of that goo than ever before.

We've had twenty years of warnings with respect to the rising costs of healthcare, and the declining wages to pay for them. Yet here we are, watching an American go bankrupt every thirty seconds because he or she can't afford to pay for the God-given gift of a healthy life.

We've had decades of warnings with respect to global warming and the twin disaster of sudden ice ages (and conservatives? These are not conflicting ideas. The earth can warm up as a whole while we plunge into an ice age in the northern and southern temperate zones), yet our planet is getting hotter and the warmest ten years on record have been the past ten.

And we've sat on our asses and did nothing, except mock Al Gore, mock Jimmy Carter and mock Hillary Clinton.

(Hm. Those are all Democrats! But I digress...)

The Obama stimulus package/budget announcement tries to reconcile these two aspects of time. The stimulus package is for the now. The budget is for the then.

It is a bold and grand vision, to be sure, and the real test comes in a year or two, when the economy has (we hope) recovered and the deficit inches down at first. Can Congress be mature enough to sit on its hands and continue to tinker with the deficit or will the special interests begin to ratchet up the rhetoric, which actually began with Bobby Jindal's amateurish and childish (Fox's words, not mine!)response to Obama's speech last night?

Time waits for no one, and it is on this basis that we, the people, must take control of our country again. It is we who must keep our Congresscritters responsible and it is we who must keep Barack Obama responsible (admittedly, I sense this will be the easier task). And it is we who must keep our local politicians responsible for the funds they receive from the Feds and from our tax dollars.

We have to get off our asses and own our time on this planet. Own the now. Own the then.

If the farm subsidy to Big Agra is about to be snuck through a late night session by the critters from the cornfields, then it's up to us to rally up the rest of the nation to put a stop to it.

If the Defense Department is insistent on buying yet another legacy weapon for a war they fought twenty years ago, it's up to us to call them on the carpet.

It's our future, not our elected officials, who, like my bosses, have forgotten what a clock really is.

A marker in the river of our lives that delineates the now from the then. We live on the clock. We need to act like it.