Too Clever By Half

This cliche sounds the same regardless of who says it

2010-05-20T17:41:00.005-05:00

Just recently it has become trendy to talk about baseball and baseball players in certain ways. For example, a few years ago, if a broadcaster or coach liked a guy, they said he was a "gamer," even if he sucked. Synonyms included "gritty" and, bizarrely, "baseball player." What kind of great game is it when the thing your coach says about you that makes you better than your teammates is "he's a baseball player"? Manny, my regular bus driver on the 55, recently received an award for being, man, you know, just like a...bus driver and shit, OK? That's what makes the difference. Totally.

One of the more annoying things people have been saying this season is that "the ball just sounds different" coming off the bat of Player X, and it's starting to fucking get to me. This all began today, actually, when my fantasy baseball site (yes, I am a loser. And?) sent me the following message about one of my minor league players:

"Marlins OF prospect Michael Stanton is mired in a bit of a cold spell at Double-A Jacksonville. The 2007 second-round pick is hitting just .189 (7 for 37) in his last 10 games and hasn't homered in nine games. Still, with 15 homers and a .299 average in 37 games, the compliments continue to pour in for the 20-year-old outfielder. "He's a man-child," Suns pitcher Jeff Allison told The Miami Herald. "The ball off his bat is a different sound. It's like dropping a huge wooden rocking chair from 200 feet and hearing it crash into the ground. That's the sound the ball makes on his bat. And the ball travels. He can hit the ball over the wall, off the wall, and through the wall."

I love this quote for 2 reasons: 1. Mike Stanton is on my team, and he better be as great as all this, because the ol' Haymarket Bombers have been through some down years recently. 2. "It's like dropping a huge wooden rocking chair from 200 feet..."! Why huge? Why a rocking chair? Why 200 feet?! Marry me, Jeff Allison!!

But really, it also occurred to me that I've heard this quote before. A lot before...but where? So I googled "ball sounds different coming off his bat" and hey, the memory is still like a steel trap (warning, ongoing feature being created):

3/1/10: Hall of Fame manager believes "the ball sounds different coming off the bat" of a super prospect who will start the season with the big club. Who said it, who's the rookie, and (bonus points) what Hall of Famer did he compare the rookie's bat's sound to?

Well, grammar be damned, the answers are, respectively, Bobby Cox, Jason Heyward, and Hank Aaron! Wow...talk about pressure....

3/8/10: On the NY Times' baseball blog (wtf?), washed-up journeyman catcher, Brian Schneider, who knows hitting like Tim McCarver, said of perennially-injured Nick Johnson "the ball just sounds different coming off his bat." Of course, this article could be a farce, since later on, Johnson says he "wouldn't change the way he plays the game for nothing," which sounds like he would change for something, maybe like the $5 million the Yankees gave him to sit on the DL. Plus, Nick Swisher apparently told a reporter "I’m sure Nick and I will become very close. A high on-base guy? That’s right up my alley." Oh no you don't, Nick Swisher! Just because you're both underachieving guys named Nick doesn't give you dibs on him!

4/14/10: Lest you think this is just big league, overpaid gasbags making shit up to amuse themselves, don't forget the downmarket effect: even the kids get corrupted by this shit if it happens often enough at the highest levels - won't someone think of the children?:

"That's a little bit of youth," Verhage said of Ricci, who played full-time varsity as a freshman. "It was a hit-and-run, and he smashed it off the fence. He has a great swing and the ball just sounds different coming off his bat. And he's got great work ethic, so there's nothing but great things in front of him."

...and it doesn't stop there. From 2005: "Tyler Bighames is a 6' 174 pound 2009 infielder from San Diego, California who attends Cathedral Catholic High School....He uses his leverage well and the ball sounds different coming off the bat than others." The kid was 14 years old when that was written.

What is this phrase, where did it come from, and what the hell is it supposed to mean? "The ball sounds different" - like a bag of bullshit being thrown into my ears? Can you quantify that for me? What does sound have to do with baseball, or evaluating baseball talent? Is this just another nice-sounding thing you can say when you really have nothing to say at all? (That last one feels like the answer to me.)

OK, just one more: The Boston Red Sox' top prospect in 2009 was Lars Anderson. Here's what scouts think: "Anderson’s power isn’t elite yet, but it has the potential to get there. He’s always showed the ability to make hard contact and many scouts note the ball makes a different sound off his bat. He’s also adept at using the entire field and many are waiting –and anticipating– his pull power will be soon to come." Yeesh. That sounds like the kid will be a beast, what with the bat sounds and all, and then for good measure the writer compares him explicitly to Mark Teixeira. How's Lars doing in 2010, you ask? Still onomatopoeia-ing it up on his way to the big leagues? Well, not so much. Despite his jibber-jabbering bat, Anderson started the season in AA, looking like he might have to repeat the level where he hit .233 last season with 9 HR in 447 AB, with a very poor .673 OPS. He hit well enough in the first month to move up to AAA, where he's at .250 with 1 HR and a .794 OPS in 16 games. He's also 23, which is a little old for a player who didn't go to college, delaying his development. Sounds like his bat was, if you'll excuse me, talking out its ash.

But...

2010-05-20T09:11:00.002-05:00

Two things:

Without a doubt, it's been the overwhelming objectivity and unimpeachable authority displayed by the media that's betrayed the American public over the last several years. You are so fucking smart, gossip columnist lady. All the problems with shitty journalism can be fixed if we just turn it into actual journaling and reporters get paid to just write about their own navels (what, they don't?)! This is why I don't read newspapers and speed up when I see journalists crossing the street.

Slavoj Zizek proves once again that he is both the dumbest and dullest motherfucker on the planet. I pray that he will soon be found dead, under his blanket, asphyxiated by his own farts.

Well, fuck.

2010-05-20T09:08:00.002-05:00

Back again and still dissatisfied. Comments are off, because I don't have time to read them and, to be frank, I don't give a fuck about what you think. Hi Mom!

This blog is, like Barney Gumble, taking things in a bold new direction. Mostly, that means lots of sports talk and less politics. Everybody does politics, badly. Nobody does sports goodly. I will be no exception.

Scott Adams, Technological Rapist

2009-12-15T06:57:00.002-06:00

We here at TCBH, the Too-Cleverians, have had it up to HERE with technocrats insisting that we'll all be machines someday, or that machines will rule us, or that machines are people too, or that, well, machines already rule us:

"Technically, you're already a cyborg. If you keep your cell phone with you most of the time, especially if the earpiece is in place, I think we can call that arrangement an exobrain. Don't protest that your cellphone isn't part of your body just because you can leave it in your other pants. If a cyborg can remove its digital eye and leave it on a shelf as a surveillance device, and I think we all agree that it can, then your cellphone qualifies as part of your body. In fact, one of the benefits of being a cyborg is that you can remove and upgrade parts easily. So don't give me that "It's not attached to me" argument. You're already a cyborg. Deal with it."

Just real briefly, because I have already ranted about these fascistic motherfuckers before, the persistent, all-out push to have humanity acknowledge its dependence on (and hence, subservience to) technology is a sick fucking obsession with these people and their crusade to get everyone to "deal with it" is not unlike a rapist who wants you to admit you "asked for it" and "liked it." A wholly unfair and weird characterization? Maybe. But that's what I thought of, so that's what you have here.

The real question, to quote Diane Rehm, then becomes, not whether we are truly cyborgian, but why in hell's name it's so important to tech-douches for all of us to admit that we are. What is the significance of the admission? Is it psychic payback of some kind?

Matt Taibbi Needs To Clean Out His Fucking Ears

2009-12-14T13:58:00.003-06:00

Who is Matt Taibbi and why is he suddenly everywhere? If you've been interviewed on Colbert, you are ubiquitous. And also a really stupid liberal. It's bizarre that a so-called political journalist has his primary gig at Rolling Stone magazine, don't you think? Not to throw stones, because I'm a blogger, but I never tried to convince anyone to take me seriously and...fuck it, let's throw stones.

Taibbi: "'Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal,' says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it." Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency."

This amazing passage appears in the 5th paragraph of Taibbi's Bible-length jeremiad. He's totally right, too: the Citigroup deal WAS amazing, and it also happened before Obama was president. THAT is real journalism, folks! You just make sure that you give all the facts (no dates, though; just facts) and then go ahead and attribute to the president something that in the absence of a time machine cannot possibly be his fault. You know what fucking pissed me off the most about George W. Bush when he was president? Watergate. Clinton's biggest problem was so totally Iran-Contra. Thomas Jefferson should have had more ammunition and then the Americans would have won at Bunker Hill! Shit, Taibbi, this is fucking awesomely easy! Sweet!

He then proceeds to argue that, because Obama hired people from major financial firms to address the financial state of the country, while simultaneously trying to save those same major firms, the president is some kind of puppet of Wall Street schemers who are using him to enrich themselves "at the expense of everybody else" for...some goddamn reason. Figure it out yourself!

Taibbi seems utterly unaware of the absurdity of his little tantrum. Perhaps he would care to suggest alternative financial advisers Obama could have turned to -- I mean, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had plenty of great people who were looking for work. Same with Wachovia, Bank of America, AIG...the list goes on. Come on, Taibbi: which of these firms should have staffed-up the Treasury of the United States? Surely, you have some ideas. Let's hear 'em!

....

Oh, and don't miss the part where Taibbi, presumably in all seriousness, quotes a Republican congressman who is critical of Obama's bailout moves. Oh, the shame! That'll have Democrats rethinking the whole save-the-economy thing! He then talks to some teabaggers, who he says are fuckwits, but useful because they "don't hate Obama for any reasons that make sense" -- whereas a staunch and brilliant liberal like Matt Taibbi, well, as you can see, HE has all kinds of ironclad reasons! Obviously. He went to college, you know, and like, read Howard Zinn and like, yeah.

Matt Taibbi clearly doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't thought it through. Thank Christ he isn't a real reporter, or his editor would have moved him to the weather beat, or somewhere else where he doesn't have to be right but a small amount of the time, and his facts can be checked by simply opening a window and one eyeball. His conclusion, in case you aren't convinced that he's been laboring under a misapprehension since at least last November, suggests that Obama somehow "changed" in office. The president, apparently, used to be a true "man of the people," who vowed to slay those capitalist pig-dogs and return us all to a state of happy idiocy on the land, or at least overhaul this damn modern economy to make it less hurty and more, I dunno, good-feely. Except, and this is the important thing, he never ever promised or even hinted that he would do any such thing and Matt Taibbi would know that, along with all the other fucking whiny, dumb liberals out there, if they'd just clean out their fucking ears and listen, really listen, to what other people say. Barack Obama ain't your hero and never was, and he does not want to be. He wants to be the president, whereas the closest any of the dumb liberals ever got to that point was...uhhh.... Look, let's be clear: just because you think you love him doesn't mean the reverse is true. So, Matt, you look like a huge asshole when you have a lover's quarrel later, in public, where you're the only one with an issue and the other guy doesn't even know he's supposed to be involved with you.

Finally, judge for yourselves whether Taibbi makes any sense when he offers up interpretations of the White House's economic plans like this: "At one point in the debate, Obama's top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval — and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals." One wonders whether Taibbi really believes that "the public," much less the government, should be making money off the economic recovery. What happens to the government when it becomes a business, or worse, when it becomes an investor? The point was to save the economy from suffering more massive damage, not to make profits -- though the government got plenty of Citigroup stock in the deal that might one day turn out to be useful.

Oh, and let's not mention to Matt the new report that shows that all but a small fraction of the TARP funds will be recovered, or that Citigroup has made a $20 billion payment on its loan, or that only months after the stimulus went into effect, the government was already collecting billions in interest payments and may even show Matt's prized profit on its bank loans. No, that sort of fact-mongering would not do. We're supposed to be waving our pitchforks and storming the Capitol and denouncing our president because, hey, the fucking asshole did what he said he was going to do and did it in a defensible way.

"But, We Used To Be Crypto-Hateful!"

2009-11-09T06:49:00.002-06:00

Some crybaby fucktard at Andrew Sullivan's page (one guess which party the fucktard is a member of) whines that it isn't fair to hearken all the way back to 1994, the supposed Republican Revolution, the takeover of American politics by a third-rate history prof from a fourth-rate college, the handover by the libs of all that was sacred and holy and that actually worked so that the GOP could "starve" it and beat the citizenry until it agreed that government was not the answer and they came to this realization all on their own (but the beatings helped); ...anyway where was I, oh yes: it isn't fair to look at 1994 as the beginning of the unmitigated disaster of Republicanism that we now observe. See, the GOP wasn't always crazy, so, uh, give it a break because it now is...? I don't know what the fucktard's point is.

Supposedly, 1994 was built on "positive" feelings and pro-something policies, like welfare reform, ethics reform, and spending reform. And that is true, if we view 1994 the same as a shame-filled Republican donkey who isn't accustomed to thinking deeply or inwardly about anything.

I remember 1994, those halcyon days of my 16th year, as being about demonizing black mothers (that old "welfare reform" bit, you know), poor people ("workfare" will teach them...that it was much better to be under welfare), Democrats (they're all a bunch of philanderers, you know. Right, Henry Hyde? Would you like to ask the president a question? Or you, Newt?), and "starving the beast" so it, the American government, the shining beacon of reason, liberty, and freedom to the entire world, could be "dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the bathtub" by Grover Norquist, a person whose nerd rage undoubtedly stems from the fact that he has never gotten laid ever.

No, that whole grab-bag of demonizing policies isn't hateful or crazy. Just because Republicans chose to call it the "Contract with America," which is meaningless, and chose at that moment to explicitly split the nation into real and fake parts, and roll up the notion of the silent majority into the party's strategic message, heck, that should never be mistaken for loony, divisive, pandering bullshit! It was all about good feelings, y'all, the same ones you have after leaving the hospital where you told your wife you were kicking her and the kids out while she was receiving cancer treatment. I mean, manly, Christian good feelings. The kind all Americans, REAL Americans, can relate to. No connection whatsoever to the present mindset of the GOP.

In all seriousness, in 1994 the Republicans tried to change the paradigm of American politics and succeeded. But they changed it by shoving everything downward, discourse, policies, ideas, everything. They eschewed expertise and shat on the promise and real success of government -- even while they fought tooth-and-nail to control the government (truly they were visionaries. Or hypocrites.). But to say that the seeds of the current insanity were not on full display in the small-minded, crude, culture war-as-political party policies of 1994 is like saying that the craziest GOP reps today must, by deductive reasoning, be 15 years old or younger, because 1994 didn't create them or even influence them. Happy 15th birthday, Sue Myrick!

Historians will write about our age someday. I doubt they will skip over 1994 as Sullivan's reader hopes, roping it off as some kind of sacred period of good feelings that, in its holier-than-thou attitude and effect somehow was unconnected to the batshit crazy level of paranoia and sense of entitlement of Republicans in the new millennium.

The Responsibility to Boo

2009-11-02T17:51:00.003-06:00

Last weekend, the Carolina Hurricanes played back-to-back games against the Flyers and the Sharks. Carolina, which had 97 points last season and beat both New Jersey and Eastern Conference top seed Boston in consecutive seven-game series, on the road both times, brought back the young core of that team with good, economical contracts and also revamped a shaky defense and got bigger and tougher in the offseason.

After 13 games, Carolina has 2 wins. 7 points. A league-worst 50 goals allowed, against just 28 for. The Hurricanes were outscored 11-2 by Philly and San Jose on Saturday and Sunday, extending a losing streak to 9 (count 'em) games and prompting the GM to publicly talk about making changes so early into the season that the team has absolutely no leverage but is in full-on panic mode.

Through it all, though, the home fans have been, well, great. Huh. They keep coming to the games and filling seats. They cheer when the team is down. They don't even seem to mind that Carolina has taken the most penalties in the NHL, an amazing 22 minutes per game on average, which means the Hurricanes are theoretically short-handed for one third, a whole fucking period, of the game. And then some.

Well people, I hate to tell you: good fans boo when their team plays like a bunch of retards.

Some examples of poor decisions that would not be tolerated by fans with a little more anger: Carolina spends a lot of time when it rarely gets a powerplay stuck in its own zone. Boos rain down like Don Cherry's spittle in other arenas when the home team, with 5 skaters, is being pushed around by a team with only 4. If the Canes actually manage to get into the opponent's zone with the advantage, they almost always pass the puck back and forth at the blueline or try to cycle behind the net, which is like saying, "I don't want this scoring chance, you have it!" And that's pretty much the whole plan; Carolina sometimes doesn't even get 1 shot on net in a 2 minute powerplay.

There are many other problems, too. Star goalie Cam Ward has completely forgotten how to move laterally, surrendering at least 5 goals that I can remember this season to opponents who lobbed a shot at his side from the goal line. That's so weak, it's boo-worthy. Ward has also begun diving on his face when a shooter goes glove side on a breakaway -- why? How does that cut off the net? Boo! Line changes have been glacially slow; passes are all behind the targets; Carolina insists on dumping the puck in even with manpower; no one is intentionally blocking shots; and every goddamn offensive and defensive movement is to the back of the net -- I have had it up to here with the misbegotten idea, only still in favor in Carolina, by the way -- that you can run plays from behind a net. You can't. You can get bottled-up back there, since it's the smallest area on the ice, though, and the other team can take the puck away from you. Figure it out! No matter the circumstances, the Hurricanes are too deep whenever there's a puck around the net; they're also like tee ball kids when it comes to pursuit -- everyone, a forward, a defenseman, just chases the puck together, in a big, clumsy pack. What's the point?

Hurricanes players are quite frank in their assessments of the play so far. They admit they have sucked. But they replay the same game again the next night; Saturday's and Sunday's games were almost identical numbnuts festivals from my perspective.

When an athlete tries to do a job and not only fails, but miserably so, and in the process aids in his own failure to the extent that almost any other behavior would be preferable to what he's doing, it's time to boo.

This One's For The Boys

2009-10-29T11:56:00.010-05:00

This place (link) cuts men's hair (supposedly). All I know is, first, I will never set foot in this place; and b., check out the website!

The highlights (pun, ha!):

*Services: (brace yourself):

Haircut - includes "facework" and "mini facial." Just for you, Greg!

Rest Facial - "cleanser, moisturizer, conditioner, and steam towel"...it's like describing a four-person blowbang to your grandmother!

Get Zen for this one: "Trimwork - Hair, neck and face maintenance." That's what she said!

Personal Services - "Shoe care, tailoring, dry cleaning and house cleaning." ?

No, really, ?

All services come with "complimentary beverages and concierge support" -- what the hell is that? Dry cleaning comes with a beverage? Is "concierge support" the same as "turn your head and cough"? (I don't speak the French, you know, but I'm learning pidgen Gay.)

Hand and Foot Care:

Hand Treatment - "For the gentleman who gets it on a regular" (sic) "...finish with a high gloss buff or matte polish."

OK. What the fuck does that mean? The "polish" part I've got; it means manicures are an abomination, or else they're offering me a hot dog -- it's hard to tell in written form. But "for the gentleman who gets it on a regular" -- gets what? Manicures? Pussy? My mind, she is bent!

Foot Treatment - all you need to know is that it ends with a "chillaxing massage." In a time machine. Set to 2007.

"Rough Around the Edges Hand Treatment - For the hard working hand...neglected the callous buildup, cut someone with a handshake, or left a welt on your mate..." Left a welt on your mate...oh, I get it. Manicures: the solution for domestic abusers who are tired of using a rolled-up magazine! But "cut someone with a handshake"? I think you're doing it wrong if that's the case. The complementary foot treatment frees you from "foot shame," which I mean, come on, we all know about that, am I right? It ends with "the rubdown of champions," which I must assume is a variant, by request, of either the Filipino Flogging, the Nanking Nutroll, or the South Carolina Gribble (also known locally as the "Sandlap"). Pretty sure.

Finally, let it be noted and forever remembered that the Signature Foot Treatment includes a "diamond chip foot file," which makes baby Jesus and starving orphans everywhere cry.

On to Products!

The line of purported men's products at this salon is fairly limited, but through careful review I have determined that it is exactly right for whatever you may be expecting, be it face cream, upper-lip foam, spoogy gel, cheek wash, stubble stick, or any of noted practitioner F. Ella Tio's worked-up lathers.

Let's begin with "Jack Black"'s line of squeezy tubes. These include "Face Buff," a movie I also saw, and "Beard Lube," as well as "Hand Healer," which was an unreleased Marvin Gaye track from the sessions with Columbia Records in '82. Beard Lube comes in a 16 oz. pump bottle, because hey, "you asked." But, does it numb and lubricate, or am I still going to feel some pressure...there? The best part of the site is "Ask Jack," where fake people ask made-up questions of the wise Mr. Black, or at least his underpaid intern-slash-webmaster: "What is the difference between Beard Lube Conditioning Shave and Supreme Cream Triple Cushion Shave Lather?" What a fucking great question! The answer is, "nothing! They're both jizz-based!" And, because I'm sure you are as bored with this totally jizz-based paragraph, we're moving on!

aMENity (what? I don't get it.) is another fine, retarded company supplying products to whats-its-name salon that I almost forgot about because this post has gone on way past long enough. Here's a testimonial: "When I go out, I like to look good. That mean's doing what fits my own personal style. I like Amenity because it feels good on my head. It works better than any product on the market and I've tried them all." Can you count the things wrong with that statement? If not, really, go check out the pictures. This must be a joke, right?

There is eShave, which I firmly believe is a computer program that shaves men through instant messaging (I confess that I cut myself shaving just this morning, quite severely actually, so I'm not going to throw too much shit on eShave. But I will point out that, just like half the restrooms in Wisconsin, eShave has a section about "Badger Hair."

Finally, we come to balla. You read that right. I encourage everyone to check this out, now! Under "where to buy," there is a picture of a hand holding $60. Serious. Sixty whole motherfucking US dollars, yo! Balla!

Also, balla has testimonials. From. Three. People. Did I mention this is a product you sprinkle on your balls to keep them dry? Read the disarmingly nonsensical customer reviews and marvel. Do not miss the press releases, either, which go to great lengths to describe what the product does, why it does it, and why everyone loves the "subtle, manly scent" you can only get from balla nut sugar -- or, you know, from my balls, which have the subtle, manly scent of, well, balls. Like most things genital, if it smells like something else, you fucked up and nobody likes fucked up genitals!

Marvel at this picture and the text beside it. For, truly, nothing (nothing!) on this earth says both "dry" AND "comfortable" like sitting in the ocean wearing only socks and a button-down while reading the newspaper.

Enjoy "how to apply" (you really are a dimwit, huh?), especially the advice that it's nigh impossible to dump scrote powder into your boxers without getting a bunch of it on your shoes. Because you wear boxer shorts, no pants, AND SHOES so fucking often! I am dying over here! Stop it! Please! ...Europe! (sound of me peeing on my balla-dusted boxers and shoes.)

Balla is not going to try to get in your pants. Balla WILL get in there. Balla is the Nazis of taint-glazing and balla is coming for your lady friends' tongues and nasal comfort! Balla has a language barrier but balla totally overcame that shizz and now is much to being on your nether regions and minds! Balla sometimes clumps on pubic hair and WILL coat the roof of your mouth and prevent normal intimacy as well as second dates. Balla has a sports car. Balla quite fortunately rubs off as fast as the douchebags who buy balla. Balla!

Balla will make clammy sacks a thing of the past and will put bat wings on the endangered species list.

"He Was Not A Bigoted Man"

2009-10-29T09:53:00.005-05:00

Fergus M. Bordewich, of whom I had never heard and from whom I never expect to hear again, writes in Smithsonian magazine (Oct. 2009) that John Brown, abolitionist, was effectively a living saint who straddled modernity and age-old vengeance traditions and led the United States into the only just war in its history through the deft use of language, symbolism, action, and his own personal, god-like powers. Perhaps I overstate Bordewich's case somewhat. However, he quotes liberally David S. Reynolds, whose biography of John Brown is still the most asinine thing ever put to paper by a cultural studies nitwit, and so I don't trust Bordewich to tell me anything about Brown that I couldn't get from the slurrings of an idiot.

To take Brown as a revolutionary figure is fine. He was certainly that; but in a nation that rather frowns upon revolutionaries outside Washington & Friends, it is curious how often we are asked to re-examine John Brown's insane actions and lend them our approval.

In Bordewich's hands, you might almost believe that Brown was our greatest orator (Reynolds thinks the functionally illiterate Brown was our greatest author!) and hero, the symbolic leader of the free nation.

Or, you can go to the historical record.

The raid on Harper's Ferry was not Brown's signature moment, though his harebrained fans seem to think so. This is because Harper's Ferry was two debacles in one, the second being the ineptitude of the attempt by a young Robert E. Lee to dislodge Brown and his supporters from the armory. This comedy of violence masks the utter bankruptcy of Brown's "plan," to raise a slave army, and his own use of barbaric violence against anyone he believe to be his ideological opponent. "Ideological opposition" is, in fact, the key to understanding Brown. He didn't so much challenge slavery or wage war on the institution, as he did on people who agreed with the institution -- quite literally doing what I have threatened to do many times: take a club and go out in the streets and beat the other side's supporters to death. I understand the impulse, but I also know that Republicans (in my case) aren't solely defined by the things about the GOP that piss me off. Do I think Republicans are bad people? Sure. Do I think they waste their brains and talents on abortive political efforts? You bet. But do I hold the rank-and-file responsible for the leadership and traditions of the entire party, or do I hold the leaders and traditions of the party responsible? In other words, am I an intelligent political actor operating within a culture or am I a barbarian?

The visceral, disorienting experiences that can dislodge a subject from his place within a polity make for interesting studies. Brown's experiences are no exception. But don't make him the hero he cannot be; murderers aren't "controversial," their places in history aren't so "disputed" that we have to make fools of ourselves pretending to weigh the "cause" against what really happened. John Brown was a crackpot -- a perfect analog for Conrad's Kurtz, gone seemingly "mad" in his clumsy lunge at primitivity and a certain kind of freedom; truly mad, though, in all the terms that matter to thinking, political beings. A little off-point, of course, as an observation since (and Conrad's readers, Coppola's viewers, and Brown's acolytes always forget this) Kurtz/Brown isn't the most important, or even interesting, character in the story. The Africans are the objects of fascination and the impetus for madness.

"What are they going to say when he's gone, that he was a kind man? That he was a wise man?" They wouldn't say it about Kurtz and no one should be saying it about Brown, another man without a country intellectually, morally, and by his choice.

Brown was compelled to launch his bloody career as a terrorist by the "sacking of Lawrence, Kansas," an event where perhaps a thousand supporters of slavery in the territory attacked Lawrence, destroyed the anti-slavery newspapers, burned down the governor's house, and almost got away without killing anyone, until a piece of falling stone struck and killed an anti-slavery man who was apparently standing right next to a collapsing building.

The fact that no pro-slavery person had actually killed anyone in Lawrence made no difference to Brown, who became further enraged when Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner (though recent work suggests strongly that Sumner, no fool at political theater, exaggerated his injuries for months in order to keep abolitionists at a fever pitch) and assembled his own small posse, including four of his sons, to get revenge on...well, somebody.

During the late night of May 24, 1856, the lynching party made its way to the Pottawatomie creek area, forced its way into the homes of three known or suspected advocates of slavery (not slave owners, mind you, just people who agreed with the totally legal practice of owning slaves), removed five adult men, and hacked them to death with swords, in at least one case in full view of the man's family. Just swell! For this brave action, as David S. Reynolds and Fergus Bordewich, among many Brown cheerleaders, will tell you, our hero was vilified and treated like a common criminal! Jesus wept!

Becoming a posthumous American hero apparently depends entirely upon the declining intelligence of historians and pop writers approximately 150 years after one's demise. You need not be consistent, or even rational. Your cause need not have focus, structure, or bear any resemblance to the accepted norms of protest -- even extreme protest -- of the dominant culture. One may apparently absent oneself from that culture, at any time, declare oneself a prodigy and literally hack one's opponents to death for espousing an idea in support of a lawful behavior, regardless of whether said victims -- I mean, opponents -- act on that support, and one will be transformed into a crusader for the justice of God and man, the inducer of any subsequent event (like a Civil War) that settles the issue that, in hindsight, clearly justified murder, and the originator of all good things remotely related (like the Civil Rights Movement). Basically, everyone since John Brown has done jack shit. It was him all along!

Or, reasonable people might wish to begin drawing some boundaries with the worship of America's most historical terrorist. John Brown's cause, as ragged and sloppy as it was in his hands, was just. But he was not. He was a murderer and a psychopath whose hate for something too big for his mind to comprehend was so debilitating that he attacked only its most junior, albeit accessible, minions. Brown was a crazed hunter whose psychic breakup not only drove him into the mouth of a tiger, but caused him to hold human life so cheaply that he ensured all his followers were eaten up, too.

And yet, the editor of Smithsonian: "For his part, Bordewich came away from the story surprised by Brown's personal tolerance: 'That is to say, he had among his friends and followers people of various religious persuasions, as well as atheists and agnostics. He hated slavery, but he was not a bigoted man.'" But naturally, one is always driven to cold-blooded murder by something other than bigotry. Great fucking God.

Because Yankees Fans are Masters of Reality

2009-10-29T09:38:00.002-05:00

My favorite post-FJM baseball blog advises the millions of followers of a certain pinstriped Microsoft-with-balls "not to panic."

Yeah, because Yankees fans are smart, realistic, observers, known for their patience, calm, and respect for the game and especially for other teams and players who beat them.

I'm sure Yankees fans across the world are saying, right now, things like "Heck, that Cliff Lee sure was good last night! But, we still have a payroll bigger than the GDP of several nations, so we have all the talent necessary to stage a comeback. One game at a time, I always say!" Or, perhaps in the reality-based world, Yankees fans are completely disregarding this piece of nonsensical "made just for you" advice, however well meaning, and are instead all like, "Yankees RULE! You SUCK! Yankees RULE!!" while also losing their shit emotionally and crying out to Jesus because, Fuck! How the hell can the highest-paid team NOT win an American sports competition? That's communism or somethingYankeesRULE!!

I'm Quite Savvy

2009-09-28T11:08:00.002-05:00

Been a while, I know. Really wasn't planning to ever return, but man, sometimes you've got to pile on and you just don't have any other venue.

Please go check out this shit on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-other-health-insurance-debate.html#more

"I have seven guinea pigs."

"I pay for pet health insurance for them."

"The costs run into the thousands."

"I'm quite savvy."

Oh, mercy. Stop it, you're killing me! "I'm quite savvy..." in what fucking way? No, how -- fuck, wh...oh, man. Jesu -- you poor idiot, do you realize what you fucking said? I'm reduced to writing like the transcript of GW Bush speech here, I'm laughing so hard. It's like, look, is our children learning responsible spending habits, budgeting, or how to balance wants and necessities?

Go broke and then eat those damn things! Fool!

The last Time...

2009-07-14T13:55:00.005-05:00

...I read about a straw man this big, it was a review of the awesome Dark Night of the Scarecrow. Everyone should do as my parents did and show it to their kids in the middle of the afternoon at a time of year when it cannot even remotely be played off as Halloween preparation.

But I digress. I read Andrew Sullivan's blog on The Atlantic online (though if one has 2 other people contributing to a blog that's hosted by a magazine, does one still get paid to be a writer for the website? Isn't that a bit like farming out a dissertation to a bunch of research assistants?), and while he is sometimes a queen for drama (not like John Aravosis, that irritating fucktard), he's a solid reasoner. Sometime, though, he and his RAs will forget to comment much on what they are posting, thus making the "blog" a lot more like a news and opinion aggregator than a commentary site. We're all guilty of that, but about none of the other blogs on the internet have the traffic of Sullivan, so we can hold him and his research assistants to a higher standard.

So what is this? "I share Andrew's fears"?

Here's the cited quote, by Michael J. Totten:

"The United States has basically won the war in Iraq. No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq's cities because they were beaten. America's most modest foreign policy objectives there have been largely secured. Saddam Hussein's toxic regime has been replaced with a more or less consensual government. I doubt very much that Iraq will seriously threaten the United States or its neighbors any time soon. It isn't likely to be ruled by terrorists as it probably would have been if the United States left between 2004 and 2007. It's a relief. A few years ago, I was all but certain the U.S. would withdraw under fire and leave Iraq in the hands of militias. Even so, many have a hard time feeling optimistic about the future. Iraq remains, in some ways, a threat to itself."

There is a question I want to ask that isn't fair, doesn't engage with the reporting from the original article, and is based on a view that discounts all that has happened in Iraq since 2003. This denial of time and circumstances is decidedly problematic and rooted in a need to reiterate a stark, moral point. For, whatever the case at this moment, why even contemplate that the thing to take away from Iraq is that "we won," when doing so would be to forget the first and most searingly important fact of our presence there: it was brought about by obvious and treacherous lies? Lies that still have power, obviously, as Totten obliquely bases his favorable view of the occupation upon them.

"America's most modest foreign policy objectives (in Iraq) have been largely secured."

America never had any "modest" foreign policy goals in Iraq. If Totten could name one, that would be extraordinary, since none exists. Military occupation is not "modest;" the overthrow of political states is not "modest;" strong-arming other nations into supporting unilateral actions is not "modest;" enacting a neoconservative wet-dream is the opposite of "modest." What was the "modest" goal?

"Saddam Hussein's toxic regime has been replaced with a more or less consensual government."

That's some modesty right there, folks! We overthrew a dictator and then stood by while he was murdered in brutal fashion, while the country went straight to clan-warfare-hell, and then imposed a foreign political system that has resulted in another would-be dictator, Maliki, seizing power while, outside the few major cities, God only knows who is in charge. Why, it's floor-length skirts and high collars-level modesty! It's like a political burqa, it's so modest!

"I doubt very much that Iraq will seriously threaten the United States or its neighbors any time soon."

Here is that part about believing the lies. When did Iraq threaten the United States? I am unaware of even a single factual threat. Can someone help me out here? And in terms of threatening its neighbors, what? Iran: not threatened. Kuwait: there was that one time, but that lasted all of a week or so. Israel: has a nuclear weapon. Threatened? More like a threat -- not just to Iraq, either.

"It isn't likely to be ruled by terrorists as it probably would have been if the United States left between 2004 and 2007."

Where to begin. It also isn't likely to be ruled by outlaw bikers or carnival folk. Or, to put this ridiculous counter-factual speculation another way, it is still possible that Iraq will be taken over by time-traveling Ottoman Turks, because you cannot prove otherwise. All hail Osman!

"A few years ago, I was all but certain the U.S. would withdraw under fire and leave Iraq in the hands of militias."

Right, now we'll withdraw by agreement with the "government," under only sporadic fire and in-between IED detonations, and leave Iraq in the hands of the militias. Much better.

"No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq's cities because they were beaten."

Because, never forget, all wars in which the United States is engaged can only be judged in terms of what the United States thinks of as "victory" and what the United States has decided its enemies want. In this case, "terrorist group(s)" clearly wanted a pitched battle and final victory, and because they didn't get either one, and we left with some shred of our reputation intact (though no one, not even Michael Totten, surely, would argue that the US is even remotely as respected as it was prior to 2003), we won. We won the "war" that only we were fighting, and the made-up goals we ascribed to our opponents have not been achieved, and so totalvictoryinyourfacemotherfuckers! Yeah!! You know who you are! I hope!

Nothing like taking an impotent, secular, easily controlled, easily thwarted regime and replacing it with a patchwork of ethnic clan-states in perpetual conflict with one another who all now have a bone to pick with Americans while handing over political recognition (even if somewhat illusory) to a new dictatorial regime. It's so much easier to come to favorable conclusions when you write off everything that happened prior to the sea-change, which is why when we look at Iraq, we should ignore everything except what's happening right now. I think I've heard that somewhere before, perhaps coming from the mouths of Republicans.

Delightful

2009-07-14T13:28:00.004-05:00

The most wonderful of today's ironic surprises is that you can read the most inane, drivelous (I hope that's a word) tripe in something called "American Thinker."

One wants only to smile. With every profession of not only idiocy, but misguided and scatterbrained idiocy, one feels reassured that, unlike Sarah Palin and, apparently, God, those with such inscrutable views will not "be back" on top anytime soon.

Bad Press

2009-07-08T09:55:00.002-05:00

To paraphrase the New York Times (if its writers were time-warped to the 1940s):

"Where did all of Europe's Jews go? They seem to be missing. Some wonder what happened, and why, and who or what is responsible. But not us! We don't know anything about it. What do you want us to do -- ask? Who cares? It's a goddamn mystery, OK? Time will tell...or not. Whatever. Buy our paper!"

The United States' paper of record wants you to know that, whatever might happen and for whatever reasons, it's none of your fucking business.

Unless It's a Real Thing

2009-07-07T18:25:00.002-05:00

People spend time thinking about the economics of giving shit away for free? Whack!

I'll tell you this: if you list any item on Craiglist and ask for $10, you get one set of respondents. If you list the same thing for free, you get the pushiest, most inane, most hateful set of people on earth coming after you and wanting not just the thing itself, but also your couch and your daughter. It's fucking insane. Buy a gun first and then try it.

So, yeah, I guess giving things away is cool...unless it's a real thing, and then Katy bar the door!

Fuckin' Right

2009-07-07T17:58:00.001-05:00

Chad LaRose signed.

Fuck Pop Economists

2009-07-07T08:23:00.005-05:00

Picture a man standing high above the ground on a tree limb. This man has a saw in one hand and $5 in his pocket, and he's busily cutting away the wood beneath his feet. Someone passing by sees him and yells up, "Hey, what are you doing? Can't you see that you're going to fall?" To which the man replies, "Sure, but I got paid $5 to chop this limb off, and anyway, I'm not convinced that ground down there is as hard as it looks!"

This, it seems to me, is the perfect encapsulation of the economic argument against environmental protection. Any person who would attempt to justify environmental degradation because there is money to be made is not just a fool, but a sociopath.

It's also very likely that, markets and economies being what we might call "man-made," and the natural world being what we might call "not man-made," or "real," that putting economics before environment is exactly backwards; it seems like trying to pay a cyclone to change course, or hoping that, if you get rich enough, you can buy the ocean and fill it in with concrete and that'll fix that problem. Or not.

This guy, in fact, sums it all up nicely.

Bwa-ha-ha? Ha ha? Mwa-ha-ha??

2009-07-07T08:22:00.000-05:00

How do you type laughter?

Stupid Sarah Palin

2009-07-04T00:30:00.005-05:00

Maybe it's the internet culture of "firsties" or something, but I feel compelled to place my bet on the motive for Palin's abrupt and seemingly idiotic -- even for her -- resignation. In a nutshell: she is currently under investigation, she has already been deemed unethical as a public official, she and her husband are deeply weird and dishonest, and she has an apparently unlimited supply of skeletons and closets and a penchant for combining the two and then displaying them herself for all to see. Right now (that being the key) she is a cancer and, aside from the crazy base of the GOP that will salute in the Third Reich style just about anything that repulses 70% of the rest of the voting public, Sarah Palin could not get elected dog catcher in 2012 on the path she's headed. She tried to stay low, that didn't work. Then she came back, all "remember me? I'm back atcha!" and that flopped, too. Then she basically went nutso on David Letterman and never came to the point -- look, the last few months have been a fun stroll down last year's memory lane, but Palin has just reminded us all why we hated her so much and confirmed that, yes, we still hate her and wish her harm. Immediate and permanent harm.

So, today. Did she sound stupid? Check. Was the whole thing a little more than very crazy? Oh yeah it was. Did she manage that most daring of political-crazy feats, the so-stupid-it-turned-into-positive-exposure stunt? No. No, in fact, most of us are still chuckling at her and tossing out random guesses as to her real motive. So strike three!

But let's say she just disappears from politics for two years, starting now. What would happen in 2012 in the run-up to the campaign? I will go ahead and go all in on "GOP candidate X asks Palin to be an advisor and then, if nominated, makes her his VP choice." The outcry won't be nearly so loud or large then. She'll have already been there once. What's more, for a dumb dickhead like Mitt Romney, say, Palin is hillbilly heroin he can flood the South with and, like McCain but without all the pesky "is he crazy?" stories (because nobody thinks that highly of Romney), get an instant boost with that ol' crazy GOP base (unless it inbreeds itself out of existence by then, but I consider that unlikely). The general idea sounds plausible to me.

Probably sounded plausible to Sarah Palin, too. She doesn't like to work, is what it boils down to. She didn't have to do very much to become governor of Shitsville, USA, AKA Alaska, and then Old Man McCain plucked her out of Dog Patch to be his running mate and she didn't do much work on that, either. And now she'd like to be president or close to it but she hasn't ever actually done anything difficult in her life. So, time to retire! 2012 is still coming. All she has to do is wait. She has the name and, in fact, if you think about it she's basically freezing whatever is left of that name now, before it erodes further under the spotlight of an investigation of a sitting governor. Now she has a year or two to settle everything and then, I think, some Republican clown virtually has got to come begging for her endorsement.

I don't think she or her circle are very intelligent. But I think they understand that she can only go downhill between now and 2012 unless she gets out of office, Now she has. My guess is she gets a reality show or some other harmless, ridiculous gig to pay the bills, does her book tour, and surreptitiously works on growing her legend as a gone-too-soon leader in exile in advance of her return in a few years. The Republicans will be begging her to come back! Oh, and it'll destroy whatever vomitous dregs are left of the GOP, and blah blah blah whatever.

Best, Worst, and First

2009-06-25T09:13:00.002-05:00

This remains my all-time favorite answer from an undergraduate history exam. It comes from the first batch of tests I ever graded from the US history survey (American history from 1877) and is a student's attempt to identify and explain the historical significance of "The Birth of a Nation" (the question did not identify it as a film, though we watched it in class). This is verbatim:

"Birth? Defined, 'birth' is an origin, a new beginning, a starting point. Nation? Defined, 'nation' is a place implying a sense of community, group, a sort of social unity. 'The Birth of a Nation' is the origin, the beginning of a community, social unity in the United States, particularly in Chicago where urbanization, industrialization, and immigration played a huge role in the success of the nation. Immigration begins the progress of industrialization with foreign people coming to the states in search of labor, freedom, and equality. Their labor enhances the workload, increases production, forcing industrialization to boom. Land laborers and factory workers are used frequently and is necessary for such success. Increase of population in small areas where work is nearby causes urbanization. Urbanization increases as production increases and immigration continues. Sometimes segregating certain groups of people, workers and bosses, or even certain races, for example Little Italy, Little Village, Cabrini Green, Greektown, Chinatown, etc....The movement of people from fields to the city originates a new social unity, 'The Birth of a Nation.'"

If you read it again with the cadence of a piece of slam poetry, it gets even better.

Those Darn Forgiving Democrats!

2009-06-25T08:46:00.004-05:00

538 has this brief item on Mark Sanford's inability to find a woman in the United States to fuck. Interesting theory:

"The two big fish that have gone down on this issue in the past eighteen months, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards, both seemed to be punished more sharply for their hypocracy and attempts at cover ups than for the scandals themselves. Ironically, both Spitzer and Edwards are Democrats, the party which theoretically could be more forgiving to this type of behavior.

Bottom line for Sanford: fess up, get back to work, and try not to look like a hypocrite, because that seems to be the thing that sinks people in the American voters' eyes the quickest."

In a word, wrong. I mean, not only that the writer spelled "hypocrisy" wrong, but two other errors of analysis stand out as well. First, the Democrats are not the "forgiving party," as anyone with eyes and ears will tell you. How forgiving are homos feeling today? How much "wait and see" charity is Obama receiving from those without healthcare, those with healthcare, labor, immigration advocates, and (again) those pesky too-loud-for-their-small-numbers gay people? None, virtually.

Now, sure, we're talking about infidelity under the original post, but I think there is a psychological condition here that is often overlooked by analysts who instead settle for the easy characterization of liberals as namby-pamby, weak-willed, and as a result amoral, "forgiving" people. Not so at all. Democrats and liberals, if you think about it, are some of the most vindictive, petty, and rigidly "moral" little assholes in the world.* I would give you Joe Lieberman, but he don't live here no more. Instead, I'll trust that you can think back to the election and all the posturing coming from all corners of the left, in which an endless stream of self-righteous blowhards attacked each other and the candidates without mercy, without reason, and as though they were fighting for Jerusalem itself. And you think these people forgive moral failings? What?

The other, lesser point here is this: people, voters, whatever, like Brad Penny on Joe Girardi, don't give two fucks about disgraced politicians "looking busy." They hate John Edwards because he has everything wrong with him: he seemed too good to be true and he was. He is from the South (still a handicap in the Democratic Party). He looks good? I guess? ...and liberals have a love/hate thing with good-looking people. And finally, he isn't bourgeois-messianic --he has actually met and, like, worked for poor people -- and that's what Democrats want these days; we're bascially split up into rabbinic cults and we're fighting over the orthodox interpretation of scripture. Obama was and is our flawed, middle class Jesus.

South Carolina Republicans are the only people who care about Mark Sanford (who, by the way, has to have the worst office staff in politics. Nice cover for the boss, guys. Clap. Clap.). My guess is that more of them are upset by his apparent need to fuck a 'furriner than the fact that he screwed around on his family on Father's Day.

*College professors, architects, and intellectuals most of all.

Disgraced Neocons: Neoconservatism Shits Rainbows

2009-06-22T08:50:00.005-05:00

Apparently there is some assertion in regards to the late state of Iran (not that any of us, in America, have heard jack shit about that. But hey, baseball is on and we still have celebrities to gawk at -- why would anyone care about millions of Iranians rioting in the streets?), that with freedom and democracy apparently on the march, at least for a little while until the tanks roll in, neoconservatism and specifically the takeover and bungling of Iraq are owed a big thank you.

Is Charles Krauthammer in the room? Because that smells like horse shit.

But Andrew Sullivan and his astute readers will have none of it. And good for them. Ratfuckers like Krauthammer, Rove, Perle, and the rest should keep quiet and give thanks that, in America at least most of the time, we don't chase you down the street and fuck you up for being a fascist.

It takes mere simple language to demolish the pride of simple minds:

"Democracy and freedom are not neoconservative ideas--they do not get to own those concepts. The neoconservative idea is about how to get there, and in this singular distinguishing aspect they have been proven wrong over and over again, leaving disaster upon disaster in their wake."

And really, when you've seen the video below, the saddest fucking thing I've ever seen in my life, you come back to the realization that people like Krauthammer don't realize they should feel bad about the stolen moments from all our lives they take with their pathetic scribblings and sick fantasies. And now, after facilitating the murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, they want a medal for Iran. Let's make it large and heavy, and throw them in the river.

The Real Problem

2009-06-17T14:38:00.006-05:00

This review of the new movie, "Away We Go" (oh so cute), written by Dave Eggers and his concubine, tries to walk the line between dissatisfaction and critical detachment, but staggers off course somewhere.

I think the real problem with this film is that it was written by the beast with two navels, Dave & Vendela, and is about "Burt & Verona" -- nope, don't see any problems yet -- which is to say, it's a movie about the two people who wrote the movie. That is a hell of a problem, and if movie tickets in Sausalito cost $15 each, then this film better gross $75, since Dave & Vendela will no doubt see it twice as a couple and then Dave will go back with one of their cats and see it again. But no one else in America should be asked to give two fucks about these simpletons and their perfect, icky love. I don't know anything about Vendela Vida, but if she fucks Dave Eggers then she is at least partly responsible for his tedious, jackoff products.

You know how people used to say stupid things like "in a few years, we'll look back and laugh"? Well, my fondest wish is that, in a few weeks, we'll all think about this movie and then have to run, not walk, to the nearest receptacle and take a big, runny shit thinking about this piece of "art," a shit that only loosely captures the utter stink rolling off this whole concept. And with any luck, there'll be a Dave Eggers book nearby to wipe with.

Not In Journalism!

2009-06-17T12:21:00.003-05:00

That's the answer to the question at the end of this post by Andrew Sullivan.

In response to a pair of neocon cocksuckers in the New York Times, Sullivan writes, "But why is the New York Times giving a platform at this moment to people who got the Iraq war so terribly wrong? Are there no consequences for total neoconservative failure?"

No, dude. Have you not noticed that the same dildos that ran the Republican machine into the ditch, then lit it on fire, then spiked it with thermite, then dropped a boulder on it are still running the operation? I mean, are you blind? It's always about Israel, no matter how much most people don't care, or how irrelevant Israel may be to the topic at hand.

Now, in this case, Israel is germane. But here you have, as I said, a pair of utterly subservient and unimaginative neocon cocksuckers, and they want you to know that, like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and every other good, dumb little Republican stooge in the United States, you should just take them at their word. It's all right there on the page, after all. There is no context, subtext, bigger idea, framework, ideology, or anything else behind what Republicans or neocons say or do; it just...is. Take it or leave it. But don't ever try to decipher what they said, because they will shut you down because you "don't get it," and you made the fatal mistake of trying to impute thought and design to their klutzy, ragged scrawls and mewls. Just take Ms. Pletka at her word: she doesn't have any motives! Which is another way of saying, she admits she doesn't have anything to say, and if she thought she did, she wouldn't know where to begin. This person doesn't know what you're talking about!

Get a shovel. Dig a hole. Hit a conservative on the head. Bury the body deep.

Yes. Only Iran Would Do That.

2009-06-17T12:07:00.003-05:00

Daily Kos is such a waste of brain-time.

"When a thuggish government is so desperate that it has to photoshop pictures of its own rallies to give them more credibility vs. the opposition rallies, it's in some serious trouble."

I give you George W. Bush

Sayeth the mighty blogger at Kos:

"This is not really that big of a deal, except as a metaphor for the Bush campaign's casual relationship to the truth. "

But, of course, people like me were screaming in 2004, literally shouting at the tops of our lungs, that the neocons' and George Bush's wanton desire to lie about every single thing was not just a big deal, but was in fact the whole fucking problem.

But Kos & Krew thought it was cute, apparently. See how 4 extra years of reality twisted their lame asses around? Fucking lazy fucks.

Pirates are the Velociraptors of 2009

2009-06-17T11:57:00.002-05:00

How did I get on this mailing list?

From: Lamb, Susan <susan.lamb@ncdcr.gov>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Subject: Program Focuses on Pirate Myths Versus Reality

                                     PIRATE MYTHS VERSUS REALITY

           Do Jack Sparrow's adventures in "Pirates of the Caribbean" even
come close to the reality of life on the high seas during the Golden Age of
Piracy, from 1689 to the 1720s? How has the popular perception of pirates
influenced the historical interpretation of piracy?

          Find out during the program A Pirate's Life for Me? on Saturday,
June 27, at 2 p.m. at the N.C. Museum of History. Dr. Charles Ewen, director
of Archaeology Laboratories at East Carolina University, will separate myths
about pirates from historical evidence. Admission is free. To register, call
919-807-7922 by June 24. A reception follows the program.

          How do romanticized stories of piracy in movies compare with the
harsh realities of a buccaneer's violent, blood-thirsty lifestyle? The
answers may surprise you. Ewen's examination of historical documents and the
archaeological record suggests that maybe Hollywood hasn't gotten it all
wrong. He will also highlight books, such as Treasure Island and Peter Pan,
and their place in popular culture.

  This program is presented in conjunction with the exhibit Knights of the
Black Flag at the N.C. Museum of History. The exhibit explores the legacy of
pirates, from ancient times to the present. Intriguing artifacts, legends
and history bring their ruthless adventures to life. Showcasing many
pirate-related objects, Knights of the Black Flag includes the largest
collection of artifacts ever exhibited from the shipwreck believed to be
Blackbeard's flagship, Queen Anne's Revenge.

Susan Friday Lamb
Public Information Officer
N.C. Museum of History
Office: 919-807-7943
Fax: 919-733-8655

TARP? More like FUNNEL! Zing!!

2009-06-15T12:46:00.002-05:00

Would people have a better or worse opinion of the bailout provisions, specifically TARP, if they knew that, according to GAO, the government is owed and may have received $2.9 billion in dividend payments from troubled banks? Sure, it's a drop in the bucket in a trillion-dollar scheme, but it's not negligible.

And hey, while we're asking stupid questions, why the fucking hell doesn't the government report on these payments? Am I missing the hidden drawback to telling the taxpayers that hey, yeah, we're actually getting some of that money back?

Dead Blue Jesus

2009-06-15T12:36:00.002-05:00

Meant to post this a long time ago. There's now a Jesus-on-the-cross license plate in Florida. But Jesus, he is blue. And looks like an Anglo (or at best, northern Italian).

See here.

You could, if you were an asshole (you are, though, so it's cool!), customize the lettering on the plate, with 3 letters on each side of Jesus' dead blue body. The comments section for the linked post is a must-read. My three favorites: ILB BAK, IMA JEW, and GOT WUD. Maybe GEE THX or LIL HLP. Or YSO BLU. Or 2L8 4ME.

Oh man. That is weird.

Whipping Boy?

2009-06-15T12:12:00.002-05:00

Man, I'm really starting to not like this guy. Look, men in America have turned into pussies. If it's not "country music" purporting to tell the tales of "men" who miss their daddies, their dogs, and dangummit! their old buddies (you bunch of fucking girls!), then it's gangsta rap peddling an obviously-phony, moth-eaten old plot about the power and the money, the money and the power. Oh, and the bitches. Never forget them.

That's pretty much settled in our cultural memory bank. What's not, and linked above, is this weird interpretation of modern black American life that holds the men somehow outside the realm of study and understanding. The author wants to make a point about women and welfare/workfare and he does it fair enough. But men, those damn inscrutable black men, well they just cannot be understood except as "losers" whose lives in reality probably amount to fleeing child support and being unemployable. And, there's the "white hand." Never forget that, either.

There is an interesting and unconscious omission that happens at this point in the aforementioned article, p. 4. What if we followed the female links a little farther, would we find that black men in part are socially and economically handicapped by the women in their lives? I'm a big "nurture" guy and I think that it's weird when mothers come out to shelter and defend their grown-ass male children from everybody from the cops to the teachers to the judges to the media. In fact, I'm not sure I know any black men who don't have a dependent relationship with all the women in their lives, and that's got to mean something. What, after all, is the value and the effect of having a permanent, unconditional emotional/financial crutch that stays hidden at your pleasure (like, for example, when you're out laying the groundwork for that pesky "loser" status) and then can be summoned whenever you are in need?

Revisit This When You Have Time

2009-06-15T11:48:00.001-05:00

This dumbass took 2 pages to say what can be summed up in two words?

The Problem With "Taxing" Drunk Driving

2009-06-08T14:21:00.003-05:00

Nate Silver has a good statistician's idea. What is a "statistician's idea"? I just made that term up. But it means an idea that, by the numbers and when plugged into any fancy model or regression analysis (you can tell I only have the vaguest notion what these things are), makes real good sense. While I'm no big city mathematician, but just a simple, country cognoscente, I have a problem with both the original idea and the new and improved idea. The original idea was to tax liquor a bit more and use the proceeds to pay for national healthcare. My problem with that is Silver's, too: drinking, as such, isn't really a societal ill. What is an ill is being drunk and, in addition (whenever you get an if-then, it's hell on applicability), being out in public and operating a vehicle or picking fights or, if in private, having physical altercations with family members, and such. Besides, how is drinking to be singled out as the first, best source of healthcare revenue? How about taxing fatty foods, or taxing people who don't exercise or whose BMI's are in the "Whoa, fatty!" range? (BMI, though, is total horse shit; it was invented by a 19th century mathematician, Adolphe Quetelet -- actually born in 1796! -- using body data from scrawny immigrants and laborers. So yeah, it accurately describes the Belgian ditch-diggers of 1835. And?)

But the proposed remedy, to tax drunk drivers $8000, is hardly better in practical terms. Silver acknowledges this, but on the grounds that people will stop getting DUI's if it costs $8000. The very beginning of this argument is flawed, however, because Silver bases his math on the number of arrests for DUI, not the number of convictions. As anyone who's ever been or known someone who has been arrested for DUI, or anyone who's walked around a college town can tell you, people fight DUI charges pretty hard. There are lots more lawyers out there getting DUI charges dropped than doing just about anything, judging by the number of shingles in Bloomington, Chapel Hill, Urbana, New Haven, and so on. Moreover, DA's often throw the cases out and, even when one goes to trial, the defendant often escapes with a suspended license and a relatively paltry fine -- less than 10% of $8000 anyway. DUI, second to assault, is becoming our national tragic joke if it isn't already.

Now imagine how much harder people would fight a DUI charge if it cost $8000. Imagine how loathe DA's would be to prosecute those cases if they knew that the defendant would spend up to, in theory, $7999 to get out of the charge.

Like I said, this is a very good statistician's idea. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of practical merit.

Speaking of Morons

2009-06-08T12:39:00.004-05:00

Is this real?

"Dude, Don't Be A Dumbass"

Quote:
"Mark Krikorian of the National Review had a far more important question for his readers:

'So, are we supposed to use the Spanish pronunciation, so-toe-my-OR, or the natural English pronunciation, SO-tuh-my-er, like Niedermeyer?'

"Good question Mark! What did you learn?

'Most e-mailers were with me on the post on the pronunciation of Judge Sotomayor's name (and a couple griped about the whole Latina/Latino thing - English dropped gender in nouns, what, 1,000 years ago?). But a couple said we should just pronounce it the way the bearer of the name prefers, including one who pronounces her name "freed" even though it's spelled "fried," like fried rice. (I think Cathy Seipp of blessed memory did the reverse - "sipe" instead of "seep.") Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.'"

I hate to pile on to the Top 10 Conservative Idiots, which usually covers all the bases, but they missed some big ones in this post. Here goes:

Jesus fucking Christ you pea-brained mouth-breather. Let's begin near the beginning and allow me to clarify your first "point," which really was pointless: what distinguishes Spanish speakers from English speakers is that they use gendered ADJECTIVES and VERBS, not just nouns -- and anyway, dummy, we English speakers use gendered forms of nouns all the fucking time such as "he," "she," "Jim," "Nancy," "Mr. President," so, what? You obviously don't know what that means, but the word you thought you were using is ADJECTIVE or VERB. ADJECTIVE or VERB, you fucking worthless piece of shit! "Latino" is an adjective as well as a noun, just like "cowboy," as in "The Latino walked into the cowboy store."

I hope you choke to death in front of a second-grade Spanish class as your gasps for help fall on confused ears! What will you say, "Help, it cannot breathe! It needs Person Teacher to call Person Medical! Little Persons, assist it!"? Ay yi yi!

Point the second is so much more stupid. You're going to bitch at people who want their names pronounced in certain ways? Why? Haven't you ever met anyone named "Kuntz"? Guess how they want you to say the name. There's one way they don't want you to say it!

You would think, wouldn't you, that an obvious racist, Aryan-loving douchebag like Mark Krikorian would know that somebody who spells their last name "Fried" and pronounces it "freed" is a fucking German, and that in the Germanic languages when one encounters an "i" and an "e" together, in any form, in any word, well, as my German teacher used to say: "When 'i' and 'e' go walking, the second one does the talking!" So, yes, you numbnuts slob, when you say the name "Fried," you say it like "freed." It's not as funny (but then, only 5-year-olds and Republicans think that's funny), but it's ethnically and linguistically correct. Oh, and the awesome confusion Mark had about how to pronounce "Seipp"? Nevermind that, again, you just say it the way she wants it said (asshole!); the point still stands: It's "sipe." The "i" is second.

Holy fucking shit. I hate this guy. And then he tried to douche it up with some horseshit about "a monophthong over a diphthong" -- which you know he copped from the respondent without crediting it, because Mark Krikorian has shown he is the sort of person who can hardly write in English, let alone think about its structure! -- and that's where I decided to mock him and fuck with him if I ever see him in public, like, for example, in a store looking confused as he searches in vain for some clothes for his kids, only to realize that all the signs have un-gendered nouns on them, like "Boys" and "Girls."

This Man Is a Moron

2009-05-27T09:39:00.002-05:00

Suddenly, this Greg Mankiw person is everywhere and yet, he hasn't enhanced my intelligence one iota. Nate Silver has a nice takedown of Mankiw's short attention span/silly arguments on the (nonexistent) relationship between being a federal judge and fattening one's savings account.

And now this dildo wants us to know that national healthcare won't make the US internationally competitive. Is that supposed to make me less receptive to free healthcare, dildo? Harvard economists apparently don't know how to represent a "straw man" with numbers.

Hey, I also heard that world peace won't have any effect on cancer rates. War, now!

Crushing It

2009-05-21T14:33:00.003-05:00

I really love this web site. FJM, Jr., I tells ya!

I also like comment #7, the writer of which takes the position that to criticize anyone, especially a stupid person, means, de facto, that the critic is a bigot. How much do you want to bet "Jake" is a Republican?

Governor Jago

2009-05-20T12:00:00.001-05:00

May St. and Hubbard

People Are Catching On

2009-05-20T11:14:00.002-05:00

If it didn't happen in a Yankees game, it never happened. I am really loving Circling the Bases, a part of the NBC newsvine (I know, awful name). It may yet prove the worthy successor of Fire Joe Morgan.

Linked from another blurb on that site: many people know that John Smoltz, pitcher, is a self-righteous, evangelical Christian asshole. But did you know he just got married, again? Smoltz once famously opined that gay marriage was the gateway to human-animal marriage, the way pot leads inevitably to gas huffing. But in fact, the correlation between straight marriage and divorce in our country is much, much stronger than even the obvious parallel between gay marriage and bestiality. That is so weird -- maybe we can ask Smoltz's three kids and his first wife to weigh in on the glories of "Bible love."

Long Time, No Shit

2009-05-02T11:50:00.012-05:00

Well, I'm back. And I'm feeling real good about myself, you know what I mean?

The "Time Out" magazine franchise exists in most major cities and Chicago is no different. I must confess that I thought it was a gay community publication, but that was based on the existence of "Time Out Youth" back in the CLT (right Em?), so that's my problem and I've dealt with it. Which doesn't mean the rag isn't totally gay; it is. But it's way better because it doesn't think it's gay.

Take this cover, for example:
I mean, fuck. "Special thanks to the 700 men and 63 lesbians who wrote-in 'my girlfriend's crotch' as 'best place to eat out.' Classy, Chicago!" That's what this cover would have said if this magazine knew how gay it is.

Under the category of "Janeane, don't stare at me, you got the bug eyes!":
In case you can't read the interview/slob fest, here's the gem:
"Q: Does being on (the TV show) 24 ever feel problematic?...even the dean of West Point has criticized the show for depicting torture as leading to the greater good.
A: Yeah, that's disgusting...I did have a problem with it.
Q: Just not enough not to be on the show." (J: good for you, gay TOC interviewer!)
"A: ...I did pass on it initially, and then (show creator and right-wing lunatic Joel Surnow) called me and said, 'don't let my politics stand in the way of your working here.'..." (J: Wait, what? You didn't want to work for a morally, politically, and personally abhorrent show, and then the Nazi cocksucker who created the show called you and said, "Yes, I'm a Nazi, and my show is about barbaric, paranoid, fascist behaviors that are portrayed as perfectly logical and righteous on my show, but don't let that stop you from taking my money in exchange for your soul. I mean, you are a whore, right?" Way to think that through, Janeane!)
"Q: Some FBI agents have said 24 supports unethical, illegal behavior and has a negative impact on real American soldiers." (J: keep it coming!)
"A: Yeah, I agree." (J: what the fuck?!) "...You know, I'm not playing me. But I am disgusted by the torture.
Q: There's a larger question: Does someone who's so vocal about her politics have a responsibility not to go on a show that betrays it?
A: If there is, I didn't live up to it.
Q: Do you think there is?
A: Well, if I did think that in the case of the show, I did not live up to it, so I have disappointed the standard." (J: Come again? "Disappointed the standard"? What does that even fucking mean? Don't you mean to say that your behavior signifies a total lack of principle and, if anything, you disappointed yourself by being such a money-grubbing, non-judgmental whore? I think that's what you meant to say.)

There's a backstory to this picture that makes the text next to it irrelevant.
Here's the story: TOC does all these "man on the street" interviews, but the staffer in charge of the feature is either the laziest ass clown in Chicago, or else just unimaginative because a good half the people interviewed are students at Printer's Row's own Columbia College, an art school with all that implies. The innermost thoughts of these students are never half as compelling as TOC and they seem to believe, and in fact they are mostly young dullards wasting time and Mom's money at art school waiting to be discovered as the next Clash or Basquiat, but mainly they are a city-wide nuisance with their insistence on spray-painting, sound-tracking, filming, scripting, vandalizing everything. I would venture to say that most renters have at one time or another had a Columbia student (or a nest of them; they cannot quite manage living alone, it seems) as a neighbor and it has never been a mutually rewarding situation.

In fact, here's what Caitlin Terry, 21, had to say for her busted-looking self this fine day on Congress Parkway (incidentally, lazy TOC interviewer, this is just two steps outside the door of Columbia College. Sloth!):
"Q: Have you been guilty of any nastiness lately?
A: I got arrested the other night for throwing pennies out of the window of my loft. They almost evicted me.
Q: Gee, sounds like you've been bored." (J: Can we get the Janeane Garofolo interviewer in here please? Or at least punch this woman in the eye or something?)
"A: Exactly. Me and my friends were bored as shit and seeing if we could throw pennies on top of cars." (J: "My friends and I," you fucking retard.)
"Q: You didn't hit anybody, right?
A: Uhh...yeah, we did. We kinda sorta hit this one guy...the guy didn't get hurt at all! It was a simple case of idle hands," (J: or an idle case of simple hands?) "The cops told me it has to be at least a nickel for it to hurt..."

And that is why everyone hates you. The cops told me I could heave a brick through your window as long as nobody gets hurt. Or pour battery acid on your cat, as long as nobody gets hurt. Or re-post your drooling idiocy on my blog and call you a hopeless moron, as long as nobody gets hurt. It's no nickel beaning, but here you go!

The rest of the backstory: because of the prevalence of Columbia College student interviews, people have begun writing to the editor of TOC, pointing out that 1. they are from the bottomless pit of stupidity 2. they are Chicago's worst representatives 3. they are all, remarkably, completely the same in every taste, opinion, fashion and the result is a universe-sized irony: art school kids are as mainstream in their culture as it can get. Would anyone else like a bite of banality? I knew this woman went to Columbia from the photo. I read the interview just to see where she rates on the dickwad scale: chucking pennies at other people and other people's cars rates about lower-third. I'm sure she lives in a northside white neighborhood; try that shit in Austin and you will get a penny-sized projectile back.

It's good to be back. Spring is here and hate is in the air!

You Say Cyrillic, I Say Cirrhotic...

2009-03-01T12:43:00.006-06:00

Part 1
Out in the suburbs for a baby shower -- it turns out that there are even more Slavs there than in the city. The local market had a very long, very foreign beer aisle, and while we passed up the 2-liter plastic bottle of gibberish-name beer, I got a healthy selection of smaller, equally-gibberish-named products. This is the story of their consumption.

Subject A: Baltika Brewery, "Zhigulevskoye" (also available in the aforementioned 2-liter)

Whatever that label says, this beer was a surprise. At first, I was skeptical. It tasted a little funky.
But pretty soon my objections were soothed by the decent alcohol content and even though this was a syrupy, slightly sour beverage I have to say it was less objectionable than I thought it would be. Not only did "gibby" here not make the "beer I hate" list, it actually was a lot of fun to hang out with for a time.
Ah, the old "got your tongue" thing. Turns out, Russian beers are huge fans of "A Christmas Story." Total classic. Poor Flick.

Anyway, the fun only lasted a short while, then this brew got surly and quiet, eventually embarking on mass genocide against the other items in our fridge, not to mention my stomach, which was upset by the heaviness and weird, burnt-grain aftertaste. Dasvidanya, killer. Flush!

By the way, be sure to check out the Baltika beer website, which is next-to-useless and makes no sense -- click around and experience the wonder! of a bunch of Russian emo-mooks staring at you with dead eyes; the weird! pictures of the dead-eyed women in wet button-downs staring at you while holding a Baltika beer; the terror! of a computer-generated island aggressively advancing to punish you for looking at the website.

Bottom Line:
Taste: like barfing, but slowly
Annoyance factor: gradually building
Felt exotic/dangerous: briefly, but then felt like a shower, like after watching "Red Dawn" or listening to European techno
Repeat buy possibility: 1 out of 5
Would buy it in a 2-liter: only for tangential acquaintances
Memories created: felt like work

Get Off the Ice, Cam Ward!!

2009-02-17T20:57:00.001-06:00

It's Called a Style Guide

2009-02-11T13:38:00.004-06:00

There's big doings at the university just now: we're in dire need of a new Vice Chancellor for Research. Guess who got put on the committee?

The applications are almost uniformly terrible. My understanding is that I can talk as much shit as I want about them as long as I don't use names, so here goes:

What is it about a CV and cover letter that makes academics go stupid? It's called a style guide, y'all, and you should get one and look at the template for the CV/cover letter application. No shit, some people actually put photos of themselves on the first page. Photos! Of themselves! Like Glamor Shots!

Vice. Chancellor. For. Research.

It's not the Potentate of the Universe, sure; but this office oversees all research, compliance, funding, intellectual property, training, and lobbying related to research across both campuses, including the medical school. This is not a time for head shots.

Nor is it a time to skimp on the details and presentation. Too many of these cover letters are one paragraph of general sentiments about being interested in something something, followed by a list of bullet-points that aren't so much relevant qualifications but rather every activity in which the applicant ever partook.

"I take time to grasp issues, people, and their sensitivities and, yet, have been rapid in implementing..." This has to be one of my favorite sentences, ever. You take time to "grasp people"? We don't want that! That would be very bad for us, in fact! I got your people for graspin'...right here!

How about the person who ended the cover letter with "I look forward to this opportunity with the University of Massachusetts at Boston." D'oh!!

CVs. CVs, people. It's not a fucking laundry list -- it's a customized and customizable snapshot of what you've done that fits the description sent out by the people you want to hire you. I don't fucking care that you write plays in your spare time, or that you once gave a lecture at Rangpur University on women in science in the States, or even that you are single. Yes, some people's CVs actually have a place for marital status, despite the fact that it is completely fucking illegal for us to consider that in hiring! One person put a social security number on the CV. Another wrote down hobbies, like hiking and rock climbing.

Vice. Chancellor. For. ...oh, fuck it.

And what is it about scientists that makes it OK for them to publish the same paper 8 times and call it 8 different publications? Set aside for a moment that nobody in the sciences works alone (I count an average of 4 co-authors on each paper), but why do they think that a list of 100, 200, or 300 "publications" will be any more impressive than an historians' list of 10? The act of publishing has been rendered meaningless by this idiocy. No one, I am now certain, reads any of these articles, because clearly the whole point is just to crank out 25 a year so you can have a 49-page CV, one page for every year of your life.

Finally, why are a significant number of these applicants obsessed with the Department of Defense -- to the point they think mentioning that their first priority, as VCR, would be to enhance the university's ties to DoD? Um...why the fuck would we want that? This isn't a shell company or some front for your bullshit DARPA computer project, or your ion warfare lab, or your protocol to train dogs to hold bees in their mouths.

Not a single representative of the humanities applied for this job. I miss those flakes.

How Fortuna-te

2009-02-05T14:33:00.001-06:00

And all these years, Bob, I never knew you were a high school sportswriter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer!

And Again...

2009-02-02T14:00:00.002-06:00

It occurs to me that Rick Warren may fill a Sanjay Gupta-like hole (gross!), in that he is not the most progressive fellow out there (except in his waistline, which has progressed nicely, from "big" to "all-encompassing like the love of our Lord"). But, President Obama essentially paraded Warren around on inauguration day like a totem of his, Obama's, tolerance for dickwads. I suspect that when Obama makes gay marriages legal, Rick Warren will have no choice but to get in line. Does that make any sense?

Terminology and First Blushes

2009-01-30T11:22:00.003-06:00

There's an old saying that words have meaning. The exact meaning(s) of any word is up for debate, of course, but would it be too much to ask that people think about the words they use before they use them? A particularly irritating recent example is the free-switching of the words "liberal" and "progressive," terms that are not equivalent. Their juxtaposition has of late been most frequent in the ruminations of self-described progressive liberals who are trying to figure out just what the fuck Jesus Christ Obama is doing in his first go-round as POTUS.

It need not be reviewed here that I, among many, said a long time ago and in no uncertain terms that Obama is not the messianic figure many of his biggest fans believe, and that the cult of O is in their heads and doesn't appear to have any effect whatsoever on Obama's decisionmaking.

But now that we can talk about how that is the case, some people appear to be unable to do even that simple thing correctly. Thus, we have little pieces from various lefty outlets that insist on confusing "liberal" with "progressive." Here's what I think these words mean: progressives are those people who, along with Obama, want to see a government that works, whatever that work may yield. Progressives want "progress," which should be obvious, and it should furthermore be just as obvious that progress in the United States means economic security for the maximum number of citizens, full employment, infrastructural investment, and a massive rehabilitation of the nation's military, humanitarian, and political personae. Liberals, by contrast, want nationalized healthcare, an end to our various wars, at least partial nationalization of troublesome industries, vastly expanded unionization of the workforce, full investigation of the Bush administrations, massive reinvestment in public education and higher ed, and an Obama administration that governs with an eye towards the ideal, not the pragmatic.

Incidentally, I got into an argument a few weeks ago with a very nice policy analyst who submitted that idealism and pragmatism not only are far from exclusive philosophies, but are in fact the same. I won't claim to understand her position, but for what it's worth, you may get some thought-time out of the notion that the pragmatic decision-maker moves towards the ideal in small but sure increments until (someday) that ideal is realized. This argument sounded like a college bong fantasy to me. The refutation is that this sequence of events has never yet happened, and moreover the very assertion that this is possible renders pragmatism a subset of idealism and thus makes fools of us all. I guess I can't see how realism can be overtaken by idealism as a basis for decisionmaking.

Anyway, liberals and progressives are not the same, and to imply or argue outright that they are, and furthermore that Obama hasn't a single "progressive" in his cabinet or circle of advisors, is not only to all but accuse him of being a traitor to some cause he never joined up with, but also to label him as something else. And that something else is...a conservative? A moderate (which is itself a complicated, if useless, term)? A closet Clintonite? What? What the fuck is this person to all the newly-skeptical Obama supporters who don't know what the fuck they're talking about? This is perplexing.

One other thing, of an even older variety: with his suggestion of TV doctor and smearmongering asshole Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General, Obama seems to be pursuing a very ruthless strategy as far as gaining legitimacy for his policies. To wit, appointing very vocal critics of those policies and charging them with either passing them or, in Gupta's case, supporting them. You want nationalized healthcare? Sanjay Gupta most certainly does not. However, if he becomes Surgeon General and Obama puts a healthcare bill in Congress, Gupta will be on CNN every single fucking day to discuss it, and he's going to pimp it to Wolf Blitzer the way he currently pimps insurance companies and big pharma to the fat, lazy Americans who watch CNN.

Many people have thought of this before me. But if this is in fact a plan of the administration's, it would be a very good indicator of just how "progressive" Obama can be: it matters not at all what opinion any of his appointees held prior to joining the team; all that matters is what they're going to do afterwards. And what that is, is they're going to line up and convince their former colleagues and supporters that the best idea is whatever Obama says. It's a very simple realpolitik approach, take your enemies and force them to be your missionaries.

This Your ESP

2009-01-29T12:58:00.003-06:00

Merciful internet keeps me from ever having to watch this show. Recap excerpt:

"Meet sad-sacking, goth-tarding, sleeve-missing, psychic power-having harbinger of death Tara Mathews (21, SLC). Ryan's like, "You're psychic? Why are you grabbing your head like that? Can you alter the course of the deaths you foresee, like Patricia Arquette?" And the girl, to her credit, is like, "So far, no." Where people usually have sleeves, she has nothing. This is not a small girl, but it is a small skirt, and where people usually have pants, she has garters under her small skirt, leading to sad boots. It's doughy and bad news in there, but hey, be yourself. She explains that she's not depressed, just Goth. Turns out: both.

Paula asks for something interesting, and Tara tells them up front about how she has "ESP pretty strong." Girls, what have we done to ourselves? If I were Tara's ESP I would shoot myself in the head, because I would be such a colossal failure. Not even the gumption to tell her anything helpful. "Girl, don't go out dressed like that," or "Darlin' don't tell people that you have ESP -- this your ESP speaking," or most especially, "Honey, don't tell people that you can foresee the deaths of both personal friends and people on TV, because it makes you sound like a mental patient." What kind of ESP would I be, if I couldn't even do basic ESP stuff like that? Failure. Boom. She wouldn't even see it coming.

Immediately Randy and Kara are like, "What am I thinking?" Drawing a blank, she admits that not even her powers are up to that challenge. Simon asks if her ESP has told her she's going to do well today; also not something she can get. She hums and then warbles a song about how she's going to fly away, but at the bottom of the screen it says "Bill Collector" is her job, and that means we hate her."

Charting the Flow of Ice-Cube

2009-01-16T10:02:00.003-06:00

"The Predator" was a very catchy album. And, apparently, someone out there really, really remembers and has been spending a lot of time thinking about the song "It was a Good Day." I hope this took a whole workday to achieve.

"Thank You For The Job"

2009-01-12T08:20:00.002-06:00

Just looking for the weather report, people (10 degrees, feels like 2; 2-3 inches of additional snow possible), and instead CLTV is showing Bush's probable final press conference. I suppose it's only fitting that on this morning after the Golden Globes awards, in which clueless actors and moviemakers tripped all over themselves to awkwardly thank the entire Hollywood foreign press, our national shame and equally clueless president began his final press conference by awkwardly and insincerely thanking the entire White House press corps.

So far, Bush is trapped by his own stupidity, offering such odd and, naturally, unquestioned assertions as that he will not ask Congress for the remaining $350 billion in bailout money "unless he (Obama) asks me to. He hasn't made the request." And here, I had no idea that the sitting president was powerless to act unless he received a direct request from the president-elect. At least Bush is going out just like he came in: a gutless, lying turd.

But the real revelation here is the final sentence of Bush's opening monologue. He had just thanked the press for its "professionalism" (I think he meant "complicity"), and he had mentioned the press' role in translating his mangled words, ideas, and persona to the public. And then he said, "I'm interested in answering some of your questions, but more importantly, I wanted to say 'thanks for the job.'"

He knows, y'all. He knows he never won shit in his own right, and he knows that he's too far gone now to ever be the national hero his feeble brain thought possible in 2003. I only pray there is enough time and enough paper to equally document and condemn the press for the crimes it assisted George W. Bush in committing.

Bound to Happen

2008-11-17T09:37:00.002-06:00

Fire Joe Morgan is now defunct. Alas.

It was only a matter of time after ESPN announced a few weeks ago that it would likely move Morgan off the featured telecasts due to his, how shall we put this?, complete lack of understanding or even a willingness to learn of the rules, traditions, or facts of the game of baseball. It never stops being incredible: one of the greatest baseball players ever, played for 20 years, saw some of the greatest events in baseball history, and has no clue what he was doing and doesn't think about it even now.

The site will stay up, but the guys who created it apparently have real jobs to do and can't keep up the daily grind of forehead-slapping that is sports journalism criticism.

Of course, Joe Morgan still has a job as a baseball analyst. There is no God.

I H8 Robots

2008-11-17T09:17:00.002-06:00

Now that the election is done, we can get back to our favorite pastime: ridiculing those who are engineering the downfall of the human species. "Whole Brain Emulation," you say?

The best quote is this one:

"The only way you can emulate a person with a computer is by first defining the person to be a machine. The Future of Humanity Institute would seem to be misnamed."

Several problems present themselves immediately to the idea that human scientists can replicate the behavior of an individual brain (funny, they don't say "mind"...). One is that, based on the description given, the process being employed to capture a singular brain's behavior is in fact reductive and structurally rigid. In a word, it's no better than an approximation of any given brain's function (because it is limited by its own assumptions, which have become built-in structural limits), and likely would produce nothing more than an output that resembles the output of a living, human brain. Or, to put it another way, the Whole Brain Emulation output of, say, your brain, would probably do little more than remind, say, your mom of you. Evocative does not equal authentic. Sorry, scientist-guys.

Another issue I could see with this is that the people heading up this endeavor apparently don't believe that randomness is very important to the human brain-condition. This notion is so crazy that I submit that it proves just how central irrationality in fact is. QED.

Finally, their proposal to introduce an element of irrationality to the simulation of a brain roughly equates with the "difficulty setting" designed by the Sega Genesis programmers circa 1994: to make it more "lifelike," one need only instruct the computer to change the rules. In College Football '94, if you turned up the difficulty setting, the game would simply stop the human player from affecting the game -- all passes would be incomplete, all runs would result in fumbles, all penalties would be on you, etc. In the Whole Brain Emulation, it sounds like the irrational would be captured, to a limited extent, by introducing more "noise" into the program, thus increasing the chance that a connection would not be made or that an error (literally, a programming error) would result. In other words, there would be a rule that would suspend all rules.

The problem with this, of course, is that it's based on a set of rules; rules that don't exist in the human mind.

At some point, we have got to take stock of future-science and separate for the scientists what is science fiction and what is science actual. They don't seem able to do it (remember, they believe robots will rule the world).

Mandate

2008-11-05T12:50:00.018-06:00

Mandate II

2008-11-05T12:34:00.010-06:00

Blur-bama

Mandate III

2008-11-05T12:15:00.016-06:00

Big Day

2008-11-04T12:11:00.002-06:00

It's a big day here in Chicago. Tonight, there is a big fucking rally downtown for Obama, win or lose. We somehow got tickets, so we'll be in the lucky cattle-pen area surrounded by a million+ mob. It will likely be the most historic thing I'll ever attend. Given the sheer numbers of people in such a small area, we don't expect to make it out before the early morning hours tomorrow (fortunately, we can walk the 4 miles home if need be).

Truly, this is a fulcrum in time. If, as expected, Obama wins, this will mark for many people a point when they come again to be fully in control of their lives. There is some sense that we've all lost over the last 8 years an intangible, immeasurable component of ourselves and of our ability to direct ourselves. We can regain that, though likely only a damaged or partial form of it, tonight and in January. For every American citizen under the age of, say, 10, they will have a chance to grow up in a nation that does not prey upon the fears in their minds or seek to mold them into amoral consumers, first and foremost.

If somehow tonight does not bring the news we expect, then the end is nigh.

Well

2008-11-04T11:12:00.002-06:00

Well, I guess I should say something today. First off, it's nice to see that Paul Krugman agrees with me about the coming purge in the GOP. It won't help the minority of fundamentalist crazies who are left in control of the party, but James Dobson will finally get his chance, it seems, to run things and bury whatever hope of real power the insane right wing had.

Another thing that has occurred to me is that, given the nature of the lies that have been spread about Obama this go-round, unlike any past Democratic candidate he will actually have the chance to grow his support prior to a re-election bid. My sense is that normally, candidates are most popular just before they are elected to office, and then they experience a decline in support as their partisans become disillusioned and bitter. But, Obama has been smeared so viciously by right wing nutjobs as a secret Muslim, a socialist/communist, a godless destroyer of worlds, that I predict an increase in support for him a few years hence (all else being equal) on the basis that those who harbor inner doubts about his character will be satisfied. I mean, what will they object to when the secret Muslim takeover doesn't happen after Obama takes office? Same for those who openly now question his experience and qualification to be president -- nothing qualifies him more to be president than actually being president.

Perhaps I am giving too much honor and dignity to Obama's detractors -- maybe there is a Bradley Effect, but it is masked by a host of critiques of Obama that range from his tax policies to his character to his inexperience. When it's all said and done, and the United States is better off under Obama than it has been under GW Bush, maybe those people who cannot bring themselves to support him will just finally cop to being racists. And then, maybe they'll do the honorable thing, in this modern age, and kill themselves.

Bleah!

2008-10-16T10:18:00.000-05:00

The Lady, or the Tiger?

2008-10-16T09:21:00.002-05:00

Maureen Dowd, who will likely change her clothes, hair, and mind at least seven times today, quotes William Kristol (keep spinning in your grave, Irving) in today's NYT as saying:

“Conservative eggheads are my friends, but politically they’re a contrarian indicator. If they’re down on Palin, things are looking up for her. With all due respect for my fellow eggheads, they are underestimating the importance of a natural political gift or star quality. It matters a lot.”

Politically, intellectuals are a "contrarian indicator"? (I think Kristol meant "reverse barometer," but hey, who am I to argue? He's a "conservative intellectual"!) Does he actually intend to say that the opinions of intellectuals (like himself!) are the exact opposite of the truth, as far as Republicans are concerned? Then why do they exist? Party of Ideas, my monkey fucking ass!

David Brooks, Christopher Hitchens (I don't really know if he fits as a "conservative intellectual, " but nobody knows what that guy is anymore, and he supported Bush when it mattered), the Buckley clan, George Will, and numerous other conservatives have jumped off the McCain and (especially) Palin bullet train to oblivion. In some cases, those same "conservative intellectuals" have been savaged as they fled by the comfortable-but-ignorant rank-and-file of their party, those "ordinary Americans" who selfishly want to keep just a little more of the money they only could have made in America; who want to live just a little further away from the "Others" they only could have met in America; who, in a cycle of psychotic dissociation only found in America, want to punish whole segments of the population through venal small-government policies even as they continue to utilize big-government services and enjoy the fruits produced by the despised demographic populations.

In other words, the GOP, right now, is a mob-rule party. The party has assumed, with the adoption of the totem Sarah Palin, its most animalistic and base characteristics as its public image. And William Kristol, who fancies himself to be smart, at least, thinks he can ride the tiger. I just hope I'm there when he loses his grip and gets eaten alive.

OK, Just One More Thing

2008-10-15T22:13:00.002-05:00

McCain twice tonight said Sarah Palin was "qualified" to appreciate how he, John McCain, would get funding to find the cause of autism. Does McCain think Palin's newborn has autism? He has Downs syndrome. Look it the fuck up. Do McCain and his people think Americans can't read or don't think there's a difference? "Autism" is a buzzword, so let's just go with that!

This raises the question all over again of just how many times John McCain has actually met Sarah Palin.

Oh, and overall reaction? McCain was d.e.s.p.e.r.a.t.e. and it showed. Big time. The man was popping out of his skin, he was so desperate and manic. It was not sad at all, actually; I can't remember when I laughed this much at any live performance. And I saw K-Fed in concert once.

Wow

2008-10-15T22:02:00.000-05:00

That was a pretty shitty debate...for Bob Schieffer!

Obama did great. And, he looked responsible and thoughtful, unlike John McCain, who actually referred at one point to how Obama's campaign, by pointing out what hooligans and cretins have accreted to the McCain rallies, had hurt Little John's feelings. Awwww.

Seriously, I didn't know we could vote for the first 12-year-old boy for president.

What a wuss.

Bed now. More tomorrow.

Last Debate, First Post

2008-10-15T20:08:00.003-05:00

First question of tonight's debate: "Tell the American people why your economic plan is better than (your opponent's)?"

McCain answers thusly: "There are several parts of my new economic plan, which you have just summarized, and so I am not going to repeat them." (WHAT?!?) And the Senator continued, "But I think the first thing we have to do is take $300 billion of the $700 billion and buy up all the bad mortgages caused by Fannie and Freddie Mae" (again, WHAT?!?) "so there's a floor under home values. And, I'm disappointed in Henry Paulson because he failed to act responsibly."

I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. But, what the fuck was that answer? I have learned several new things, and it's only been three minutes: 1. McCain does not know McCain's new economic plan. Yeah, he read it, off a teleprompter, the other day at a campaign event, but tonight he ain't got no teleprompter and the old bastard can't remember just what it was that he said yesterday. 2. McCain failed to contrast his plan with Obama's plan (maybe he also does not know what Obama said recently?), but instead attacked Henry Paulson. That'll score big points with the anti-Paulson voter. One. Voter. The ex-Mrs. Paulson, I would guess. 3. What the fuck is a "Freddie Mae"?!?

Not a good start for the coot.

270 To Win

2008-10-15T10:42:00.003-05:00

Just keep going to 270towin.com, set all the states to neutral, and play around with Obama states. It is clear, immediately, that he only needs about 10 electoral votes to sew this thing up. Those votes could come from VA or FL or OH or NC or CO or MO or NV + NM or WV...

For McCain to win, he has to carry FL.

and OH.

and CO.

and VA.

and NC.

and IN.

and WV.

and NV.

and MO.

and, if he does all that...he wins the election by 4 points.

John McCain is so goddamn fucked it's unbelievable. Get excited. Get very, very excited.

End Game

2008-10-15T10:31:00.002-05:00

Have I ever told you about my friend, John? He's a smart guy. Good writer. Sly sense of humor. Carries on lengthy email exchanges with Nigeria scam-artists. OK, maybe not so smart.

But he has a point, made in reference to the 2nd presidential debate, that is so correct as to almost be wrong. Almost. John identified the Achilles heel of the McCain campaign and it is this: voters have not bought a single piece of the McCain rhetoric up to now. (Thus, resultant, the negative campaign that has no substance to it.)

The upshot is that McCain has one chance -- tonight -- to hit Obama where it hurts. Of course, he cannot really bring up the Ayers stuff or go negative in general, because voters also don't like him for that (at least, the NYT says so). So John McCain has only one option remaining: he has to say something completely different than he's said thus far; in effect, he has to contradict himself, reverse course on a host of issues, flip-the-motherfucking-flop, etc. etc. That's no way to win an election. But it's all he has left.

Should make for good TV watching tonight.

Smart guy, that John.

What Became of the GOP

2008-10-10T21:23:00.004-05:00

David Brooks (no link. Ever.) over at the NYT laments that the Republican Party has lost the narrative -- that "ideas have meaning" -- that was handed down by the Buckleys, the Strauss', the Rands, the Kristols, the Friedmans. Brooks is, it would appear, a man without a country, an intellectual in a mob-rule party.

The Republicans brought it on themselves. At some point, they decided that ideas were less important than appealing to the voters the Democrats didn't want, the racists, the proudly ignorant, the misogynists, the fucktards. There were, in conjunction with the conservative "intellectuals," enough fucktards to win an election.

John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate -- the final sop, it now seems, to an unholy partnership. Palin is now the most popular person on the ticket. Over at Free Republic, where the proudly ignorant, the racists, the misogynists gather to infect each other with new strains of stupid, they are wailing about McCain's ineffectiveness. It seems, you see, that McCain keeps trying to talk about facts and ideas (silly, disproved ideas, yes, but they're just old conservative retreads that have run out of usefulness -- Reagan is dead, after all). The fucktards want hate, visceral appeals, lynchings.

The Republican Party's intellectual wing has sown its own destruction. The mud people, the ignorant unwashed trash that Buckley, Will, Kristol held their noses and embraced in the 1970s, are now in the majority and have been raised to believe they are the rightful inheritors of the earth. The intellectuals lost control when they sent their new, demented children outside, to play with their guns, and talk personally to their imaginary God, and the brain trust huddled in its ivory tower and schemed about getting richer and more powerful through its conveniently-lucrative "ideas."

Training a mob to believe that it must not only defeat the Democrats politically, but must actually personally, spiritually, and permanently destroy them has consequences, to be sure. The mob grows, the brain shrinks, and today people like David Brooks have suddenly realized that they are powerless to stand up and retake control of the GOP. It is the party of the mudsills now.

There is not only a generational gap between Democrats and Republicans in this election. There is a "class" (Brooks' term) or generational rift on the GOP; McCain represents the old guard and Palin the newly-cognizant majority.

The inherent contradiction that has existed my whole life, of a party that encompasses fiscal conservatives, the self-styled "conservative intellectuals," and also the dumbest, most hateful, elements of American society has resolved itself, perhaps.

Where will the men of ideas go?

A Word On Losing Campaigns

2008-10-10T13:56:00.002-05:00

The idea at this point is not for John McCain to win his campaign. That is over -- or at least it will be, when he pusses out next Wednesday and fails, once again, to challenge Obama in any meaningful way.

The rest of this month will be an effort by the GOP and especially the very frightened, very insecure and angry McCain partisans, to damage Barack Obama badly enough that he will be unable to govern effectively from the start of his term. That means an endless repetition of the same smears and vicious lies we've heard already, only louder and in the most crude, malevolent forms.

Politics of personal destruction, indeed. The Republicans are truly the masters of self-delusion and projection.

Does McCain Know About This?

2008-10-10T11:08:00.002-05:00

From Politico:

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda. We should take that agenda on in a robust manner. As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us. Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”

Two things, dummy: One, a "classic liberal" is an awful lot like a free-trader, modern "conservative." You are a fucking nincompoop. And second, why don't you get on the phone and call your old boss, John McCain, and ask him why he tolerates this brown shirt, 1933-style shit?

The DOW went down more than 600 points today

2008-10-09T15:30:00.002-05:00

On September 15, the DOW was at 11,388. Today, less than one month later, it is at 8,579. That is a loss of nearly 25%. Some people are calling this a market crash -- whatever it is, it looks a whole lot like what a wise man named Karl Marx once described as the wild fluctuations that precede the "bust" in "boom-and-bust" economic cycles. The losses to Americans who were urged to invest in the stock market so they could one day experience a little peace in retirement can be measured in the multiple trillions of dollars. You, me, our parents, and friends, will all have to work a lot longer now, and for less than we expected, because Republicans chose to rip out the social safety net and replace it with a roulette wheel and a couple free drinks.

John McCain thinks we should keep talking about who Barack Obama had dinner with that one time.

WHERE IN THE FUCK IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

90 Minutes We'll Never Get Back

2008-10-08T08:19:00.002-05:00

Last night's "debate" was a total disaster. For John McCain. For his opponent, that one, you know, whatshisname, the one who looks like the black guy McCain was talking down to about the economy...? For that one, it was a complete triumph.

Because I'm shallow and only notice things to be mocked, there were only two points during the debate that I was interested at all. One came about an hour in, when the camera was in a medium-shot of Obama from the front as he answered a question, and then, in the background, we saw a pair of legs wobbling across the stage. McCain refused to sit down for most of the debate, and he tottered about incessantly, but somehow his frail, bird legs unstably weaving through Obama's shot just cracked me up. Where was he going? Probably the same place he bolted for 5 minutes after the debate ended, whereas Obama and wife remained for half and hour, signing autographs and shaking hands. (I think McCain had to go to the bathroom really, really, really bad. He probably dropped, like, a twenty-five year-old turd in the shape of his presidential aspirations.)

The other funny/sad moment was, with about 10 minutes to go, when McCain for once did not stand up to answer a question. In fact, he was slumped in his chair, or rather propped up on his calcium deposits, in what appeared to be an excruciatingly uncomfortable position. But the real treat was that he answered the entire question without his microphone. And he didn't ever notice that he was holding the microphone in his lap the whole time. And the sound guy had to scramble to pick up McCain's voice on the lapel mic. And Tom Brokaw didn't say, "use the microphone, Senator."

Apparently I am the only person who noticed that moment, because not one pundit has made mention of it. That's too bad, too, because it was goddamn funny.

Any other debate responses?

MBA Dummies Aren't So Dumb?

2008-10-07T08:58:00.004-05:00

The GOP is trying to change the subject from McCain's Keating Five involvement, but there's something that's true now that wasn't true 20 years ago: one-in-five college students is enrolled in a business, finance, accounting, or economics course. People between the ages of 18 and 35 are now, more than ever, more likely to have a professional knowledge of business and accounting. And those people, who may have been too young to remember Keating in the 1980s and 1990s, are interested in (and more important, can actually grasp and untangle) the whole story of McCain's influence-peddling.

Another bad day for McCain.

Tonight's debate prediction: it's a town hall-thing, with handpicked audience members and known, or at least obvious, questions. So, I'd say Obama tries to frame the conversation for the rest of the week around McCain's record of supporting Bush and his own failure to enact any real reform, particularly as related to the economy. I think McCain brings up the Ayers thing (huge mistake if he does) and I also think he gets testy, at least once, with a questioner and comes off as too-aggressive and not very open in his responses. In other words, bitter, angry, confused. I would not be surprised if McCain, in trying to attack Obama, in fact mistakenly directs his attack at the audience member who asked the question. Tom Brokaw will bring pompoms and a cheerleader outfit with a big "M" on it.

That's Interesting. And Begs for a Response.

2008-10-06T12:16:00.002-05:00

Let's recap the last few days. McCain's idiot handlers announce that they are going to "take the gloves off" and hammer Obama for knowing some supposedly shady people. Obama responds with a 13-minute online video that details McCain's culpability in the Keating S&L scandal in the 1980s. McCain's handlers go apeshit, but somehow instead of pulling a George W. Bush and just refusing to talk about the past, or stand pat on the fact that McCain apologized for his mistakes and built his entire reputation on having learned to be a "maverick" from those mistakes, the McCain people decide to call the whole Senate investigation into the Keating affair a "Democratic smear job" on McCain! Unbelievable!

This all but guarantees that this story will get bigger and stay in view longer.

Rather than waiting to see if the public would become interested in McCain's scandalous past (and, if not, this story would have died quickly), his own campaign staff have decided to have WWIII right now, on this issue.

If I were a Rovian-conspiracy nut, I'd say this was an attempt to distract from some even bigger problem for McCain, but I can't think of anything. We're now so far past that point...

Need All the Help They Can Get?

2008-10-06T11:39:00.003-05:00

The Obama people have their hands full just now with pushing back the McCain/Palin desperation ploy to repeat "Obama loves a terrorist!" every five seconds until Nov. 4. So, lots of left-leaning sites and speakers are encouraging us all to "keep working" for an Obama victory, despite everything that could possibly go right for him actually having gone right for him in the last month. Democratic Underground's hilarious Top Ten Conservative Idiots list this week even concluded with an exhortation that Obama "needs all the help he can get."

Well, it turns out that's not accurate. In fact, it's wrong. Obama has too much help, according to fiverthirtyeight.com. Did you catch that? Indiana, for example, has like 50 times more Obama field offices than McCain offices. And Obama's offices are full -- they're turning volunteers away. Lafayette, IN, has a separate call center and, in another building, a canvassing center. And, down the street, Purdue University has another, separate canvassing operation being run by the Students for Obama group. Over-over-over-saturation.

Obama-Biden: kicking so much ass they need less help than they can get.

John McCain Knows How to Lose Money

2008-10-06T09:53:00.003-05:00

No, not the gambling thing. The Keating Five thing.

There's even a website and a 13-min video about McCain's efforts to assist thieves in the banking industry while they stole the life savings of 20,000 Americans.

The video is available starting today at noon.

See, Sen. McCain, this is what happens when you "take the gloves off" and "get tough" with your campaign. While you're napping, Sarah Palin is running amok and quoting coffee cup packaging to no effect. Barack Obama is shifting his millions of supporters and dollars to easily-accessed advertisements.

There are millions of voters out there, young (mainly) and old, who now want desperately to feel knowledgeable about politics, and want to understand more than just the most superficial aspects of this election. And one of the first lessons they are going to receive this week will be all about what a corrupt, callous, hypocrite John McCain is.

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

SNL Gets Better Material

2008-10-06T09:02:00.002-05:00

So, did you hear the one about how Sarah Palin went to Omaha, "because she just wanted to, OK?," and also delivered a speech in California that was based partly on a quote on her Starbucks coffee cup???

I'm sure you heard. Sorry. I was out of town this weekend. I missed this. And this. And this. And also this. And this. And this. Jesus, what a time to leave town! And that was just one fucking newspaper, the NYT. What did everyone else have to say about the tanking GOP ticket in the past 72 hours?

But, seriously, the coffee cup thing? It's Bush-wastes-imaginary-political-capital-immediately-after-2004-election stupid. Here's my pitch to Saturday Night Live for this week:

Next Saturday, watch Sarah Palin rummage through a garbage can outside a Chinese restaurant for discarded fortune cookie slips, or what she calls "speeches"! Financial crisis? Sarah Palin reads from her Visa cardholders agreement terms and conditions! Climate change? Sarah Palin has an Amana air conditioner users manual!

And...scene!

Gwen Ifill: A Retard or a Traitor to America?

2008-10-02T23:05:00.002-05:00

Gwen Ifill is either the dumbest "journalist" in the United States, too lazy or incompetent to even command that debate participants answer her questions, or else she is so enslaved by the false and discredited idea that she, as a journalist, must never think but only act as a mirror to public figures, that she is a danger and a traitor to the people of this nation.

Tonight's "moderator" was a disgrace to all Americans.

Ifill should either be consigned to a copy room, where her indifference to inquiry and truth can do no harm, or else she should be forced to resign and attend a remedial journalism school until she feels something akin to curiosity. The first option seems most likely.

The Key to the Debate

2008-10-02T23:04:00.000-05:00

In the closing moments of the debate, Joe Biden opened up and made a very timely, very touching observation about life as a single parent. Why was he a single parent? He very sensitively and appropriately explained, without any maudlin dwelling on details, or pathos, that his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident. His two sons were also badly injured in the same incident.

Now, Joe Biden has talked about this before, and perhaps that was why Governor Sarah Palin, given a chance by moderator Gwen Ifill to respond to Biden on the challenges facing American families, instead completely ignored him and launched into an unrelated string of talking points, including what a maverick John McCain supposedly is, and how she governed Alaska, and how America has a bad economy.

But she couldn't even muster the simple decency or grace to acknowledge that Joe Biden had suffered a tragedy. A mere "I'm sorry, Senator, for your loss," would have sufficed before she began her irrelevant, wandering patter.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have gone out of their way to note and applaud the humanity and sacrifice of John McCain and, to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. But neither McCain nor Palin can conjure the strength to do the same. What is wrong with the Republican nominees that they are so tone deaf, so callous?

Or was Sarah Palin so busy frantically shuffling her cue cards looking for that last, unused talking point, that she just didn't hear Joe Biden at all?

Conservatives and the Fantasy of the True Mind

2008-10-02T11:23:00.009-05:00

Peggy Noonan was on The Daily Show last night, hawking a very Bill Bennett-esque book about "character" and "right living" (because conservatives have such good manners and high morals!). Aside from the fact that Jon Stewart completely *forgot* to ask her about that time she left her mic on at MSNBC and called Sarah Palin's elevation to VP "bullshit," the interview was strictly kid-gloves crap, with Stewart playing his now-customary role as Mr. Nice Guy To Conservatives. This while Noonan went on and on (and on! That bag can talk, now!) about the lamentable loss of civility in American public discourse and how, in general, in a very vague way, without naming anybody at this time when the GOP is full of two kinds of people, bad examples and horrible examples, we must get back on track. Presumably, she meant that we, the voters, should keep Republicans in office because, even though she can't think of any worthy Republicans at the moment, they'll surely appear after election day.

Also, there have been a lot of Republicans in the public forum lately decrying -- as Noonan herself did a few months ago for John McCain -- that the GOP doesn't seem willing to let "Sarah be Sarah." There seems to be some dissatisfaction among the rank-and-file with how Palin has been portrayed, both by the media and curiously, by the McCain campaign. They're stifling her, say the Republican chatters. Noonan, for her part, advocated that the McCain campaign should let "McCain be McCain" so that voters could fall in love, as she did, with the funny, concise, "real" John (not the billionaire heiress-marrying, adulterous, callous, kill 'em all John McCain we see on TV). As though the McCain people have been so great at reining-in their guy so far. Nope, no off-the-cuff remarks by Johnny yet!

The problem here is that this complaint is based in fantasy. You could say that all political partisans, particularly the losers, believe in something of this sort: did many believe that John Kerry's biggest problem was an inability to say "what he really meant"? Yes. And it was. Because, for Democrats, the problem isn't at its root that our philosophy of government is paradoxical or perverse, as is the Republicans'; the problem is that our philosophy is complex and pragmatic. Thus, it takes a long time to explain, on principle, how we would address issues. Kerry, and to a lesser extent, Gore, tried to be as forthcoming as possible instead of doing what must needs be done during a campaign (when, by definition, time is limited): sum it up. But, as a partisan, I thought Gore and Kerry should have been given more credit during their campaigns for "being Al," or for "being John." I also thought they could have been "more" themselves and been proud of it, instead of running from any discussion of their habits or personalities. In the sense of their "true minds," it was less that voters felt they were phony -- though many did -- and more that Democrats, deep down, were always unsatisfied by what Kerry and Gore said. They never ran an issue to ground. They never nailed the answer. They never explained why Democrats have better ideas.

McCain and Palin have a whole different problem. Their fans and would-be voters are livid that McCain's own campaign, supposedly, has covered-up both of their actual selves. This is a bizarre complaint. Republicans, in this case, are not blaming as they have in the past the election system, or the dictates of political campaigns; instead they are blaming the very people McCain hired and who serve at his pleasure for betraying him and his VP.

What is behind this curious conspiracy theory? Bitterness, likely. The dawning knowledge that the GOP is facing an ass-fucking of historic proportions that represents an almost total rejection of everything that Republicans have been proud of for 30 years. It is as if Democrats were suddenly villified for the Civil Rights Movement, the New Deal, and multiculturalism. Oh, that's right. We have been -- by the same Republicans who are now about to pay for making those outrageous charges. As an aside, rot in hell GOP!

Republicans making the "true mind" case base their argument on a fact not in evidence: there is something else to conservatism that hasn't yet been shown (again, over the past 30 years). Unlikely as it sounds, the notion that, at bottom, Sarah Palin and John McCain have some kind of genuine, pure conservative credibility that is so mind-blowingly original and primitive (in the sense that it comes from the source) is attractive in lean times like these. But it's also a fantasy. Maybe it is unsurprising that people who by-and-large accept wholesale the literalness of the Bible and also believe in benevolent ghosts who are either all-knowing or all-powerful (they haven't yet hashed out just which it is), would also get the notion that secret virtue is just waiting to be tapped in Palin and McCain, and that will turn this election around. It's like a Rapture (alert: not in the Bible) for the American voters!

What shall never be mentioned, or even considered by this crowd, is that there probably isn't anything else to modern conservatism. That is to say, Republican ideas have been applied without limits or qualifications for the better part of a decade, and in many ways for at least three decades prior to the unprecedented open-door reign of GW Bush. There isn't any more. Or, as Peggy Lee might've said, is that all there is?

The "true mind" of a conservative is the known mind. To say that there may be some secret ideas out there (or in there, in the cases of McCain's heart and Palin's head) is ludicrous given the history we have to look at. Republicans don't change; times change and Republicans fight the times by attempting to graft moldy notions, a la Bennett and Noonan, onto the present in an attempt to retard the future. In effect, because we are all the products of the triumph, temporarily, of this regressive mindset, let us join now in one voice to proclaim that, sorry Peggy, sorry Republican rank-and-file, but we already know John McCain and Sarah Palin, and we reject them, true minds and all.

The Ground Will Catch Them

2008-10-01T15:11:00.000-05:00

OK, Let Me Clear Your Head

2008-09-30T10:33:00.005-05:00

Not by punching it. Yet.

There are rumors on the internets from Republicans, coming out of the woodwork, telling all us hopeful, misguided Democrats that this year's presidential election is already stolen and so we needn't bother ourselves with it anymore.

Now, I know (because I watched it on TV) that the 2000 election was stolen. I also think, based on my own evaluation of it, that Ohio in 2004 was stolen and with it, the election.

What I'm saying is, I can see how some Democrats would be quick to accept that the fix is in this time, too.

But, neverminding that McCain does not command the same fanatical, self-interested organization that Bush did (I mean, correct me, but the Saudis aren't backing McCain, right? Or the oilmen in Texas? Or the tailings of the 1994 Republican Revolution?), you have to wonder just what good it does anyone for Republican partisans to start yelling about how it's all over already and only fools would still believe that we're going to have an election.

Let me propose something:

Only Republicans would say this. The only reason to say it is to demoralize Democrats so they stop working for an Obama victory.

I, for one, am not going to listen to anyone, much less a Republican operative, who tells me that democracy is dead, the election is a fraud, and Obama has already been robbed.

It's just a little too on-the-nose for all this hysteria to be ginned up just when Obama has taken a solid and beyond-the-margin-for-error lead in the national polls.

Wake the fuck up, people.

PART II:

If you looked at the Spoonamore link above, you will have read that the GOP plans to steal the election by falsifying the vote, and that McCain is scheduled to "win" by 3 electoral votes.

However, if you play around with this map, you will quickly see that, even if you split NE and ME, it is impossible to win by 3. Can anyone figure this out?

The Moon

2008-09-30T10:32:00.001-05:00

Very Witty. Get back to work.

Karl Rove IS Politics, Apparently

2008-09-30T08:27:00.005-05:00

Something strange has happened to Democrats in the past 8 years. They have come to associate all politics and political maneuvering with Karl Rove. It may be that in view of the stubborn refusal of the Democratic Party to take any action, at all, against the Bush regime for the first 7 years, rank-and-file Democrats have begun to believe that the natural state of politics is supposed to be inaction. Thus, when the GOP makes a decisive move of any kind, Democrats are confused and panicked. "What does this mean?" they cry.

Incredibly, one thing it apparently means is that many Democrats have come to associate all political strategies and tactics (and there is a difference!) with Rovian dirty tricks.

On several left-leaning blogs, including AmericaBlog and Democratic Underground, almost every piece of news about the presidential race and politics in general has been met with postings along the lines of "Oh Noes You Guys! This is ROVE!" "OMFG! The Debates are a Rovian Trap!!!" "The Bailout is Totes a Trap for Democrats!" and the like.

If it please the audience, allow me humbly to suggest that people who react this way to simple politicking are, as Rousseau said, fucked in the head. Maybe by Karl Rove. I don't know. But some of us have reached a point where, when the House of Representatives debates a bill and then follows a known procedure during the vote, and Republicans happen to decide they won't vote for the bill --again, while following parliamentary procedures that have been used in the past to scuttle other legislation-- ordinary citizens who happen to follow the Democratic Party start screaming "Get away! It's a Rovian trap!!" Excuse me. No it isn't. It's a vote on a bill before Congress. And voting involves an amount of intrigue and political jockeying.

I guess what I'm saying is, subterfuge, secrecy, and the double-cross existed in politics long before Karl Rove. Moreover, to say that high-level strategy during a congressional debate is "Rovian" is a misnomer: Karl Rove is the guy who puts a leaflet under your windshield wiper that calls Obama a "nigger" who wants to sleep with your white, teenage daughter. He's not the guy with the big ideas, subtle schemes, or master plans. Look at his product, again, everybody: GW Bush is not subtle. He's not masterful. He's not opaque, or mysterious, or even all that complicated to figure out. That is the dreaded Rovian operation at its peak?

The bigger problem for my fellow Democrats is that they have lost the faith in language and reason. No wonder: I saw some McCain surrogates on TV yesterday and they were trying to say that sure, voters may think Obama is doing better than McCain, but he isn't. Think about that a minute. Then, McCain himself came on TV to say that voters who ask questions of the candidates are sleazy, "gotcha" punks. This just a day after McCain said that Sarah Palin's public statements, which she made voluntarily and openly, at her choosing, were actually a fabrication and "meant nothing."

But, of course, words do have meaning. Logic is powerful still. Reality does exist (and with the way the market is sliding, it's getting a whole lot realer all the time!). And for these reasons, other citizens and Democrats need to let go of this childish persecution fantasy they have that Karl Rove's tactics are politics at present.

Because, once you cross that line, and come to believe that everything is a conspiracy against your interests at this moment, you have lost the key, which is that everything, even the failed bailout bill, can be dissected, motives can be discerned, sense can be made. And, when you come to the bottom of it, you will end up with the weapons in hand to strike the Republicans: in this case, they scuttled the bailout bill because they do not like John McCain and because, according to their congressional leader, Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. Those two facts should be being used right now to pummel Republicans into submission. Force the infantile conservatives in Congress to grow the fuck up.

Instead, my fellow Democrats are tying themselves into knots with invented quandaries like "Rove wants us to vote for the bill, so the GOP can take credit for helping the average American...but many Americans support this bill, but also hate George W. Bush, who supports the bill...but we supported the bill...and McCain promised to fix the crisis...URG! Does. Not. Compute....Oh Noes! It must be a Rovian trap, y'alls!! OMFG!!"

Or how about Sarah Palin? She speaks at the GOP convention and proves she can read off a teleprompter (and, go back and watch that speech, if you can stand to. It wasn't as good as the McCain people claim, not by a long shot). Then, she disappears from view for two weeks. A series of beyond-disastrous TV interviews basically make her a generational punchline (my kids will want to hear me do impressions of her twenty years from now. Bet on it.). Then she hides some more. Then, she brings her dad (McCain) to the PTA meeting with Principal Couric, where he seizes the floor and complains that all the other kids are picking on his little Sarah. Words like "embarrassing" come to mind. "Pathetic." "Whiners." "Inappropriate." "Crazy."

But to my fellow Democrats, all they see is one word: "Rove." "Biden is walking into a classic GOP Rovian trap!! No matter what he says, he is going to be seen as beating up on Palin!"

If that were true, then it would mean several things. 1. The Democrats in the campaign utterly fucked up the post-debate discussion and allowed it to spiral into surrealist nonsense-land. 2. The media thinks women are weak, defenseless creatures who need champions. 3. The GOP thinks women are weak, defenseless creatures who need champions. 4. Everyone thinks the American public is stupid. I reject ALL of these possibilities. Every Democrat should, too.

This election and the current financial crisis have nothing to do with Karl Rove. He is now a semi-cogent opinion columnist for the Wall Street Journal, soon to be just the "Journal" after Wall Street disappears.

Politics is a game of moving parts and shifting tactics -- we, as a party, seem to have forgotten this fact, and instead fixated on the most puerile tactician alive as not only indicative of all political maneuvering, but as the manager of it as well. This is asinine. We must get back to using reason to knock the stool out from under the Republicans, not vague assertions of "traps," double- and triple-crosses, and secret conspiracy cabals. Shit, I have friends who couldn't even follow the plot of "The Usual Suspects." Now Democrats are gonna try to tell me that the public is buying into some super-elaborate "gotcha" plan by Karl fucking Rove? To that I say, "Don't believe it! It's a trap!!1!11!"

Debate Response

2008-09-26T23:06:00.003-05:00

It was close. McCain was supposed to win -- he is the foreign policy pro, after all. Obama missed chances to wallop McCain on his love of Bush, his support for the bastard policies of deregulation, his culpability for the economy.

But Obama did well on foreign policy and stressed McCain's false assertions to the point where they HAD to be fact-checked (and they have been).

Most importantly, McCain's points were all rooted in events and persons from 20 years ago or more. He simply cannot talk about the present day, because he doesn't know anything about it. Obama was in the here and now. And (take it from a native southern white guy) he introduced himself to white voters as the friendly, accessible, trustworthy black man we can all feel OK about voting for. Republicans are just looking for a reason to say they are "OK" with Obama. Trust me.

Alaska: Drive It. Live It. Love It.

2008-09-26T16:12:00.003-05:00

As governor, Palin had to use part of the money for that dadgum' ol' bridge to build a road to nowhere (see, she got to keep the bridge money, but the road funds either had to be spent on a road or, by law, returned) So. Ladies and gentlemen. I give you this:

This is what the road to the bridge to nowhere looks like:

Palin in Disneyland

2008-09-26T08:48:00.001-05:00

Endure the ad at the beginning. The trailer is a pretty funny idea.

Bullet Dodged

2008-09-26T08:34:00.002-05:00

The Wall Street Journal is all bailout this morning -- and the consensus is that the failure to reach an accord yesterday is the fault of John McCain. Contrary to my fears, nobody seems to care what Obama did or didn't, and even the WSJ is faulting Republicans for cutting off discussions without leaving any room to negotiate. Awesome!

Obama's First and Only Misstep

2008-09-25T21:59:00.002-05:00

The bailout-that-need-not-happen has fooled our friend BO, I think. According to the McCain people, not only did Obama take the bait set out by McCain -- and he had no choice, as Bush commanded the presence of both candidates in Washington and there was no way Obama could have then said, "see ya!" and gone back on the campaign trail. Instead, he apparently stuck around all day and actually let his own party make him the focus of the discussions, while McCain sat in the back, said nothing, and took no position. The result? Republicans, who had been planning all along to ditch the bailout at the last minute, both to strike at Bush and also to get some of their own pork included in a revised proposal, ditched the bailout at the last minute and also, simultaneously, caught Obama looking like a fool.

Obama took the bait this time. Let it be the last time.

The good news for him is that there is no "winner" here. Most of the public doesn't like the bailout idea. But, somehow, McCain also isn't getting much traction with his "Obama scuttled everything!" line (it's almost like...like...he's lost all credibility) and God bless Barney Frank for coming out swinging all day today.

Obama has the debate tomorrow and he should succeed in taking all the positives McCain has left and turning them into question marks, if not glaring negatives.

If Obama wimps out, though, and tries to do some kind of pussy "teleconference" thing for the debate, that will be his second mistake.

Howie Kurtz Transcribes (Interprets?) Palin

2008-09-25T15:44:00.002-05:00

Howie Kurtz of the Washington Post, everybody:

"Sarah Palin, describing the need for more troops in Afghanistan, said the United States has achieved "victory" in Iraq.

In an interview with CBS's Katie Couric, the second part of which airs tonight, the Alaska governor pointed to logistical problems in battling the Taliban: "Things like the terrain even in Afghanistan and that border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where, you know, we believe that -- Bin Laden is -- is hiding out right now and . . . and is still such a leader of this terrorist movement. There . . . there are many more challenges there. So, again, I believe that . . . a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq. And as I say, Katie, that we cannot afford to retreat, to withdraw in Iraq."

You have got to read the rest of the article. Holy shit. Shit holy. It's an abomination to God. Anathema to brain cells. Note, particularly, the part where she tries to blame the press (to a journalist!) for her assertion that seeing Russian dirt = foreign policy experience. Also do not fail to guffaw at her contention that terrorists, "they hate what we stand for with the . . . the freedoms, the democracy, the . . . the women's rights, the tolerance, they hate what it is that we represent and our allies, too, and our friends, what they represent."

Kill me now, Lord. I've done seen all there is to see on dis' Erf!

Oh. My. God.

2008-09-25T15:40:00.001-05:00

Just read the article.

Holy Shit, Was I Wrong

2008-09-25T08:21:00.002-05:00

The further we get from the big suck-down that was the end of Lehman Bros., the less essential a $700B bailout looks. I was all in favor of it when it was first proposed, too, mainly because the disappearance in short order of half of the investment banks in this country looked like a true crisis, and I believe that, in times of crisis, the government has an obligation to step in. But shame on me. Henry Paulson actually gave away the shameful secret motive behind the conveniently-already-fully-written bailout plan on the very first day, when he mentioned creating a new Resolution Trust Corporation. That was the giveaway that the deal was itself a giveaway. See, the RTC took over the loans of failed S&Ls and disposed of them in a responsible, timely manner.

A new RTC, per Paulson, would buy the bad debt of companies that haven't failed yet. Essentially, this would be like taxpayers taking on worthless investments so that the private companies could go on about their merry ways. This is a huge difference.

Without accountability, without an equity stake for the public, without guaranteed repayment, without increased federal oversight (I don't, still, give a fuck about taking away CEO compensation), there can be no bailout. I was wrong.

Cell Phones and Polls

2008-09-24T10:04:00.002-05:00

From Pew:

"In the current poll, cell-only respondents are significantly more likely than either the landline respondents or the cell-mostly respondents to support Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress this fall. They also are substantially less likely to be registered to vote and - among registered voters - somewhat less likely to say they are absolutely certain they will vote. Despite their demographic differences with the landline respondents, the cell-mostly group is not significantly different from the landline respondents politically."

Bear in mind, too, that because cell phone users pay more directly for every minute they talk, they are probably far, far less likely to answer for a pollster (or any "unknown" number). So, even these numbers are skewed somewhat.

Chart:

Is McCain Going to Get Buried?

2008-09-24T08:15:00.005-05:00

A Washington Post poll has Obama ahead among likely voters, 52-43%. That's a lot.

The Republicans are getting hammered on the economy, rightly, and Obama has done well to keep the pressure on. And we haven't even gotten to the Keating Five part yet, or discussed in detail how McCain's campaign manager is in the pocket of the mortgage corporations.

On top of this new, wider Obama edge, the polls are and continue to be suspect, or as I say, wrong. The reasons for this are many and ought to be clear (only calling people with home phones, weighting party ID equally even though there are more registered Democrats -- a whole shitload more -- than Republicans, failing to include Obama's newly-registered supporters in the ranks of "likely voters"). Also, there will be fraud. (That should be a movie.)

But let's say the polls are inaccurate, at the very least. What will happen on election day, as the media begin to sift the reults on the nightly news? Obama wins the Northeast in a landslide, giving him a big lead in the popular vote and Electoral College right off the bat.

Obama wins one southern state, increasing his lead in the EC. McCain wins the rest of the South, but not by nearly as many votes as Bush did (or as we expected, based on final pre-election polling). That means NC is within 1 million votes. FL is within 3 points. SC is less than 10 points. This equals an enormous (maybe insurmountable) Obama lead in the popular vote.

In the Midwest, Obama wins IL huge, WI big, MN comfortably, and MI barely. But he runs very close in IN, a shocker. He wins IA in a landslide. He's much closer in MO and OH than anyone believed.

Obama loses every great plains state, and Texas. But again, not by as much as we thought he would. His popular vote total is ridiculous by this point, maybe 5 million above McCain's.

Obama wins CO by a significant margin. He also wins NM and barely loses NV. CA, OR, and WA all go to Obama, who is President and has about 65 million votes to McCain's 50 million. This is less, in total, than the number of people who supposedly voted in 2004, when voting machines returned a few "9 million votes cast" reports in 500 vote precincts. But, many Republicans, it turns out, stayed home out of sheer indifference. And first-time voters came out in high numbers for Obama. And those 11 million more registered Democrats? All for Obama. The media will be scratching its head and wondering if maybe there was some kind of miscount, because Republicans are supposed to win elections...

On the subject of fraud:

In 2004, John Kerry had an insurmountable lead in the exit polls. But, when the final vote tally was reported, Bush had somehow won solidly. In order to make the exit polls fit the actual vote count, pollsters "weighted" (i.e., "fucked with") the data to make it "match;" but this led to a situation in which Bush's "win" can only be explained by an impossibility. There were about 125 million votes cast in 2004 (or, some 20 million more than in 2000). Almost 3 million votes were not counted (because of challenges, fraud, suppression, or incorrect procedure). That leaves 122 million votes.

Bush got 50 million votes in 2000 (riiiiiight). Between 2000 and 2004, by normal mortality rates, about 1.5 million of those people had died. However, in order for Bush to "win" in 2004, he would have had to gain more female voters than Kerry, more first-time voters than Kerry, more black voters than Kerry, and also, 108% of the people who voted for him in 2000 would have had to vote for him again. That is, even after he "received" all this new support (and don't forget the phantom "3 million evangelicals" who appeared for one vote and then disappeared again, forever), Bush would still have had to get all 50 million of his 2000 supporters, plus the dead ones, plus another 4 million votes. From somewhere. Meanwhile, Kerry would have had to lose black support, female support, new voter support (despite the Democrats having registered more new voters...) and also have lost about 25% of the Gore voters from 2000.

Bush's approval rating in 2004 was 48% just before the election. Presidents under 50% approval do not win reelection, much less gain new supporters on election day. That election was stolen, and you don't need fancy algorithms to know it. Simple math will do: 122 million - 50 million (Bush 2000 voters) = 72 million. Kerry votes = 59 million. Bush's "new" one-time-only voters = 13 million. 13 million new voters = impossible, unless Bush attracted one-quarter of Gore 2000 voters (or a similar group of impossible voters).

Also, the smoking gun for a fixed election: according to the final, official vote tally, Bush lost support in solid Republican areas (reflecting actual disgust among conservatives with Bush -- they voted against him in "symbolic" fashion in areas where he was guaranteed a victory, and where the GOP had no reason or, probably, resources, to enforce the fix), but Bush gained votes in heavily-Democratic, urban areas. Does anyone know a Democrat who voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004? No? QED, motherfuckers.

Ouch, Washington Post (and good for you!)

2008-09-23T20:07:00.000-05:00

Washington Post:

"But there’s no Palin interview I’ve listened to, before or after her selection, that gave me the sense that she had anything but a millimeter-thin understanding of the issues facing the country she hopes to help lead.

Consider this exchange.

Hannity: What is our role as a country as it relates to national security?
Palin: Yes. That's a great question, and being an optimist I see our role in the world as one of being a force for good, and one of being the leader of the world when it comes to the values that -- it seems that just human kind embraces the values that -- encompass life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that's just -- not just in America, that is in our world.
And America is in a position because we care for so many people to be able to lead and to be able to have a strong diplomacy and a strong military also at the same time to defend not only our freedoms, but to help these rising smaller democratic countries that are just -- you know, they're putting themselves on the map right now, and they're going to be looking to America as that leader.
We being used as a force for good is how I see our country."

Not Too Good

2008-09-23T16:35:00.002-05:00

It's not too good when the Associated Press, which is now under the control of a man, Ron Fournier, who once volunteered to work without pay for the McCain campaign, calls your VP candidate "In a Bubble" and then sarcastically notes her shitty, ragged little conference with two second-rate world "leaders." Highlights: New York residents, unimpressed with Palin's motorcade blocking traffic, just walked around her car and paid no attention to her police escort. Also: according to Colombia's foreign minister, Palin "knows well" the economic crisis. Congratulations. She can apparently read a newspaper.

Also not too good is when Newsweek reports that the possible VP is "afraid to be in the same room as a reporter." I'm so glad the "grownups are back in charge." What a relief and a comfort to me in these crazy, dangerous times.

Finally, all the pictures of Sarah Palin over the last week have established beyond any doubt that the woman has big legs. And as we all learned from Led Zeppelin IV, big leg women ain't got no souls. The British would know.

Despicable, Inhuman, Horrific, Disgusting

2008-09-22T17:12:00.004-05:00

Words fail me. Palin and her sheriff in Wasilla, Alaska, coordinated to charge women who had been raped $1000 apiece for their evidence-gathering exams and lab work.

Where is the media? I, a not-gay man, will give up the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup playoffs, and beer, if every single TV station agrees to report on this story every day, forever.

The most appalling part of Palin's utter contempt for women who have been sexually assaulted is not that she saved the town a (very) little bit of money. Or that she inflicted financial penalties on women who had just been terrorized. No, the worst part is the implication that lies just beneath the facts: once it became known that reporting a rape to the police would cost you $1000, women would stop reporting being raped.

The sheriff and his lazy-ass, under-brained deputies win. The mayor -- who could say that reported sexual assaults declined precipitously in her town -- and her paleo-Christian, woman-hating supporters win.

Only raped women lose.

McCain-Palin: inhuman.

Nationalizing the Financial Sector

2008-09-21T09:24:00.003-05:00

Now, I'm just a small-town country lawyer, but it seems to me that too much is being made of the government's massive "bailout" of major investment banks, commercial banks, and that one insurance company. If not the government, where else were they going to get $700B?

I think liberals are missing some key points about this situation, and without citing anyone specifically (because you can Google the discussion), here are three items for their reconsideration:

1. Democrats in Congress went along with the bailout, not simply because they are Bush lapdogs (which they may be), but because the crisis came on very quickly and as evidenced by the meltdown by the "geniuses" on Wall Street, nobody knew what to do about it. The only history to be examined on the matter concerned bailouts. At least we might learn from it this time (ie, you don't just rescue scumbags and let them walk away for a while, then return in a few years and start doing the same shit again).

2. What would my fellow lefties have preferred the government to do? Nothing? Same as the mortgage crisis that touched of the meltdown in the first place? Would we all be oh so much better off (as liberal commentators seem to be suggesting) if Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Bernanke, Greenspan, the CEOs of Fannie Mae, Citigroup, BofA, Merrill Lynch, AIG, WaMu, Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and so on, had all been frog-marched (a favorite fantasy jackoff term of leftists, for some reason) to a pit and shot? So, if I understand this hysterical mewling from the Democratic partisans correctly, we should have done absolutely nothing, let CEOs jump from windows or (more likely) fly off in private jets with (metaphorical, offshore) suitcases full of money, never to return, and then lynched the rest of them, and then every American could have lost even more money, suffered even more deprivation, fallen from an even higher cliff into the pit of ruin -- all so we could hold 'em responsible?!?

Fuck YOU ALL, says I, enjoying still having a place to live and a bank account with more than $0 in it.

3. My fellow Democrats and liberals, listen to yourselves. Many of you are complaining, at once, about the "scot-free bailout" for businesses while also wailing about the "nationalization" of the financial sector. What the hell are you complaining about (and can't you see the contradiction in your complaint)? "We" foot the bill, sure, in as much as we, the taxpayers, won't see any of that money again and it cannot now be spent for social programs, etc. But in all honesty, "we" weren't going to benefit from those funds, ever. Tax cuts, anyone? Didn't think so. No defense contractors, we, either.

Nationalizing the financial sector, in even the most limited sense, is the first step towards acknowledging that we live in a centrally-planned economy and society. Socialism is here, everybody. Holding the CEOs accountable and spilling their blood isn't the point. They are little fishes, wriggling away to avoid being swallowed up. Maybe they'll make it, maybe they won't. Who cares? They got away with some vast sums of money, but in every other sense they are ruined. And the government, faithless in it though most of us may be, after 8 years, has come out on top as the rightful regulator of the market. That's called a victory for ordinary Americans and for the idea of rational, fair, humanist economic policy from this day on. Take it and keep it, and make sure to know its power.

It is a small step, perhaps -- though I don't know how one could call this crisis and its fallout "small," it does remain to be seen just how deeply involved the federal government wants to be in day-to-day market activities -- but it's an important precedent. Fiscal sanity will reign in our lifetimes, thanks to the bright light that has finally shined on Wall Street. Even if that light cost "us" $700B.

Hmmmm...?

2008-09-18T20:28:00.006-05:00

Why would the McCain camp cancel all of Sarah Palin's upcoming speaking engagements? Not "town halls," or "reporter interviews," but fundraisers in front of trained monkey-Republicans.

Why would they do that?

POW + McCain = RIP

2008-09-18T20:28:00.003-05:00

Did McCain cover-up evidence that American soldiers were left behind in Vietnam?

Let's just say "yes." It feels good, so let's do it. Look, I'm a Republican now!

What Do You Think That Means?

2008-09-18T20:28:00.001-05:00

Former publisher of William F. Buckley's National Review: Only Obama can save America.

"Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers."

"Per-tik-yuh-lur-leee"

2008-09-18T09:19:00.007-05:00

This clip was also on the Daily Show, but it's so fucking appalling it bears repeated viewing (it boggles the mind from the get-go, about 20 seconds through 30 seconds in).

Who is this person? Does she have a Crayon lodged in her frontal lobe? This is a sick joke -- six months from now, we'll be reading entire books, no doubt already in the draft stages, about how fucking dangerous, stupid, and chilling Palin's candidacy really was.

Kill. Kill!

Fucking Right!

2008-09-18T09:19:00.003-05:00

Thanks for the great line, Ray Whitney! (For the non-hockey fans, Whitney screamed "fucking right!" on camera while hoisting the Stanley Cup for the Carolina Hurricanes in 2006. NBC thereafter cut the audio for the rest of the Cup line.)

Media Matters does a great job of taking the mainstream press to the woodshed for creating the conditions that have led to the McCain-Palin blizzard of lies.

Consider:

"Writing at his blog on the Atlantic website, James Fallows noted the similarities between Palin's Bridge to Nowhere fantasy and Hillary Clinton's snipers-in-Bosnia fa ntasy from the primary season. He wrote:

In Senator Clinton's case, the more often she repeated the story, the more relentlessly the press said the story was not true. All parts of the press did this: right, left, middle. They didn't say that there was a "controversy" about her story. They said it was false. And eventually she bowed to the inevitable and stopped telling the story any more.

Fallows actually soft-peddled the press' take on the Bosnia story. Because rather than simply "relentlessly" announcing the story was not true, lots of press players used the tall tale to emphasize that Clinton was craaaaazy. Hysterical. Irrational. Unhinged.

Perhaps that was the media's right. (Candidates roll out whoppers at their own peril.) But if the press thought Clinton's fabrication was telling about her character, why don't journalists make the same assumption about Palin, who keeps repeating her fabricated tale?"

Go, read and become smarter.

Take the Step Already!

2008-09-17T09:42:00.002-05:00

Now that we're nearing the end of the inanity that comprises the reportage of Sarah Palin, obviously it's a good time for Obama/Biden to step up the attack -- not on her, mind you, but on her sugar daddy, Drooly J Mac. While it's possible, and very appealing to think, that McCain/Palin will subsume itself in a maelstrom of stupidity over the next few weeks, it's not very likely. The second-rate Roves, barking mad, who are "managing" the campaign in the sense that throwing shit at a wall until something sticks constitutes "management," surely are already setting up the next distraction. The point is to keep McCain, especially, off television until the debates, and then only allow him to be seen at those arranged venues. Always leave 'em wanting more of what they never wanted to begin with, I suppose...

Obama, et al, must step in, soon. Expecting the Republicans to destroy themselves is one thing -- they've destroyed their credibility, their House and Senate and gubernatorial chances, the economy, our military, and working Americans' ability to live decently -- but taking an extended nap while McCain/Palin edges up to the precipice is insane. Push them over the edge, fuckwit!

Paulson: Mets Will Be Saved; Draws Line at D-Backs

2008-09-17T09:41:00.002-05:00

Nice change of pace, I suppose.

Something Old

2008-09-17T08:26:00.000-05:00

Everyone should read this piece on the history of Sarah Palin. Forget her qualifications to be VP; she's over-qualified to be that asshole tyrant who managed you at the Dairy Queen in high school. She's a joke that has lost its humor and it's time for her to go away.

Incidentally, if McCain's shame from the Keating scandal is ignored, along with Palin's attempts to not just avoid but actually stop and erase an ethics investigation that is still in the questioning stages, then we -- Americans -- have effectively conceded that laws do not apply to elites. And here I thought we were all sick of Bush's contempt for the law, not to mention all forms of truth.

Palin's surrogates, and McCain's backers, are arguing that asking questions of two candidates for the White House constitutes both a deep personal insult to them and also violates some iron law that commands respect for such people in the form of silent awe. If you must write about McCain or Palin, gush.

This cannot happen. Politicians are not above the law, nor do most Americans think they should be (an important little fact if you want to reverse this McCain ploy). And, moreover, politicians have to answer questions as they relate to political service and activities while in office. I believe we all agree on these points.

Something New(er)

2008-09-17T08:12:00.002-05:00

Jesus Christ! Even when David Brooks is right, he's still completely wrong. What a fucking loser! But thanks for trying. You fucking loser. By the way: pink shirt: pink tie :: David Brooks: fucking loser.

In any case, the idea to take away from his piece (of shit!) is that Republicans, post-Palin, are now openly the advocates of "if it feels good, do it" -- and for most of them, mind-altering chemicals can't even be used as an excuse for such idotic behavior.

Who, oh who? would have suspected that conservatives would invent a set of lies to project onto liberals, cloaked in code-terms like "if it feels good, do it," and yet those poisonous ideas would turn out to be at the very heart of conservatives' own hollow, bankrupt worldview?

Suck it, you little hippies!