just a monkey in a suit

Fresh off FOX News' newest gaffe of referring to Michelle Obama, Barack's wife of 15 years, as a "baby momma," we have the newest and most brazen example yet of the kind of attack the darker corners of the Right have devised for Barack:

In case you were wondering, the banner at the top of the vendor website implies that the monkey's mouth is not open; that is its lips.

Sure, you could argue that it's only "the fringe" that has anything to do with this doll and other such filth (though is it really that much more offensive than the FOX News line? Is FOX News "fringe?"), but that doesn't matter because it proves a point about the common distinction people claim to make between dignified black people and "n****rs." To these people and everyone they represent, at the end of the day the Obamas will never be middle class enough or educated enough or intelligent enough or wealthy enough to become innocuous. They can never adopt the white manner of speaking completely enough, have enough white friends, or have enough white blood in their linage. Barack Obama may be precisely the kind of man that they could point to and say, "see, here's a black man that's rejected all that's depraved about black culture and made something of himself!," and Michelle may perfectly fit the bill for the poor black woman who "pulled herself up by her bootstraps," but when the chips are down and it's time to account, to these people they're just a couple of n****rs like everyone else on the South Side.

John McCain gets some comments on his golf gear

Hysterical.

The 5th one, titled "Not what I expected," is my favorite.

John McCain to his wife: "you c*nt!"

Wow. From jwilkes:

In his new book, The Real McCain, Cliff Schecter, a journalist and frequent contributor at the Huffington Post related perhaps the most disturbing of McCain's tirades. During his 2000 White House bid, the Senator was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, his aides, and three journalists who spoke to Schecter on condition of anonymity, but independently confirmed each other's accounts of the incident. Cindy McCain playfully ran her fingers through the Senator's hair and teased, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain reddened and fired back, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollup, you cunt." After he'd cooled down, McCain apologized, saying he'd had a long day.

Umm, wow.



Wow.

from the Netflix queue: Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days

Just watched the first disk. It's a truly rare thing: good reality TV. Spurlock makes someone live a different life for 30 days. In the first episode, for instance, he and his girlfriend live on minimum wage, and in the 3rd episode a Christian guy from West VA has to live as a Muslim (with Muslims in Dearborn, MI) for 30 days.

Liberal porn, basically.

Hopefully he mixes it up a little more later.

Hulu adds Daily Show and Colbert Report

There is a God.

EPIC FAIL

One of FOX News' blogger talking heads tries to make fun of Barack Obama. From Media Matters:

MacCALLUM: And Barack Obama, taking a break from the campaign trail over the weekend. He played a little bit of golf, we're told, he took Michelle out for dinner, and helped his 7-year-old daughter's slumber party, which is always a sleepless night for any parent that's been through that. But one weekend activity is getting some buzz on the blogs.

Griff Jenkins is a blogger at Griffnotes.com and a Fox News correspondent. What? Put the picture back up again, you guys.

JENKINS: Yeah.

MacCALLUM: What's wrong with -- what's wrong with him? He's going for a ride on his bike.

JENKINS: Well, here's what no one's said yet, and Anita just asked me: Where is he going? And I was thinking, maybe to get a pocket protector for his nerd pencils. What is that?

Now, take a look at this choad. Seriously, this guy tried to clown Barack:

Dude, give it a rest. We all know that if you and Barack were in school together, you would be the one constantly approaching him during lunch and between classes, being all, "Hey, there's my man, B-Rock! What's up, dawg?" and giving him awkward daps terrorist fist jabs in the hopes that his presence will make you cool enough to ward off the jocks who spent the last week flushing your head in the toilet.

Calling the coolest guy to hit the political scene since Kennedy a nerd just makes you look jealous and petty. Why don't you just go back to your World of Warcraft guild forum and leave the politics to the adults.

Frank Rich takes the gloves off

From his column in The New York Times:

The selling point of Mr. Obama’s vision of change is not doctrinaire liberalism or Bush-bashing but an inclusiveness that he believes can start to relieve Washington’s gridlock much as it animated his campaign. Some of that inclusiveness is racial, ethnic and generational, in the casual, what’s-the-big-deal manner of post-boomer Americans already swimming in our country’s rapidly expanding demographic pool. Some of it is post-partisan: he acknowledges that Republicans, Ronald Reagan included, can have ideas.

Opponents who dismiss this as wussy naïveté do so at their own risk. They at once call attention to the expiring shelf life of their own Clinton-Bush-vintage panaceas and lull themselves into underestimating Mr. Obama’s political killer instincts.
...
Mr. Obama’s deep-rooted worldliness — in philosophy as well as itinerant background — is his other crucial departure from the McCain template. As more and more Americans feel the pain of spiraling gas prices and lost jobs, they are also coming to recognize, as Mr. Obama does, that the globally reviled American image forged by an endless war in Iraq and its accompanying torture scandals is inflicting economic as well as foreign-policy havoc.

Six out of 10 Americans do want their president to talk to Iran’s president, according to the most-recent Gallup poll. Americans are sick of a national identity defined by arrogant saber-rattling abroad and manipulative fear-mongering at home. Mr. Obama closed his speech on Tuesday by telling Americans they “don’t deserve” another election “that’s governed by fear.” Of the three candidates, he was the only one who did not mention 9/11 that night.

This is pretty good. Rich gets a purchase on something about Obama's message I hadn't quite been able to put into words: the emphasis on inclusivity. The refusal to fight the old, tired battles of the '60's is part of that.

Then he turns on the Crazy Train:

...Mr. McCain is so far proving an exceptionally clumsy candidate prone to accentuating everything that’s out-of-touch about his American vision.

Mr. McCain’s speech in a New Orleans suburb on Tuesday night spawned a cottage industry of ridicule, even among Republicans. The halting delivery, sickly green backdrop and spastic, inappropriate smiles, presumably mandated by some consultant hoping to mask his anger, left the impression that Mr. McCain isn’t yet ready for prime-time radio.

But the substance was even worse than the theatrics. Incredibly, Mr. McCain attacked Mr. Obama for being insufficiently bipartisan while speaking to the most conspicuously partisan audience you can assemble in today’s America: a small, nearly all-white crowd that seconded his attack lines with boorish choruses of boos. On TV, the audience came across as a country-club membership riled by a change in the Sunday brunch menu.

Equally curious was Mr. McCain’s decision to stage this event in Louisiana, a state that is truly safe for the G.O.P. and that he’d last visited less than six weeks earlier. Perhaps he did so because Louisiana’s governor, the 36-year-old Indian-American Bobby Jindal, is the only highly placed nonwhite Republican he could find to lend his campaign an ersatz dash of diversity and youth.

Or perhaps he thought that if he once more returned to the scene of President Bush’s Katrina crime to (belatedly) slam that federal failure, it would fool voters into forgetting his cheerleading for Mr. Bush’s Iraq obsession and economic policies. This time it proved a levee too far. The day after his speech Mr. McCain was caught on the stump misstating and exaggerating his own do-little record after Katrina. Soon the Internet was alight with documentation of what he actually did on the day the hurricane hit land: a let-us-eat-cake photo op with Mr. Bush celebrating his birthday in Arizona.

Ouch.

Welcome to the general election, Senator McCain.

a glimpse into life on the other side

Many of you are familiar with the fabulous personal finance website Get Rich Slowly, a blog dedicated to saving money, getting out of debt, and improving your quality of life.

Apparently, some people need it more than others.

I found this story at Yahoo!'s finance area listing 12 "necessities" you can live without. Either the rich and wannabe rich classes are much dumber with their cash than I thought (a distinct possibility) or this story was just intended as a sort of Get Rich Slowly For Complete Ruttin' Fools.

I mean c'mon, people, who considers a weekly manicure to be a necessity? Or, for that matter, lawn service? Or hired pet walkers?

Guest post: a subtle stroke in a genius campaign

So this video went up recently, and it's got tons and tons of gold in it.

First off, it's Obama speaking in an unscripted manner. There are no teleprompters, there was no speech prepared.

Second, its a clear and candid look at how Obama deals with a staff. One can watch this little talk and clearly picture him having these same conversations with colleagues in his cabinet or with fellow democrats in congress.

Third, it's a very human side of him. He's confident but still funny. He's motivational, but not in a broad sweeping way - more in a serious, intimate way. He's a real guy, but also potentially a really important guy.

The foresight to record this conversation is genius. The decision to post it to the internet is both genius and courageous. McCain can't post vids like this, and all the money in the world won't change that little fact.

Guest post: McCain's foreign policy argument

During this campaign McCain will make essentially two arguments -

1)He supported the surge, Obama opposed it, and the surge worked.
2)He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, Obama wants to repeal them.

I'd like to address the first point in this post.

It's true that McCain did support the surge, as a lone voice among the detractors. It's also true that Obama vocally opposed it.

The point of contention that I have in the premise is that the surge actually worked.

McCain will point to the falling number of US casualties since the surge, and especially in recent weeks. The problem with measuring the success of the surge in US casualties lies in the fact that US casualties can be completely controlled based on marching orders from commanders on the ground. If they tell their soldiers to stay out of dangerous areas, then casualties will go down. I have not looked for any evidence that this is the case, but in the court of public opinion it's likely to be far too nuanced a point to hold sway regardless. It also fails to measure overall casualties, which of course are the truest measure of the level of violence in a region. Those numbers declined in Baghdad since the surge but increased outside of Baghdad overall, yielding an average of around 2,500 people killed in Iraq per month.

Those numbers are all relatively difficult to source and numbers give Americans tired-head anyway.

A better metric would be to look objectively and see if the surge met its stated goal of reducing the levels of violence low enough to conduct the diplomatic business that had not been getting done. For that we can ask the Iraqi parliament what they think of our whole Iraq plan.

DANA ROHRABACHER: Maybe if you could just...if it's possible to answer with a yes or no, would you have preferred that the United States not have conducted the military operations it did in order to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein? Would you have preferred that we not do that now, in retrospect...

KHALAF al-ULAYYAN, Member of the Iraqi Parliament: We would prefer if it didn't happen because this led to the destruction of the country.

ROHRABACHER: So you would have preferred the United States not to have gone in and got rid of Saddam Hussein?

al-ULAYYAN: The United States got rid of one person, but they brought hundreds of persons who are worse than Saddam Hussein.

ROHRABACHER: That's a fair answer.

al-ULAYYAN: And, unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the American occupation of Iraq.

okay...

well, that's surely just one rogue parliamentarian. Its not as though he represents the majority of Iraqi viewpoints. I mean hey, I've John freaking Cornyn as a rep right? Why don't we see what the actual majority thinks...

So what you'll see is that unless we come up with a plan to set a specific timetable for withdrawl, the Iraqi parliament won't ratify any agreements to allow the US to continue its occupation.

I don't see this state of affairs as anything that McCain wants to trumpet. Obama opposed the war at its inception, and argued that the surge was not going to bring matters to an end here. According to the Iraqi parliament, he was right.

The majority of Iraq’s elected representatives are now on record opposing the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement -- which means this agreement will not be endorsed by Iraq’s legislative body as required by their constitution

We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any treaty, agreement or “executive agreement” that is signed between Iraq and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of implementation without first being ratified by the Council of Representatives, in accordance with Article 61 of Section Four of the Iraqi constitution, which gives the Iraqi government’s legislative power, represented by the Council of Representatives, the exclusive right to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

arson in the governors' mansion?

From the Austin American-Statesman:

A raging fire that authorities say was intentionally set ripped through parts of the Texas Governor's Mansion early today, severely damaging parts of the historic building that has served as the home of the state's top official for more than a century.

No injuries were reported.

State officials said during a news conference this morning that they have launched a massive investigation to find the person responsible for setting the 1:45 a.m. fire and that a team of national experts from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been dispatched to Austin to assist them.

"We're going to come get the person responsible for causing this damage," State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado said.

Tragic. The Governor's Mansion is 150 years old, and was built by Abner Cook, the architect who adapted Greek Revival style to the city of Austin and its environs. Sam Houston himself lived in that mansion.

UPDATE: Here are photos courtesy of the Statesman. Oy, this hurts.

Hillary's concession speech

Much better than I expected and than was portrayed from the clips I saw on the news. Those clips, interestingly, had me convinced that her speech was overly Hillary-centric and ungenerous toward Barack, that she had nothing to say about the qualities of Barack Obama the candidate and that her exhortations to vote for him, where they existed at all, were perfunctory. That is not the case. Sure, there's a fair bit about herself and her campaign, but it doesn't come off as indulgent, and frankly it would be silly to begrudge her a victory lap after her accomplishments.

After all, it's fairly likely that she came much closer to defeating Barack Obama than John McCain ever will.

she's conceding now?

A couple of people are wondering why it is that Clinton made it public that she would concede last night, of all times. Why not concede at the graceful and obvious moment, in her speech on Tuesday night after the last primary? Why not do what she was initially saying she would do and hold on until the convention?

Frankly, it looks to me like she tried to hold on and was rebuffed by the party and her supporters. She asked her supporters in her speech on Tuesday to go to her website and send her their opinion, and my guess is that she didn't get the response she was expecting. That page, by the way, led straight to a form for contributing money to her campaign, which sort of gives away her expectations.

Then yesterday party leaders made it crystal f**king clear what they thought of continuing the race. Of course, we all know what Howard Dean had to say, but he was far from the only one who put in their 2 cents. Here's the real leader of the party, Nancy Pelosi:

It's pretty exciting, a great expansion of participation from young people, from women, from minorities, people in minority communities. And now we have a nominee, and that's pretty exciting. The campaign of Sen. Clinton is one that will go down in the history books as a great one for our country, breaking what I call the marble ceiling, what they call the glass ceiling. Glass is easy compared to the ceiling that she broke. And I couldn't be prouder of her eloquence, her knowledge, her judgment, the stamina that it took to have this campaign. And so I salute her and all of her supporters.

Nancy is more tactful than Howard, but the tone is unmistakable.

Many of her own prominent supporters, like Hilary Rosen and Charlie Rangel, were far less charitable in their opinions of her decision not to concede. According to The Guardian UK, she had a conference call with 22 party leaders who were her supporters yesterday afternoon, and it doesn't sound like it went well, with Rangel visibly angry at her. Rangel, in an interview that day to ABC News:

“Unless she has some good reasons-- which I can’t think of-- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements (of Obama) and dealing with what we have to deal with… so we can move forward,” Rangel said.

Hilary Rosen (in a piece titled: "I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat"):

As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.

Looks to me like she grossly overplayed her hand on Tuesday. You may remember that, in her speech that night after Barack clinched the nomination, she focused on how "I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible." My guess is that the party leadership caught her implication (namely, the threat to give her supporters a grudge to carry into November if Obama doesn't give her the Veep slot) and, shall we say, made it clear that such action would not be acceptable.

In fact, Roger Simon and others yesterday said that they think she irreparably damaged her chances of getting on the ticket with that stunt, and the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe them. Hillary is a solid choice for Veep, with her connections and ability to shepherd legislation through Congress and her support among women and Latinos. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people caught her subtle attempt at extorting the spot on the ticket from Obama, even if they only caught it subconsciously, and now it may make him look weak if he gives it to her even if he does so for perfectly legitimate reasons. There is only one way out of this mess that doesn't damage the party's chances in November, and that is the complete, full-throated and unconditional endorsement of Hillary Clinton a month or more before he ultimately chooses somebody else to be his running mate.

Which is exactly what Barack is going to get on Saturday.

AL-Gov: Don Siegelman might be innocent

From Harpers:

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman finds himself in a curious position. He was tried, convicted and sentenced on corruption charges brought by a U.S. Attorney whose husband happened to be advising Siegelman’s political opponent. In the meantime, spectacular public charges leveled by Republicans against figures in their own party have turned the tables on the prosecutors, who are now increasingly fighting a rear-guard action attempting to save their careers. Under intense Congressional pressure, the Justice Department acknowledges that its Office of Professional Responsibility has started multiple investigations into accusations of ethics lapses and illegal conduct leveled at the prosecutors and investigators they directed.

Evidence of the involvement of former senior Presidential Advisor Karl Rove continues to mount, and Rove’s denials become more strangely qualified as time progresses.
...
In Atlanta, the Court of Appeals, after issuing a series of increasingly irritated orders challenging the conduct of the trial judge, ordered Siegelman’s release from prison, remarking that his appeal had substantial prospects for success. This is particularly remarkable because the court ruled on the basis of the trial record itself, whereas the most dramatic evidence of misconduct and abuse was only unearthed after Siegelman went to prison. The disclosures link the prosecution team to illegal witness coaching and to the suppression of vital exculpatory evidence.
...
Siegelman’s appeal on the merits is proceeding with historically unprecedented support. Fifty-four former attorneys general have submitted a brief amicus curiæ in the case calling for the conviction to be thrown out.

I've been skeptical of all this Siegelman hoopla for some time. I mean, sure the prosecution was totally politically motivated and directed by the president's campaign strategist, and yes it's of a piece with the US Attorney purge, but at the end of the day a jury convicted this guy, right?

Apparently, maybe not. If this judge does overturn the conviction and Don Siegelman is shown to have been wrongly prosecuted for the second time, this is going to turn into a nightmare for the Republicans.

Imagine: Karl Rove directing the Justice Dept. to conduct a trumped up, politically-motivated prosecution of a popular Democratic governor and getting him convicted by withholding evidence and coaching witnesses.

it's official: Bush lied

From McClatchy (who else?):

WASHINGTON— A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence.

A companion report found that a special office set up by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld undertook "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department."
...
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate," Rockefeller said in a statement.

Among the reports conclusions:

* Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership "were not substantiated by the intelligence."

* The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabiliies.

* Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq's weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.

* Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.

Frankly, I have nothing more to say about this.

more of the same

Funny.

Howard Dean gives Hillary a little nudge

Here's the new front page of the DNC. Howard Dean is not exactly known as a man of subtlety.

it was the war

Atrios catches a new phenomenon, a new media blind spot as it unfolds in the post-mortems of the Clinton campaign: they find many, many reasons why Clinton lost, not a single one of them related to her Iraq War vote. I noted its presence the first time I saw it, but in the last 24 hours it has appeared three more times.

This is not difficult, and it's rather surprising that nobody is saying it: Obama had one major opening to join the primary, and that was that Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and everybody else (besides Kucinich) voted for the war. Aside from fairly minor differences in health care plans, that was really the only thing he could hold over Clinton and Edwards as a reason why he'd make a better president, and certainly the only position on which he could base an insurgent presidential campaign.

Nor are people exactly split on the war. As of the most recent poll, the number of Americans who believe that going to war with Iraq was "the wrong thing to do" stands at a whopping 62%, almost double the number of people who answered that it was the right thing. As Matthew Yglesias put it:

"...it's inconceivable to me that Obama's campaign could have gotten off the ground had Clinton spent 2002 and 2003 as a lonely liberal voice speaking out against the war, then spent 2005 and 2006 being completely vindicated in her judgment. It's not just that Obama wouldn't have beaten her, he wouldn't have run at all -- it would have been preposterous. She would have faced a from-the-right challenge in the primary that would have gotten some attention but never posed any real threat.

But Clinton's error on the war opened up serious doubts about her substantive and political judgment about one of the highest-profile issues of the moment. In many ways it's a testament to how brilliant her campaign was all throughout 2007 and 2008 that they never allowed the war issue to bury her, considering that an overwhelming majority of Democratic primary voters think she made a mistake. "

The war vote as Achilles' Heel also has irresistible narrative allure. I think there's very little doubt in most people's minds that Hillary Clinton voted to authorize war with Iraq not because she honestly believed it was the right thing to do, but because she believed she would have to if she ever wanted to be president. She's hardly alone in this; it's widely suspected that both John Kerry and John Edwards believed, and did, likewise.

And yet that one vote foiled the presidential ambitions of all three.

David Brooks, champion of the Common Man

From Kagro X @dKos:

How big of a douchebag is David Brooks?

He's such a big douchebag that he tries to criticize Barack Obama as not being an oh-so-regular guy (just like the tortoise shell spectacled and pink necktied drip Brooks is, of course) by saying:

[H]e doesn‘t seem like a guy who can go into an Applebee‘s salad bar and people think he fits in naturally there.

Only problem? David Brooks has apparently never stepped out of the limo and actually gone into an Applebees. Because they don't have salad bars.

Ouch.

When do you think any of these major media pundits will notice that bad things happen when they try to flash their "regular guy" credentials? Is there any profession with such pervasive delusions of austerity?

McCain flip flops, now supports Unitary Executive Theory

John McCain throws another keg of Bush Lite on the Crazy Train. From Wired:

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.
...
McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

What a maverick. I wonder, will pundits in our liberal media characterize this as a "flip flop" or ask if his foreign policy views are "serious?" Then again, perhaps this statement was pre-empted by the worst prebuttal speech ever.

guest post:A moment of positivity

You're so negative Derek. :)

Here's what the real story is tonight:


Over the course of this campaign Barak Obama has proven himself to be several things:

-Smart
-Passionate
-Eloquent
-Charismatic
-Politically ruthless
-A tough negotiator

and most of all

-Galvanizing

The man can just jack up a crowd. Last night I was up at 11:00 yelling my head off at the TV because the little Penguins had just flat out stolen the Stanley Cup from the hated Red Wings. Loved that. Tonight I was up at 9:00, cheering at the TV again - only this time because the world was hearing the Barak Obama that I've grown to admire and respect over the last several months.

No one will argue that the coming contest between he and McCain is going to be contentious, tightly fought, and ideologically weird. Demographics, swing states, issues, and gaffes will all be unpredictable and will all yield surprising skews one way or the other. But with all of the uncertainty in the air, if Obama continues to present himself with this much eloquence, charisma, and political prowess he's going to win and he's going to win big.

The coming debates are going to be great to watch. Given the last few election results I personally have a pretty high level of disdain for the American voting public, (and it is entirely possible that we'll screw this one up too) but for now lets sit back and enjoy the fact that our window may just be cracking open one more time.

the coming storm

The floodgates open and Obama has clinched the nomination.

Meanwhile, John McCain gives a smarmy prebuttal in New Orleans where he lambasted Barack for comparing McCain to President Bush. Anybody remember what John McCain was doing last time New Orleans was in the news?

Here's John McCain on August 29, 2005:


Here's New Orleans, August 29, 2005:

bad story! naughty story!

Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinski:

“Okay, umm…first of all, I think we covered the Hagee story as much, umm…the Reverend Wright situation injected itself into the news cycle for sure, but having said that, don’t you think that there is a difference or is there not, especially given the fact that he resigned from his church.”

I like that. The newsies covered the Hagee story, but not the Wright story; it injected itself into the cycle! The nerve of that story! Here was Scarborough and Brzezinski just minding their own business, doing their fair and objective jobs when along comes this story and forces itself onto the screen. And what were the poor reporters to do? The damage was done; the story had already decided it was going to force them to give it (he? she?) 4 months of constant airtime.

It's a hard world for newsies, always trying to be all objective and balanced but ultimately being victimized by rogue stories.

sustainable living: Ride Your Bike to Work Week, June 2-6

So this is the first edition of "sustainable living" that involves me trying something new and writing about it on the same day, without the benefit of at least 6 months or so of hindsight. One of the most important things we can do to save money and cut down on our carbon footprint at the same time is to cut the amount of driving we do, and the most obvious drive to cut (and in all likelihood the one that will save you the most cash and carbon) is the daily round trip to work. There are several good alternatives, including carpooling, public transportation, and good ol' pavement pounding, but none of these sound like a good fit for me. I don't live far from work, but it's just far enough away from work that walking would take a deep cut out of my morning, and yet if I wanted to take the bus, I would have to ride downtown and then hop a second bus to take me mostly back the way I came before turning toward campus.

Then I considered that a couple of my coworkers ride their bikes to work. That also would save me money and emissions (at least, after the initial trip across town to Target and $200 investment), and it would provide health benefits to boot. Even better, I discovered that it would only take me 5 or 10 more minutes to get to work on a bike than in my car, because the bike can cut across parts of campus that I currently have to drive around. Sure, I could get sweaty on the way, but I have my own office; I can close the door, change, and throw on some deodorant, or even go to the bathroom to wash my face. Meanwhile, I get a refreshing bike ride in the morning that (one hopes) would leave me more alert when I get to work. What's not to like?

I picked up a cheap bike at Target on Saturday, along with a helmet, air pump, spare tube, lock and chain, and back LED blinking light. There are other things I want as well, like a water bottle holder, front headlamp, and saddlebags for grocery trips, but I figure I'll wait and see how this works out before I go spending even more money to accessorize (the trip was already topping $250). Now for what it's worth, I've heard people on bicyclist forums talk about how you shouldn't waste your money on a cheap bike, but these are diehard types who inevitably insist on these forums that someone just starting out go spend $600 on a bicycle.

Read my lips, bike Nazis:

NA. GA. HAPPN.

So I get up this morning about an hour before my usual time, partly because I want to make sure I have time to get everything ready while in my bleary morning haze, partly because I didn't know how long the ride would take, and partly because I was nervous, and I wake up early when I'm nervous. I fill a backpack with a change of clothes for the gym after work and the bike lock (I forgot the spare tube), shove the helmet onto my gargantual cranium and strap it to both of my chins, pull the bike out of the garage, and clumsily wind my way through the alley and onto the street. At first it's going pretty well, though I can't get my bike to switch to 3rd gear (not sure what's going on there), when I get almost a mile down the road and my chain slips off the sprockets as I'm switching gears.

My first minor heart attack of the morning.

Luckily, I manage to get the chain back on without too much trouble and get started again. I'm actually enjoying this: the cool wind, the view (northern Indiana really is lovely in the summertime, and part of my trip runs along a river), the hills. The hills. And the pretty steep hill. Surprisingly steep hill. The where the hell did this come from? hill. And Oh sweet Christ, how steep is this motherf**ker?! Everything looks kind of blue. And I'm seeing spots.

My second minor heart attack.

Eventually I did reach the summit, and over the next couple of minutes my face returned to a normal color and I regained my vision of the full color spectrum. Before I knew it, I was at the library and chaining my bike up.

Total time: 25 minutes. Normal driving time (including walk from car to office door): 15-20 minutes. Not bad.

the bald hypocrisy of William Kristol

Absolutely amazing. After making a vaguely sinister implication regarding what Barack Obama did for 2 years after college*, and after arguing that $14,000 1985 dollars per year is actually a lot of money (it's $23,958; I make substantially more in an entry-level position at a library) Bill Kristol uses his NYT op-ed space to attack Barack Obama for not serving in the military and not exhorting college grads to join.

Guess who else never served in the military, even after graduating from college: Bill Kristol.

*in point of fact, Barack worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group, jobs that he left to go become a community organizer. Kristol, rather than openly admitting that these 2 years were spent in mundane work and thus are not relevant to Obama's discussion of service, instead merely states: "Leave aside the fact that two years elapsed between Obama’s graduation from Columbia in 1983 and his heading off to Chicago in 1985..." which insinuates he spent that time doing something that contradicts his message when, in fact, he did not. Twice in this column Kristol withholds information from the reader in order to open up space in the narrative to launch an attack: once here not disclosing what Obama did for 2 years so he can issues sinister innuendos about it, and in the next sentence where he states that $14k in inflation-adjusted dollars is "about what we pay entry-level editorial assistants today at The Weekly Standard" instead of attaching the dollar number to it that gives away the game. It demeans the New York Times to have someone deploying such grossly dishonest rhetorical legerdemain on their op-ed page.

"I'm made as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

Got Network from the Netflix queue this weekend. Wow, great movie. You can tell it heavily influenced Aaron Sorkin and the makers of Michael Clayton. Includes one of the best introductions of film history:

Diana Christensen: Hi. I'm Diana Christensen, a racist lackey of the imperialist ruling circles.
Laureen Hobbs: I'm Laureen Hobbs, a badass commie nigger.

Hogwash. Hogwash! Hogwash.

McClatchy, formerly Knight-Ridder, has consistently been the best press outfit in its reporting on Iraq, standing head and shoulders above everyone else. They took a moment last week to bitchslap Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, and the rest of 'em. I think it's gonna leave a mark.

Cake or death?

Continuing video day on MBATR, here's a cut of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or death" bit re-enacted with legos:

And for you Star Wars fans:

well, that should shore up the Log Cabin vote!

So I hear Charlie Crist is considered a slight favorite to become co-conductor of the Crazy Train. An interesting choice. Very interesting, in fact. Ya know your presidential candidate is up there in years when he can't tell this single 51-year-old man is a little light in his loafers.

Then again, maybe my gaydar would be a little off, too, if I spent as much time as McCain does with this single 52-year-old man:

optical illusion

Who is in this picture? Now get back, walk 15 feet away, and look again.

a replacement column for David Brooks

Presidential candidates should pick vice presidents who help them with the actual governing part of being a president, since they don't help with winning swing states.

John McCain should pick someone who makes up for his egregious inadequacies as a potential president, the fact that he's beholden to federal lobbyists, his virtually uncontrollable temper which makes him vulnerable to being manipulated in politics, and his relative ignorance and knee-jerk belligerence in matters of foreign policy. To help him with all these very, very many weaknesses, he should pick someone who's younger than him and is known as very virile and healthy man, and someone who knows a lot about being easily manipulated and about the dangers of a warmongering approach to foreign affairs. Whether they're from a swing state does not matter in my criteria, so he should choose George W. Bush.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, should find a VP who can complement so impressive a candidate without too much overlap. He should find someone with a solid military background, someone with government experience but not a lightning rod or a reputation for being highly partisan, preferably a former Republican. The candidate should also be tough and "no nonsense," who conveys the impression that this administration has the big stick (!) that helps so much in political matters. Swing state affiliation doesn't matter, again, so the best candidate for Barack is Jim Webb.

utterly, totally non-partisan column from David Brooks

This week David Brooks is on the subject of VP picks, and the overall thesis of his column is a good one, specifically that vice presidents seem to have much more effect on a president's administration than they do on his campaign.

But here's where David Brooks the nonpartisan sociologist elides seamlessly into David Brooks the right wing apparatchik. According to Brooks, Barack Obama needs a VP who can overcome all his myriad failures, from his inexperience to his naivety to the lack of substance in his strategy to the fact that he can't really bring people together. John McCain, meanwhile, just needs someone who can help him with problems in "the climate" and with other "forces." Don'tcha just love Republican weather metaphors? "There's a lot of partisanship in the air in Washington, and the climate is not conducive to our party getting elected. Nothing that's our fault, of course, it's not like we did anything to tarnish our brand! It's just the weather, ya know, out there." Unlike Barack Obama, the f**kup of the ages, the Crazy Train has no failures or weaknesses, apparently. Just some climactic issues, that's all!

And, of course, once you've bitten through the nonpartisan observer coating with the subtle "Democrats suck worse" flavor, you get to the creamy, concern troll shell, where Brooks genuinely, seriously, without any duplicity or ulterior motives (honest to God!) suggests that Obama, the "change we can believe in" candidate, pick Democratic brahmin has-been and failure Tom Daschle, while John McCain choose rising star, charismatic Tim Pawlenty. Seriously, Brooks says McCain should pick a successful governor with a lot of appeal (from a swing state, mind you), while Obama should pick a former Senate minority leader and partisan lightning rod from a safe GOP state who not only couldn't keep the Democrats on top in the Senate but who failed to hold onto his own seat while he was Minority Leader. Daschle's wife, by the way, is a federal lobbyist, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with Brooks' choice. I mean, it's not like her presence would nullify one of Barack's biggest advantages over McCain.

And the best part: whether the candidates pick Brooks' choices is a way to measure "who is thinking seriously about how to succeed in the White House." Take that, Democrats!

they're surrounded

I wonder, is it a common phenomenon for an embattled minority to start seeing everyone else as part of one monolithic enemy?

I'm increasingly seeing Clinton supporters blaming "Obama" for every bad thing that happens to Hillary or her campaign. Take this dKos diary, for instance. Among the things for which "obama and the democratic party" are to blame are:

being called a blitch

being bullied

having her own party refuse to acknowledge her votes and strong following

having her followers called racists on SNL

having her party's superdelegates do everything in their power to dissway [!] her voters and demand for her to step down even when she is leading in the popular and electoral vote [!]

blaming her for her husband's policies which brought more prosperity and peace to America [translation: Bill's policies were great, and how dare you blame Hillary for them!]

having her legs, hips, and cleavage ridiculed on the polulation's tvs

Apparently, "obama and the democratic party" can now include among their agents and proxies John McCain supporters, Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live, Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan, and Rush Limbaugh.

if I can't have it, neither can you

From the New York Times:

A day after Senator Barack Obama gathered a majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defiantly sent out new signals Wednesday that she might take her fight for the nomination all the way to the party’s convention in August.

Mrs. Clinton stumped across South Florida, scene of the 2000 election debacle, pressing her case for including delegates from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate tally.

Now why would she go stumping in Florida, I wonder? Couldn't she make this case from anywhere, like, say, the states that still have primaries? What is she trying to accomplish? Here's a hint:

“You didn’t break a single rule, and you should not be punished for matters beyond your control.”

Why would she want Floridians to feel "punished" if she doesn't become the nominee? If they felt that way, they'd be more inclined to vote for McCain, right?

Is she intentionally undermining Obama in a state that's already voted so that she can guarantee to the Democratic Convention that he loses to McCain? Why else would she do this? Is she really willing to sabotage the party's chances in November to gain an extra bargaining chip for superdelegates?

Jesus Camp

I actually put this movie into my Netflix queue expecting something more. It's shot well enough, and the filmmakers focused in on 2 kids, Rachael and Levi, that are at times frightening or heartbreaking, and always sympathetic. We all knew kids at some point that share Rachael's adorably frenetic way of speaking and Levi's earnest desire to please the adults in the room. Also, the focus at the end of the movie on Ted Haggard was, of course, prescient.

That being said, I think there's an element of scaremongering in the movie's billing that bothers me. The previews imply that Jesus Camp exposes the bible camps of "evangelical Christians" as places where they brainwash their kids into becoming the terrorists of the future. First of all, the movie doesn't focus just on generic "evangelical Christians”; it's a movie about Pentecostals, a pretty radical evangelical denomination. Yet they are used to represent all "evangelical Christians,” even though most evangelicals would find thing like prophecy and speaking in tongues and collapsing in church pretty bizarre. The willingness to stretch such an egregious example into a representation of the whole of evangelicalism makes me wonder to what degree the bible camp shown here is also anomalous.

Admittedly, just Pentecostals, or even just this woman, preparing kids for terrorism would be scary, but the movie doesn't deliver that, either. For all the military imagery used by the adults and kids, for all the uses of terms like "soldiers of Christ" and being prepared to die for God, the movie never establishes that these kids are willing, or taught to be willing, to do violence in the name of their religion. Anyone familiar with evangelicalism knows that the evangelical martyrdom fantasy involves not killing Muslims or bombing abortion clinics, but having a gun put to your head and being told to recant or die, and there's no evidence these people are picturing anything different. The woman running the camp even mentions at one point that she's NOT talking about violence.

What you're left with is a movie about parents with quirky religious perspectives who indoctrinate their kids with all their radical beliefs and political views without any respect for the children's freedom of thought or psychological well-being. That, however, is hardly peculiar to "evangelical Christians," and though sad, is not exactly something worth staying up at night worrying about.

saving on shaving, the straight story

Here is a neat concept: save cash on your shaving supplies in the long run by going old school. And I mean really old school: a straight razor. Badger and Blade crunches the numbers to show how using an old-fashioned cut-throat razor, complete with strops and honing, will save you about $5/month on your shaving needs.

Now, let's start out with the obvious: for the amount of work and learning of new skills and whatnot this requires, $5/month is a pretty shabby savings. They say every little bit adds up, and if you're making a bunch of similar savings, that would be true, but if you just switch to a straight razor, you'll never save enough cash to notice the difference.

What you may well notice, however, is the experience. A number of the commenters have noted that using a straight razor, along with a brush and cream from actual shaving soap (or just quality, natural non-canned shaving cream), makes shaving enjoyable rather than one of many morning chores.

I have to admit that this appeals to me. It probably wouldn't save me money, as I don't grow much facial hair, nor do I grow it quickly, and can use the same disposable razor for a long time. It would make more financial sense for me to invest in an electric razor, allowing me to shave faster, go years without replacing any blades, and stop buying cream entirely.

I'm a huge sucker, however, for Victorian era accoutrement. As the proud owner of a pocket watch, an engraved whiskey flask, and a three-piece suit, the prospect of having and learning to use a straight razor, along with the strop and cream and little brush and mug, makes me a little giddy and warms my fin-de-siecle soul.

negotiating with terrorists

Here's a good one: Who's the latest conservative to chide Barack Obama for saying he would negotiate with Iran?

I shit you not, folks: Oliver frakin' North.

teens: still not as bad as they say

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Ted Kennedy

Peace be with him and his family who have been through so much.

Kentucky and Oregon at the bat

Won't make exact predictions because I'm not really even paying attention to the numbers anymore. Hillary will complete her Appalachian sweep. Barack will win white voters in Oregon and lose them in Kentucky, so expect more people to ask why Obama can't win white voters. Barack will also secure the majority of pledged delegates tonight, and it looks like the press are going to give that fact some airtime. I suspect there will be somewhat significant movement in Obama's favor among the superdels, as many will simply run out of excuses to stay on the fence.

Expect Hillary to crack 60% in Grims' Olde Kentucky Home, and Barack to score near that in Oregon.

and they got an article in the LA Times for this

From Yahoo! News:

Hillary Clinton is smart and forceful, John McCain is proud but has a volatile temper, and Barack Obama is a diplomat who deals well with different people and situations.

At least, that's what graphologists say their handwriting reveals about them.

"Handwriting is a reflection of the inner personality. It shows a person's ego strength, how good they feel about themselves, their intellectual, communication and working styles," graphologist Sheila Lowe, author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Handwriting Analysis", told AFP.

Wow, how enlightening! Hillary Clinton is smart and assertive?! John McCain has a temper? How on earth could someone have divined such a thing? Graphology must be the most accurate science since, well, astrology! Or the Meyers-Briggs test!

Another graphologist had a different interpretation of the bisected O.

"He draws that circle and a line through it, and it's really like he has two different worlds," said Paula Sassi, who has been interpreting handwriting for 28 years.

"I think it shows his black and white heritage."

Tres scientific!

John McCain does not believe in your right to privacy

...and, if he is elected president, he will appoint the final judge who takes it from you forever.

I can't hammer it enough that this is the single starkest consequence of a Republican presidential victory in 2008, and if John McCain wins, it will happen. The Supreme Court currently has 4 diehard, social conservatives who don't believe in the right to privacy. There are 2 ancient justices who are likely to retire within the next couple of years, and they're both liberal. John McCain has already said on multiple occasions that he will appoint "strict constructionist" judges, which is dog whistle for anti-right to privacy. John McCain has also already said that he thinks Roe v. Wade, which relies entirely on the right to privacy, should be overturned. Why would he do anything other than to appoint another socially conservative judge? And why would anti-Roe groups do anything other than to bring an lawsuit before the Court when that happens? And why on earth would 5 socially conservative, "strict constructionist" judges in the most politicized Supreme Court in decades do anything other than to hand their side their greatest victory in who knows how long?

If Justice Scalia were presiding in a case over the constitutionality of the right to privacy or abortion, would you bet your rights on him doing a 180 and voting with Ginsburg and Souter? What about Alito? Thomas? Roberts?

they are who they are

Yglesias finds a postmortem of the Clinton campaign as it circles the drain, a laundry list of things she should have done differently, and notices an odd omission: no mention of her vote for the Iraq War.

Yglesias argues, and I think correctly, that the Obama campaign wasn't just aided by Clinton's cynical warmongering; it was justified by it. For all Barack's strengths, the central "issue" distinction he had with Hillary all the way through Iowa was that he was against the war from the start. That was it. Remember the endless judgment vs. experience debates? And yet apparently on that issue alone Obama was able to sway liberals and college-educated voters away from Clinton. It should be mentioned as well that African Americans fight and die in our wars in disproportionately large numbers, and typically are keenly aware of this fact. Thus Clinton's losing battle for the black vote may at least partially trace back to her war vote as well.

Remember, unlike Hillary, Barack is young enough that he could have waited to run for president until he accumulated more experience, and in fact had originally planned to do exactly that. He must have seen an opening this year, and what else could it have been?

As a strong Obamacan, I have to admit that it was the war that initially drew me to him as a presidential candidate. If Clinton had voted against the war, I don't know that the other stuff would have been enough for me to go with him.

Then again, this is quickly becoming an "If Hillary Clinton were someone other than Hillary Clinton" argument. The mindset that led to her vote to authorize military force in Iraq is the very one that drove, most obviously, her vote for the Iran resolution, but that cynical and tone deaf approach to politics, the willingness to sacrifice sound judgment on the altar of political expediency, also explains the flag-burning amendment, her anti-video game violence bill, her vote for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, and the retainment of Mark Penn. It's also the same cynicism that drives decisions to tar Barack with the "left wing" brush, which is not only hypocritical but is the classic Clinton shiv into the kidneys of the party's base, a reviled tactic now commonly referred to as "triangulation" (Et tu, Hillary?). And, of course, this cynicism is also evidenced in her eye-rolling transformation, without hint of irony, into a Boilermaker-drinking working class hero.

I would have definitely voted for a Hillary Clinton excised of all this baggage, but at that point aren't we really talking about someone else entirely, some fictional current Senator and former First Lady who merely resembles Hillary Clinton?

Which brings me to another point, which is perhaps best explained by historical analogy. It regards the otherwise hapless Confederate Major General George Pickett. Pickett was the eponymous commander of Pickett's Charge, the epic climax of the Battle of Gettysburg, a disastrous mile-long march into concentrated Union fire that cost Pickett the majority of his division, General Lee the battle, and the Confederacy an opportunity to march on Washington itself. Years later someone asked Major General Pickett how it was that the South failed to win the battle, and Pickett famously replied, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

In a battle between real candidates, it now appears that beating Obama would have required something much more than changes in strategy. This was a year of particularly strong Democratic candidates, and yet Barack beat them all, even while spending some of that time being used as a punching bag by the entire Republican establishment for his opinion on talking to enemy nations. This year's John Edwards, for instance, was a far stronger, more wily opponent than the 2004 Edwards that gave Kerry and the entire Democratic establishment a decent run, and Hillary Clinton whupped his ass. Perhaps this primary was less about Hillary's mistakes than about Barack's strengths as a candidate.

long time, no post

Sorry about the lack of posts the last week or so. I spent the last week in Hotlanta, and after that library school started, so my posting may be a little lighter for a while. Or not.

the morning after bitter pill

I mentioned last night that, out of nowhere, the media has turned violently against Clinton, with Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, the two biggest pundits on the biggest news staff, declaring the contest over and Barack Obama the nominee.

It continues this morning. Bob Shrum, as interviewed in The New York Times:

“The people who have her best interests at heart, they would now say to her, ‘You ought to really think about not protracting this, because you will only look selfish in the weeks to come,’ ” Mr. Shrum said. “Her Pennsylvania win bought her permission to go on. But then her narrow victory in Indiana and this smashing defeat in North Carolina — there is no rationale for her to continue.”

Say what you will about his record as a strategist (and I often do), his opinion is hot s**t in Washington and, to my knowledge, he has no horse in this race.

Meanwhile, Paul Begala, former strategist for Bill and current Hillary supporter, goes on national TV and calls Obama supporters "eggheads and African Americans." Here we see the sentiment behind Clintonian triangulation, specifically that the party can and should shit on liberals, seculars and blacks with impunity because, let's face it, they have nowhere else to go. Liberals, seculars, and feminists, in fact, are the only demographics that you can explicitly slander on national TV without ever having to worry that someone will come to their defense. No one ever does.

So screw 'em, right? The party's got them over a barrel so, if beating on them in public makes the bubbas like you, do it! After all, it's not as if such behavior has ever had electoral consequences.

late night in Hoosierville

So...much...egg...on face...

Barack's popular vote margin in North Carolina eclipses Hillary's in Pennsylvania. And at the moment, the mayor of Gary is claiming that the city may have brought high enough turnout to cover Obama's statewide deficit.

Holy God. Tim Russert on MSNBC:

"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and nobody is going to dispute that."

Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann agree that the race is over.

Hillary has canceled all public appearances tomorrow. This is a big deal.

1,627

That's the alternate magic number: a majority of pledged delegates. Obama currently has 1493. There are 187 to be decided tonight, meaning that Barack probably won't reach the pledged delegate magic number this week, but he'll be damn close. Expect him to reach it by May 20, the Kentucky primary.

voting day in Hoosierland

Alright, Hoosiers, make your mamas proud!

My predictions: Indiana looks more like Ohio than any other state. Clinton has played on Hoosiers' fears well, though she's been pretty egregiously craven about it, floating this gas tax holiday foolishness and whatnot. Furthermore, Evan Bayh has been going all out for Clinton, and he's the big dog in Indiana Democratic politics, being a current popular Senator and former popular governor. Obama's got the northwest probably as deep in as South Bend, plus Indianapolis and Bloomington, but every poll shows him capping at around 44%. I think Indiana screws the pooch, 53-47 Clinton.

Also, in the gubernatorial primary, I'm going with Long Thompson over Schellinger by 10. Long Thompson is playing Clinton's gas tax game, and my gut tells me Hoosier Democrats don't pay enough attention to see through the ruse. Clearly, the Clinton and Thompson pollsters feel it, too, or they wouldn't have suggested a position that exposes the candidates as panderers on both the the budget and the environment. Jill also has higher name recognition having already run for virtually every office Indiana has to offer.

In North Carolina, Obama should win out, but it will be closer than it should have been. What can I say? When you're getting tag teamed by the the governor, the Crazy Train, Clinton, and her 527, while the media's replaying Rev. Wright's greatest hits nonstop, it's gonna hold your numbers down a bit. A team of this size demolished Howard Dean's campaign in a couple of weeks. The Tarheel State goes for Barack, 52-48.

learning to pick your battles

Via Cristina Page there's news that people opposing birth control are planning to protest the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the court decision that guaranteed the right for married women to use birth control by recognizing an implicit constitutional right to privacy. Frankly, this is a protest that I just don't understand, and I mean that in the strategic sense. I don't understand why anyone would take up this fight.

Now I can understand, tactically speaking, waging a campaign to ban abortion, even though I don't agree with it ethically or politically. The procedure is visually disturbing and the idea of people having it done "wantonly" offends a lot of people. Even for the people who want it to be legal, it's not something you could ever call "popular," and virtually nobody is willing to mount an unqualified defense of the practice. It's pretty easy to gin up support for a movement to "get the sluts to take responsibility for their actions instead of killing their children."

Birth control gets a might trickier, though, as you're now talking about something that just about everyone uses or has used at some point in their lives. Condoms, for all that can be said about sensitivity and having to apply at awkward moments and whatnot, have saved a lot of people a lot of heartache, not to mention a lot of lives, and that's before we even bring up The Pill. We didn't pass over medications curing all manner of diseases and helping us sleep and focus and stop seeing hallucinations in favor giving the oral contraceptive the moniker of "The Pill," for nothing: The Pill is a magical thing. It prevents pregnancy with extremely high efficiency. Using The Pill lessens the need to stop in the middle of the warm-up to fiddle with other contraptions and jellies and whatnot (assuming, of course, you two are safe STD-wise). It regulates menstrual cycles. It decreases your chances of developing ovarian and endometrial cancer. It can even reduce acne, for Christ's sake! I mean, my God, the only people who love The Pill more than men are women! Trying to get people to support a movement banning The Pill is no easy thing.

But the pro-lifers and the anti-"judicial activism" people aren't stopping there; they are even waging a rhetorical assault on the right to privacy. The right to privacy. In a time when people are chaffing against the government's ever increasing desire to monitor our phone calls and web activity and library records, when people on the Left decry the "police state" and people on the Right rail against "big government," the pro-lifers are trying to convince people to support laws and politicians who will take away their right to privacy. Anyone wanna place bets on the outcome of this battle?

Say goodnight, San Jose

[Watch Sharks number 9 Milan Michalek circle behind the net and toward the top-right of your screen.]

A game for the ages, and one legendary check, sends the Dallas Stars to the NHL West finals. Stars' Morrow sinks a power play goal to end it at 9:03 into the fourth overtime, at around 2:15am ET Sunday morning.

Now it's off into the Heart of Darkness.

[Joe Louis Arena, home of the Detroit Red Wings, artist's rendition]

Tony Zirkle: the commercial

Yes, folks, there is a campaign commercial, and it's delicious. Unfortunately I couldn't find any video of it, but I did find a transcript on Tony Zirkle: the website. It shows the Z-man on a black background saying, super-fast so as to fit it all in before the next commercial:

Hello, I’m Tony Zirkle, Republican Candidate for Congress

Some of you have been deeply offended at my campaign tactics, and for inciting your legitimate feelings, I am truly sorry and do apologize.

However, it is my sincere hope that some day that many of you will finally realize why I had to do what I did because the Republican non-leadership would not let Toth, Chocola, or this new good-hearted guy, who seems to help his opponents almost every time he attacks less than fully cocked, debate me fairly in the public square.

You have to fight with the weapons you have.

The truth is that I only said I’d be willing to debate, in stage 4 [of Zirkle's proposed 4-tiered system of criminal justice], "the idea" of the guillotine for 4 or more time serial pre-aged 12 child rapists.

Self-determination slavery reparation segregation is a human right honored in International law and is neither racist nor bigoted. What could be less loving than to ignore the high crime, single parent and std rates in that community?

No father of 3 beautiful Jewish Christian children (their mother converted) is going to be voting to gas innocent ones.

If you want a politician, you’ll have to vote for someone else. If you want a statesman in training, you’ll have to just hold your nose, take a risk and vote for Tony Zirkle on May 6 because I’m the only one on the ballot.

Please visit my campaign site.

I’m Tony Zirkle and this pro-life, anti-porn message now stands approved.

His campaign site says he also plans to run for senator and president! How exciting is that?!

the rise of the wee machines

From the New York Times:

DETROIT — Soaring gas prices have turned the steady migration by Americans to smaller cars into a stampede.

In what industry analysts are calling a first, about one in five vehicles sold in the United States was a compact or subcompact car during April, based on monthly sales data released Thursday. Almost a decade ago, when sport utility vehicles were at their peak of popularity, only one in every eight vehicles sold was a small car.

The switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles has been building in recent years, but has accelerated recently with the advent of $3.50-a-gallon gas. At the same time, sales of pickup trucks and large sport utility vehicles have dropped sharply.

In another first, fuel-sipping four-cylinder engines surpassed six-cylinder models in popularity in April.

“It’s easily the most dramatic segment shift I have witnessed in the market in my 31 years here,” said George Pipas, chief sales analyst for the Ford Motor Company.

The article says that the "Big 3" (really the Big 4 not including Toyota) are putting most of their investment cash into small cars now, but I'm afraid to say I think that ship has sailed.

but remember, the black guy from Chicago is the elitist

Apparently Clinton felt that the rich don't get enough pandering in this country, so she made her O'Reilly appearance a chance to assure them that she's their candidate.

I am glad she reminded everyone that it's Obama who's for raising the payroll tax cap and not her. Good to know that it's Obama and not Clinton who's for the only permanent solution to Social Security solvency that doesn't include raising the tax itself (which only counts the first $90k of your income, disproportionately affecting the poor and middle class) or cutting the already criminally low benefit checks. I guess that means that, if you're poor/middle class, your income is subject to the payroll tax, and you will be needing Social Security to live on when you retire, Obama's your candidate. If, however, you're rich, your income comes from pay over $90k/year, capital gains and/or an estate, and you won't even notice your Social Security checks 20 years after you retire in your 40's, then Clinton is a perfect fit for you.

Glad she cleared that up.

People are going to jump all over the "rich people-- God bless us" line of hers as it's an easy soundbyte to latch onto and it's a lovely compliment to the $109 million tax form thing, but I wish I knew what she was trying to say with that line. She was in the middle of qualifying it when O'Reilly cut her off (mirabile dictu!), and I just wonder what would have possessed her to say that.

guest post: our window

I know that this type of post can be found in various forms all over the internet on a daily basis, but I've got to get it off my chest all the same.

There I am, lying dead asleep this morning as the rain falls gently outside my window, when the dog (terrified thing that she is) tries to jump up and sleep on my face. I send her back to her own bed and am suddenly stricken with a kind of sadness that hits me from time to time when I start to think about the way that things are.

I realized that it has been weeks since I watched an Obama speech, and when you consider that the man is both a magnificent orator and a campaigning presidential candidate that can be a long time. It has been weeks since I thought anything positive about this race. And weeks since anything worthwhile has been covered.

We had a small window there that we probably should have made it a point to enjoy while it was open.

After the New Hampsire primary in early January, Barak Obama gave a speech that was so inspiring that it moved a number of high-profile artists to put it to music and create the kind of viral grassroots thing that shapes internet culture in a vast and dramatic way. It leaped forward into the mainstream media, and the political discourse moved significantly away from gossip, Bush bashing, and vacuous pontification and significantly towards a real discussion of how we as Americans can begin to reunite and re-influence this government in a real and positive way.

And the window was open.

And it stayed open for a remarkably long time, when you consider the forces that rushed to the sill and applied all of their collective weight to slam it back shut. Clinton called the speeches "empty" and mocked them. McCain and Romney subtly asserted that all democrats are terrorists and that we'll be overrun with car bombers and taxes if they succeed. The 24-hour cable news outlets collectively craned their necks and dug for more gossip to cover.

Together as a group they leaned on the window, trying to slam it shut. The light was still shining through it however, and the American people (who hadn't seen political sunlight in quite some time) weren't ready to just let it get slammed on them. They handed Obama multiple and sizeable victories, hung on every speech, and sent ratings of said speeches through the roof. The news outlets were forced to acknowledge this phenomenon and to cover it, but they hated it because they could not control it. In newsrooms across the country, news directors reluctantly broadcast speech after speech, waiting for something to break so that they could return to the inane gossip, biased punditry, and false outrage that steadies ratings and keeps food on their tables.

Then it happened. Sean Hannity, who automatically displays a loathing for any American with a D next to his name, pushed reverend Wright into the spotlight from his pulpit on the right wing of Fox News' stage. The media pounced, digging into the story that they had been waiting so patiently for. An endless loop of a 2 second clip still hasn't gone away.

When the video emerged the window neared the sill, and Obama himself walked over to try to keep it open. He gave a speech the likes of which I've never witnessed in my adult life, but then i wasn't around for Kennedy. He spoke honestly, directly, and sincerely. He treated Americans like adults, and the news outlets responded like children.

And just like that, the window was slammed shut the moment Obama walked off of that stage. It may open again, if Obama is allowed to discuss actual issues once again, but I won't be holding my breath.

the best Atrios post ever

Concise. Simple. Brutal. And, of course, poops on TIME.

Lurita Doan, you may remember, was one of the more colorful appointees in the GSA who, among other things, held a meeting within the agency asking how they all could help "our candidates" in 2006. And yes, that is illegal.

the hunt for the Cup

For those of you interested, Rene has a series of running posts on the Stars' surprisingly dominant performance during the NHL playoffs. They're on pace to hose the Sharks in the next couple of days, and barring some sort of 2004 Yankees-style meltdown in Detroit, it's on to the Red Army from there.

Rene's been a hockey fiend for years now and can give you better analysis than most of the guys who get paid for it, so if you dig the Stars, you should check him out.

sustainable living: paper or plastic? No thanks!

Sorry I've fallen off of this series lately, to be honest, I just totally forgot about it!

Anyway, I thought I'd hit on a short topic today: shopping bags. Most people get little plastic bags at the grocery store, use them once, maybe use them again, and then toss them. These bags don't decompose well, however, not even the ones that claim they do. Some bags break up into smaller bits quickly while others don't, but they all take as much as 1000 years to decompose. In the meantime, these poor unloved bags end up taking up space in landfills (100 billion of them at last count) or swirling around in the Pacific, trillions of them forming a dead zone twice the size of Texas.

Not to mention the minor problem of our dependence on foreign oil: plastic bags are generally made from petroleum. The "biodegradable" ones, meanwhile (which still last for centuries in landfills), are made from corn, which perpetuates our over-reliance on that crop, fueling a feedback loop that leads to corn insinuating itself into virtually everything we consume... but that's a story for another time.

Anyway, if I were like your average lazy reporter I would finish my article comparing plastic to paper bags. Which one degrades faster? Which one costs less energy to make? Which one should I use to minimize my impact on the environment? Except, there is an easy answer: neither.

Meet the reusable canvas bag!

Canvas bags are made typically from hemp or cotton. They last a long time, but that's fine because you reuse them every time you shop. They're cheap: most grocery stores sell ones already emblazoned with their logo for $.99 each. You don't have to buy many, though, because these bags will hold a lot more than plastic bags. The ones we bought from Meijer have little pockets on the sides so the bagger can keep fragile items or soaps and whatnot separated from the rest. Our 10- to 12-bag shopping trips have become 3-baggers thanks to these bad boys, which means no more second trips back out to the car when we're bringing in our groceries. With our cold, rainy weather and detached garage that's a pretty big deal.

Obviously, we had to find alternatives for the old plastic bags we were using around the house, at least as far as daily chores go. Of course, the only advantage a plastic bag has over the canvas ones is disposability, so the canvas bags are an adequate (and often superior) substitute in any task that doesn't end with you throwing away the bag and its gross contents (for us, cleaning the litter boxes). Frankly, you still accumulate some bags on the occasion that you forget to bring your canvas ones or overdo your grocery intake or something, so we still have a couple of plastic bags lying around for that rare chore that requires a bag but doesn't happen often enough to justify buying a bag for it. For the ones that do, such as bringing lunch to work, we just bought a smaller canvas lunch bag online.

People who write articles and feel an overwhelming need to provide balance (where "balance"= proving that all options are equally shitty even when they're not) are dismissive of reusable bags because "you just forget about them in the car anyway." This is true at first, as you get used to the idea of bringing your own bags to the store, but it passes relatively quickly. After a month or so of leaving them in the car half the time, it's now become habit for us to pop open the trunk whenever we get out of the car at the grocery store and the farmer's market.

There are a lot of changes we've made that have some drawback. Buying better meats and produce costs more, gardening takes time and effort, home improvements require a significant initial outlay of cash, etc. I can honestly say, however, that the canvas bags have been an unalloyed positive in our lives, to the degree that we even notice the change, anyway. They're cheap, effective, and have blended seamlessly and effortlessly into our lifestyle.

laying the smackdown on gas tax holidays

Mittheads rejoice!

I'm still not a huge fan of the idea of putting Clinton on the ticket, but it would be delicious for one thing: the chance to watch Hillary Clinton deliver a rhetorical People's Elbow on Mitt Romney's pretty pretty face in a nationally televised VP debate.

Do you smell what the Hillrod is cooking?

for all you little Hulkamaniacs

So, if it stars Edward Norton, Tim Roth, and William Hurt, it has to be good. Right?