As Atrios indicates, this is not for the faint of heart. I've heard people make noise about depleted uranium before, but this is the first time I've seen what it can do. I trust Vanity Fair more than some flash movie of unknown origin, so I may be picking up a copy to learn more...
Scary Shit: filkertom has a terrifying video up on his blog. The pictures are seriously terrifying and should not be looked at by children. This month's Vanity Fair has an article on the same topic. The US has been using depleted uranium (DU) in Iraq. The results, for people in Iraq and American soldiers, are truly terrifying. We're dispersing this stuff into Iraq's air, earth, water. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. And last time I checked, the air over Iraq and water in Iraq don't stay in Iraq for 4.5 billion years, so we can expect at some point to, rather literally, reap what we've sown.
I don't normally respond to these, but I've crossed a few borders in my time, so I'll share, even though my stories are pretty tame:
A couple of years ago at Thanksgiving, for grace my wife and I solemnly intoned:
Missä asuu Joulupukki?
Joulupukki asuu Suomessa.
Everyone said "Amen" and got ready to sit down until my aunt started laughing and said, "Wait, don't you want to know what that means?" Here's the translation:
Where does Santa live?
Santa lives in Finland.
It's true, too. And yes, it's just as picturesque as the article describes.
Josh Marshall has a couple of posts up tossing around the idea of making the contents of bills available to the public at large (initial post and some reactions). Some are expressing concern over what would do to "the process," and it's probably true that well-organized groups could cause a ruckus over what's in some bills. Still, I don't think that's a good argument in a democracy for keeping things secret until a bill has been delivered to the president and signed into law. No one ever said that democracy was supposed to be efficient, after all. I say, publish everything on the net and let the ruckus begin!
Juan Cole has an excellent post looking at the notion of academia being full of liberals.
Atrios has a rant up about the whole red state blue state thing. He says that the red-blue divide isn't trye, that it's not smart to dwell on it, and that to do so falls into their trap.
While I agree with much of what he writes, I have to disagree about his assertion that there is not such a thing as a red state/blue state divide. While it's true that most states were split between Bush & Kerry, breaking the vote down into county or other regional grouping to uncover the Kerry vote doesn't necessarily mean that a state is more blue than what it initially appears. For example, I live in a county with a large university, which typically goes Democratic. The surrounding counties tend to go Republican. However, while Clarke county went something like 60% Kerry, the surrounding counties were all more than 70% for Bush. So by one standard you could say that Georgia is less "red" than it otherwise appears. However, as a region we're so overwhelmingly conservative that to call it anything but a red state would be to miss the forest for the trees.
This post on Atrios gave me one of those "really" moments. Infant mortality isn't something I normally give much thought to, but next time you hear someone crowing about how the US has the "greatest healthcare system in the world," you might want to point them at this:
Here's the short version. The US ranks 35, just above Cuba and Croatia.GeographyIQ - World Atlas - Rankings - Infant mortality rate (All Ascending)
Some are reporting that IE's share is dropping. It's still hovering at 90%, but with any luck we're beginning to see the start of something. Picture me with fingers crossed. I would dearly love to see IE get taken down a peg or twelve, as it has become the bane of my existence. Every week I discover some new CSS quirk or deficiency in IE that forces me to recode or implement some kludge to get functioning properly. If you're using Internet Explorer, please do us all a favor and switch.
My apologies for the Kenny Loggins reference, but it seemed apt for the graphic in this Atrios post. The short version is that little, if any, progress has been made in Iraq over the last six months, and in some areas there has been significant regression. Some of the trend lines are a little scary, and none of them are in what I would consider to be good territory. I suppose they don't really show a highway to the danger zone, so much as they seem to show a loop around it. It's like we're going around and around, and can't quite figure out which exit to take to get off.
The post is somewhat rambling, but it's a start at taking on what will likely be a new buzzword tossed around by the Right: the Ownership Society. Bush and his gang would have you believe that they're trying to promote everyone being in charge of their own destiny by becoming "owners," etc. Sounds great, but underneath the pretty words is a pretty ugly reality. Unfortunately, the pretty words are all that a lot of people will hear. An "ownership society" is designed to help those who own. Those who don't, well...they get to pay those who own. What I want is an "opportunity society" which helps those who want to make something for themselves, not those who are only sitting on past gains.
Oh, goody. Sir Paul is going to perform at the Super Bowl. He should keep his boobies under wraps. Let's just hope the Depends aren't too noticeable.
I don't know that this would get much play beyond C-SPAN, but these sound like some fun ways to embarrass Republicans.
Calling Republicans "the party of moribund hubris" is all well and good, if you know what the hell "moribund hubris" means. I may find Red staters baffling in many respects, but I can guaran-fucking-tee you one thing-- "moribund hubris" is not a phrase that's going to resonate with most of them. Try "hypocritical assholes" instead, or if the cursing is going to get you in trouble, try "corrupt weasels."
Runoff election this time, for school board & some judge position. Fortunately we have contacts who can give us some guidance on such matters.
In other news, it looks like some folks are agitating for a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio...
The precise advice is to "Shut the fuck up," and it's directed at Ken Pollack, who wrote a book that helped some justify the war in Iraq. As it happens, much of what he wrote turned out to be crap. Now he's written a book about Iran...
Mostly because I'm too busy at the moment to think. Insert your own sarcastic remarks after you read this.
This reminded me of a story one of my old French teachers told me about someone who got busted speeding by an automated camera, so he backed up and stole the camera.
I find dancing seas of M&Ms, giddy swiffering, Old Navy, and random increases in volume objectionable, so I don't see why I should be allowed to skip them.
Wired News: Senate May Ram Copyright Bill: "The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers."
Forget Dewey Decimal & the Library of Congress. Pantone is obviously the way to go.
(via ni.vu.ni.connu)
As you hear about the purges at the CIA, keep in mind that these are political people pushing out the professionals, and in recent history while the professionals have gotten some things wrong, the political folks have been way off. Josh Marshall gets to the point:
If you think this is just a Washington squabble or political debating point you'd be mistaken. Because your lives, and those of your families and friends, may very well be on the line.
Yes:
If it's too icky to show, maybe it's too icky for us to be doing it?
Here's hoping that Rice at State isn't the disaster it could be. Juan Cole offers some thoughts worth reading on Powell and Rice...
File this in the category of "People who think they're quoting the Bible when they're not." Now to be fair, this particular person was actually quoting Shakespeare, but it's much funnier to think she's quoting Meatloaf. In fact, I may just start quoting Prince and tell people that it came from the Bible. For it is written, verily that "I never meant 2 cause u any sorrow/ I never meant 2 cause u any pain/I only wanted 2 one time see u laughing/ I only wanted 2 see u laughing in the purple rain "
The Poor Man: Kaye Is Lord: "In honor of Kaye, I've compiled a short list of things which people might think are in the Bible, but which actually aren't:
Live and let die.
Ooh baby, do you know what that's worth? Ooh heaven is a place on earth.
Jesus H. Christ it's cold out here!
Though it's cold and lonely in the deep dark night I can see paradise by the dashboard light.
I may be a tiny chimney sweep, but I have an enormous brush.
Thou shalt not pay a lot for this muffler.
The Humpty Dance is your chance to do the hump."
Still going through the free HBO stuff we recorded over the weekend, and watched the latest Chris Rock special last night. At one point he started into a bit on some stuff in the US that he sees as messed up, but before he did so he made sure to state very clearly that he loves America, thinks it's the best country in the world, etc. There was also a large video monitor showing an American flag the whole time he was ranting about whatever it was he was going on about. Now I don't doubt that Chris does love America, but when did it become necessary that any critique of this country be prefaced with the critic professing undying loyalty the the U.S. of A? Are we as a country really that insecure? Can we not deal with a rant from someone and just take it as a given that the criticism is ultimately coming from a place of goodwill?
While I hate to give this guy more publicity than what he's already got as a contributor to our local paper, I feel like it's time to rebut Mr. Yarbrough. These are just excerpts from his latest column, but you can read the whole thing if you'd like.
. . . .
There is an incestuous relationship between the national media and the Democrats. We watched Dan Rather try to sandbag the president late in the campaign and then discovered his producer called the Democrats and gave them a heads-up to contact Bush's accuser in Texas. In short, we perceived the media ganging up on President Bush and at least 59 million of us didn't like it.
Ok, so Dan Rather's a bonehead. However, to use that as an example in tying the national media to the Democrats is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps Dick hasn't heard of Fox News, which is practically a mouthpiece for the Republican party, or Sinclair Broadcast Group, which earlier this year pre-empted a respectful reading of the names of war dead in Iraq, and then had its own fiasco over a "news" piece slamming Kerry. Then there's Clear Channel, which dominates radio in this country and has not been shy about siding with conservatives. At this very moment, the same "liberal media" that Dick is so concerned about is now falling all over itself to declare Bush has a tremendous mandate based on...what, 51% of the vote? Some liberal media.
Democrats are as out of touch with American values as are the national media. Democrats thought they could win the election without the South. As I said a year ago, it can't be done. We represent the traditional values that can get you elected - or defeated.
Actually, anyone can win an election without the South. Ohio would have done it for Kerry, after all. Last I checked, Ohio was a yankee state.
The big question here though, is what the heck does Dick mean by "traditional values?" I keep seeing this phrase tossed about everywhere, but I never see anyone spell out exactly what that means. Just once I'd like to see a list. In the last election, Bush spoke about restoring "honor and dignity" to the White House. In the context of the later years of the Clinton presidency, I have to assume that he meant there would be no blowjobs from interns in the White House while he was in office. This year the only "values" I heard anyone talk about were gay marriage, and frankly I don't see how preventing two people who love each other from being able to express that fits into any definition of "traditional values" that I'm aware of.
It is astonishing to me the Democrats made Michael Moore such a visible part of their campaign, even having him at their national convention. Had anyone asked, I would have said to stay as far away from that guy as possible. He is bad news. And he was.
Michael Moore, Michael Moore, Michael Moore...yeah, he's a blowhard and a publicity hound. He wasn't part of the campaign, though. He's famous, and the media likes to show famous people. He was at the Republican convention, too. Does that make him a part of the Republican campaign?
. . . .
The national Democratic Party is currently being held hostage by a host of special-interest groups. Zell Miller tried to tell them that, and all he got for his trouble was abuse from his own party. Whether you like Zell Miller or not - and I do - he was correct. Whether Democrats learned anything or not remains to be seen.
The European media wonder out loud how 59 million of us can be so stupid as to re-elect George W. Bush. Fifty-nine million of us look on Europe and think they are a bunch of lazy has-beens living in the 18th century who couldn't exist without our money.
This column will surely engender the usual bromides from elitists on the dangers of "majority rule," and I will receive numerous reminders of Samuel Johnson's comment that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I would suggest majority rule is better than minority rule and sloganeering is the first refuge of people too out of touch to understand that Americans, for the most part, are good, decent people perfectly capable of making quality decisions.
Like the national news media and those who rule the Democratic Party, the sloganeers don't have a clue how the rest of us think. As far as I am concerned, they can all take their "cultural divide" and shove it.
Ok...first, no one said anything about "minority rule." However, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. When those of us on the left fight for the rights of minorities, whether they be gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor, Protestant, Catholic, red-staters, blue-staters, cat-lovers, dog-lovers, whatever-- what we're fighting for is the right of all people to live their lives as they please. That's a tradional value in America that I'm proud of, and that I'm scared as hell is disappearing. Zell may call them "special interest groups." I call them Americans. There will come a day when white good-ole boys are in the minority (it's already happened in some parts of the country), and I hope for their sake that someone sticks up for them.
In checking my logs, I see that a number of people seem to be arriving here looking for contriteness over the last election. I believe what you're really looking for is this:
Me, I'm not really sorry. Well, I'm sorry that America is full of nitwits, yes. Ok, half full, but still. I would describe myself as more annoyed. Irritated, maybe. Disgusted, sure. Sort of a "fine, but don't come crying to me when this all blows up in your face" kind of a mood.
Kevin Drum reviews a bit of recent history, and ends with this:
Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power.
Remember that the next time you hear one of them whining about the "unprecedented" use of the filibuster by Democrats. It wouldn't have come to this in the first place if it weren't for the unprecedented destruction of senatorial tradition ruthlessly engineered by Senate Republicans over the past six years.
The image I get is of two guys preparing for a duel (Zell should like this metaphor), and one of them has gone into the weapons cases and removed some of the choices. BB gun...no, might lose an eye. Tazer...no, might cause a seizure. Club, no. Mace, no. Slingshot, no. Sword, no... Come time to meet on the field, all that's left is the bazooka. Wha- wha??? How dare you point that thing at me!
This is the second review I've see today that calls "Polar Express" "creepy." Hopefully this will be a lesson to filmmakers. Motion-capture is great for gross body movement, but if you're going to have subtle facial expressions you're better off animating by hand, or just shooting the actors live in the first place and leaving your 3-D software at home.
Watched "Real Time with Bill Maher" last night, thanks to a free HBO weekend. The recorder cut off the end of the show, so we missed the end of Bill Maher's rant as well as Andrew Sullivan's auto-erotic moment.
Anyway, what struck me as weird throughout the show was how upset the conservative/right-wing guests on the show seemed to get anytime they perceived that they were being made fun of. They acted almost as if they were the little guy being unfairly picked on by the big liberal bullies (which here could refer to either Bill or "the left" in general). Alan Simpson in particular seemed to get unreasonably bent out of shape at some asides Bill made about the small number of gay people in Wyoming, etc.
Now, on one hand I can see why some might go into a show like Bill Maher's with their backs up a little. Part of the point of that program is to engage in a little confrontation. However, I keep thinking that there must be a reason for the lack of grace that Simpson showed. This is something that I am seeing repeated in other forums, so I don't think it's unique to him. I can think of a couple different reasons for this hyper-sensitivity:
Good Idea: Get rid of John Ashcroft, who besides being an uptight prick and enemy of civil liberties has also been remarkably ineffective.
Bad Idea: Nominate a guy for Attorney General who is pro-torture:
In a January 25, 2002, memo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales advised the President of "the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," a federal statute. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality--declaring detainees in the "war on terror" to be outside the Geneva Conventions--which, he said, "substantially reduces" the chance of prosecution. Gonzales went further, telling the President that the war on terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners"; he pooh-poohed concerns that abandoning the Geneva standards might endanger US troops.
Let's be clear about what this means: Gonzales was urging--and the President adopted as policy--an end run around federal laws. The War Crimes Act, passed by Congress in 1996, allows criminal prosecution of Americans for actions that violate the rights granted prisoners and civilians by the Geneva Conventions and for "outrages upon personal dignity." It is backed by the full range of federal penalties, up to and including the death penalty. And all treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention, are likewise the binding law of the land.
From the Gonzales memo, it is clear that the Administration always envisioned taking coercive interrogation beyond Afghanistan. Gonzales repeatedly refers to the broader "war on terrorism"--the phrase Bush uses to cover the war on Iraq. Gonzales specifically advises the President to hold open "options for future conflicts." Thus the scandal is not what George W. Bush referred to as the "failures of character" of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib. The scandal is that the White House wanted to torture prisoners and get away with it.
In "The Muppet Movie" there's a scene at a beauty contest where just before announcing the winner Charlie McCarthy looks out at the audience and says, "Folks, you're not gonna believe this." Edger Bergen shushes him and says something to the effect that it's "their" movie, and of course Miss Piggy is pronounced the winner...
Michael Ledeen on War & Bush Administration on National Review Online: "I have just returned from a couple of weeks in Europe, and was very surprised to hear diplomats complaining bitterly that they felt abandoned by Powell. "Where is he?" they lamented, "we supported him and he left us to fend entirely for ourselves."
The proper care of allies is right up near the top of a secretary of State's mission, and the allies don't give Colin Powell a passing grade. For that alone, he needs to go. There are other reasons, too, above all his weasely performance on Iran (every strong presidential statement was instantly followed by leaks from State undercutting the president's words; the secretary's deputy — and best friend — Richard Armitage called Iran "a democracy," which may be the great mal mot of this administration).
Finally, there's Powell supine acceptance of Foggy Bottom's conventional wisdom on every subject, forgetting that the foreign service isn't supposed to make our foreign policy; it's supposed to carry out the president's policies.
Who should replace him? Zell Miller.
Back in the day, "Mother Jones" magazine used to carry ads for t-shirts that read "Nuke a gay whale for Christ." James Wolcott is now suggesting that Democrats adopt a very similar message.
Speaking for those of us who may be sympathetic to the goals of this, but who also find ourselves living in the heart of Jesusistan, can you at least give us a heads-up before you launch Sherman II? Thanks bunches.
TomPaine.com - 1865 Redux: "We need to obliterate the South again, just like we did in 1865. And then we need Reconstruction, starting with teaching them to read a book once a year. We need to crush the south and the mountain states with a Culture War offensive and then pour salt in their fields, give them the Carthage treatment they deserve, and worse. Al From and the DLC are going to want to placate the South yet again. Democrats are going to call for a "rural strategy." I say: We need to unleash our cities in an all-out assault against "rural idiocy." We need to win the suburbs, by scaring the middle-of-the-road homeowners with the prospect of back alley abortions and no more Social Security. We need to use our real army: blacks, Latins, union workers, women, teachers, academia, and the Big Media—we do control it—to obliterate the enemy. This is war."
This struck me this morning, since I had been thinking about the same issues. I don't know that "elitism" is the proper term, however. Issues aside, given the popular conception of liberals vs. conservatives, that's a battle we'll never win. However, I do think that we might be able to frame conservatives as "anti-freedom" (and liberals of course, as "pro-freedom"), and possibly get some traction.
As if this past week weren't depressing enough, there was news in the paper this morning about a local person who committed suicide in New York, apparently in part due to the election results.
"Andrew was definitely sending a message," Mauney said. "Certainly it was a protest."
But so far, the message is not entirely clear.
"We're all struggling with that right now," said Jim Bason, head of the Survey Research Center.
Some of his friends believe he may have become despondent at the results of Tuesday's elections.
"He wanted some hope that things were going to change so the world would be a better place," said Mauney.
sigh...
Oh, yeah-- things are going well in Iraq. Got 'em on the run. As folks around where I grew up might say, "sheeee-it."
Via Juan Cole:
Now it is being argued that it is necessary to kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians in Fallujah, in order to "save" them from a handful of foreign guerrillas. But every evidence is that most Fallujans support the uprising against the Americans, and the evidence for any significant number of foreign fighters being in Iraq is thin. Can it really be necessary to destroy a city to get at 200 foreign volunteers? So what is really probably being argued is that it is necessary to kill hundreds or thousands of Fallujans in order to remove a challenge to Mr. Allawi and his colleagues.
As Annan implies, the argument that Fallujah has to be razed in order to prepare the way for elections makes no sense. The US attack on Fallujah may well push most Sunni Arabs, who identify with the Fallujans, into boycotting the January elections, thus profoundly weakening the legitimacy of the new elected government.
Many prominent Iraqi political figures are deeply critical of the US tendency to use massive force in Iraq.
Who will be next? And how many Americans will have to die to accomplish these increasingly brutal and absurd missions? Is it really hoped that the ghetto Shiites of Sadr City can be bombed into accepting Thomas Jefferson? And what exactly did the United States expect to find in Fallujah, if not Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists?
If the Kurds don't get what they want, and start making trouble, will the Allawi government or its successor then argue that dozens of Marines must die fighting the Peshmerga, and must kill hundreds or thousands of Kurds?
Isn't that where we came in?
Dave Winer writes:
We're all going to find out that there are much more important values that Bush and his team don't share, generosity to the poor, respect for human life (Iraqis are people too), a love of the freedoms passed down from our forefathers, and on and on. In other words, the negotiation that must take place is between the people of the United States, not the two parties, not the news networks, we need to solve this one ourselves, to decide what kind of country we want. We shouldn't leave the country, yet. Shock is a good thing, if it brings about positive change. We're shocked, maybe you are too, maybe now we'll find out that you're good people we can work with, and maybe you'll find out the same?
Of course, some of us already knew that Bush doesn't share our values. That's why we're so shocked that he won. The only question is how the heck we get that message to those who haven't heard it yet. Sometimes it seems like they're ten feet under water with earplugs in, so it's not going to be easy.
Social Security privatization made simple
This strikes me as a more charitable way to say that Bush and the Republicans plan to ram through their agenda by goose-stepping their way through the next several years:
Surveying the scene today, one thing that occurs to me is that President Bush is remaking the government into something that is looking more and more like a parliamentary democracy. I don't mean in every specific, of course; the key feature of the Bush presidency is an extremely powerful executive that to a great degree coopts and controls his own congressional majorities.
But the similarities are important and worth understanding. The key elements are extremely tight party discipline (something political scientists have lamented the absence of for years) and a sharp diminishment of rivalries between the branches of government which used to cut against unified party control.
. . . .
It's fine to bemoan this. And there's much to bemoan. But Democrats also need to learn how to live with it, at least for the next four years. And that means realizing that for at least the next two years, the President can get passed almost anything he wants to. His congressional majorities are now sufficiently padded that he can even afford a few Republican defections. He simply doesn't need Democrats for anything.
And that means approaching most legislative battles not with an eye toward preventing passage or significantly altering legislation, but placing alternatives on the table that the party will be able use as contrasts to frame the next two elections. In other words, their only remaining viable alternative is to be an actual party of opposition.
This seems fine as far as it goes, but it only addresses the question of future elections and party identification. However, if Bush and the Republicans get their way, they'll be fundamentally altering the relationship between the branches of government. They are making serious strides towards eroding the separation of powers. This isn't something that can be fought with contrasting legislation. At this point, it can only be fought by battling for the institution (namely Congress) itself.
It's not clear which end he prefers (I have my guesses), but apparently Cheney likes it up the butt.
Krugman has a good piece today, titled "No Surrender." Others are still looking at what happened, and how to proceed.
Bush is acting as if he won in a landslide instead of by the skin of his teeth. Iowa still seems up in the air, but at best he's got 286-252 win over Kerry in the Electoral College, and only a 51%-48% win in the popular vote.
What I'm finding fascinating at the moment are the calls for Democrats/liberals to make an effort to reach out to the "moral value" crowd that helped Bush keep his job. I'm also seeing exhortations to not slam these people as morons or somehow ridiculous for their beliefs. I'm sorry, but if someone thinks that guys kissing is somehow of greater importance than their own well-being, then they deserve to be called a moron. The day the other side stops referring to me and the candidates I believe in as a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show" is the day I will stop referring to them as near-sighted gun-toting paranoid religious bigots. Maybe that's not productive dialogue, but that's the way it is. I'm not running for office, after all, so I can get away with that.
And with that, I'm going downstairs to work on some animation.
I've been amazed to see a number of people discussing whether Bush will behave in a more conciliatory manner, and/or move to the center for his second term. Here's my question-- what planet have these people been living on? If Bush was going to reach out to the other side of the aisle, he would have done it a long time ago. He didn't do it after he first moved into the White House, he didn't do it after 9/11, and he ran a scorched-earth campaign against Kerry. He's already making noises about his "mandate," which at 51% of the popular vote is dubious at best. Here's my prediction: Bush is going to try and ram through his conservative agenda, he will continue to screw up Iraq, anyone who gets in his way or offers criticism will be demonized, and he'll blame Democrats, Clinton, 9/11, the media, etc. for anything that doesn't quite go right.
So what about the rest of us, who have to deal with this? Well, if he's not going to budge, neither will we.
...and raise you a douchebag. Answer the questions, asshole.
This shows a map of states colored red to blue on a continuum based on percentages for Kerry/Bush, and there's also a link to a USA Today map that shows red/blue by county. It's amazing (and a little scary) to see just how red it is.
While this may be true, it doesn't leave me with much of a sense of optimism.
Bull Moose: "With conservative Republican margins strengthened and hubris riding high in the G.O.P. saddle, we will need the fourth estate as never before to serve as the public's watchdog. Watchdogs yes, lapdogs, no! "
Ok, I feel like I've gotten some of the snark out of my system, but I'm still trying to digest what's happened (and what's happening). I'm trying to take the long view, but am finding that difficult. I keep trying to remind myself that Nixon was re-elected and we eventually worked through that, and even Germany managed to get out from under the Nazis with a little nudging from its neighbors (ahem). So, whether America has become the short-bus country or not, I still have hope that we'll get things straightened out...somehow.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's going to get really rocky for a while. Looking at the NY Times site this morning, the first headline past the election coverage reads "Oil Jumps to Over $50 on Possible Bush Win." Inside, there's this:
Traders said a second Bush administration would continue filling U.S. emergency oil stockpiles and could stoke traders' nerves about U.S. policy in the oil-producing Middle East, particularly OPEC's second-biggest producer Iran.
Prices had tumbled from last week's record high at $55.67 on speculation that a win for Democratic challenger John Kerry would halt deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and do more to encourage energy conservation.
So right away, bang-- bad news. Bush wins (or for the hopeful, "wins") and oil prices go up. Good for oil companies, bad for us. Hmmm...sound familiar? And you thought I was being alarmist. But on the bright side, at least you won't have to buy any shower gifts for those gay people, right? That should save you a couple bucks-- maybe even enough to get to church and back in that honkin' SUV you're driving.
(deep breath...musn't rant...musn't rant...)
Anyway, I'm still working through this. I may need to come back later.
TBogg: "I feel like I've been locked in a room with the slow learners. We have become the country that pulls a dry cleaning bag over its head to play astronaut. "
Given the talk in Washington about whether it is possible to reform the Arab world, I found the discussion this evening on al-Jazeera amusing.
They had an Iraqi analyst on, who said that if there wasn't a clear break for one of the candidates in the next few hours, the whole process was likely to go into the hands of the lawyers and would be decided in the courts.
The al-Jazeera anchor asked, "Do you believe the American electoral system can be reformed?"
The Iraqi analyst said he thought the problem lay in the dependence on an electoral college rather than direct democracy.
This is getting embarrassing folks.
Took this quiz, and got the following result:
You scored 36 out of a possible 40
You are candidate: Ronald Reagan in 1984 Politically astute and you made as clean a sweep as anyone ever has
In your face, Kevin!
An interesting tidbit about exit polling, courtesy Josh Marshall:
"Exits come out in a several batches over the course of the day. Democrats, on average, tend to vote later in the day than Republicans. Not always, but that's the pattern, for fairly straightforward demographic reasons. And for that reason their exit poll numbers tend to get better over the course of the day. That was strikingly so in 2000. So if you see less than perfect numbers plastered around in the early afternoon, don't let that rattle you."
Hmm...which state has the lower divorce rate? God-fearing Texas, or those godless gay-lovin' liberals in Massachusetts? I wonder...
This seems like as good an approach as any:
While Ohio voters now appear to be able to go to the booths unencumbered by cocksuckers from the Republican party charging them with Voting-While-Black, in many other placed the scared GOP is using every dirty trick in the book to suppress the vote, from flyers to "poll watchers" and more. Here's the deal: using the President's approach of using violence to bring democracy to Iraq, if you see any fucker stuffing these kinds of letters or flyers into people's mail boxes or on their cars, or if you see some asshole harass voters at the polls themselves, punch that person. No, really. Punch them. Hard. Enough to drop them to the ground. One punch. They'll crumble like a house of cards. Sure, sure, a couple of people will get arrested, but the poll watcher will run away with his/her tail between his/her legs, and for every one poll watcher sent packing, running for Kleenex to stop the blood flowing from his/her nose, that's hundreds of people who will be able to vote freely.
We'll be able to turn our sights on other pressing matters, long neglected.
Willie Wonka and the Rat Bastard: "This site confirms my suspicions about Grandpa Joe, the devious old man who pretended to be bedridden for years, supported by the child labor of his 10-year-old grandson Charlie."
(Via Cruel Site of the Day.)
