Archive for January, 2008


Jan 31, 2008 in We'll post whatever we goddamned want to, WTF?

For the better part of a year, I have been bumping into Michael Walzer, our nation’s preeminent living political philosopher…

He is? Who is he?

Moments like this remind me why I’m not legendary. Logic, reason, all wastes of time…because I can’t remember shit and I have too many interests filling my free time. Reading political philosophy rarely finds an opening between watching Bladerunner on my brand new home theater system and…none of yer business what the hell I do with the rest of my time:)


To crow or eat crow.

Jan 31, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap

My gosh, people are wondering where the snark is now that John Edwards has dropped out of the race for president.

As regular readers know, I looked into the future back around December before the Iowa caucuses, and saw that Edwards was toast. My opinion was that Edwards supporters had far more in common with Obama than Hillary Clinton, but my prediction was not an opinion. People fussed and fought and called me a defeatist Democrat, but they were missing a key fact: I had seen the writing on the wall and was merely reading it aloud. I said I’d eat the crow if I were wrong, but I did so with complete confidence. I would eat no ravens.

The fact that Edwards has acknowledged the inevitable changes little else. The argument remains, and now the people in 22 states on Feb. 5 who supported Edwards must decide who will best fulfill the spirit of his campaign and his character.

That answer, to me and seemingly Edwards based on his own remarks, is clearly Barack Obama.

All that is left is to thank John Edwards for, despite carrying on longer than warranted, realizing that February 5th was simply an exercise in futility and that this was, indeed, a two-person race after all. And for running a pretty positive populist campaign which was full of good ideas, despite the fact that he never had the ability to carry them out. But many say that Obama and Clinton scrambled to co-opt his policies, which was a very good thing since they were mostly nice solid bread-and-butter grassroots liberal positions. Of course, I see Obama as recognizing the intrinsic good of Edwards policies, whereas it takes little to imagine Hillary glomming onto whatever the hell anybody tells her is the popular position. Come a real challenge, Hillary will crumble quicker than Obama. Count that as another one of my factual predictions.

John Edwards was a great candidate in the beginning of 2004 who ultimately failed to beat John Kerry, stand up effectively to Dick Cheney in debate, or bring in his home state. 2008 saw him going for the Democratic red meat full steam in order to distinguish himself from the other candidates, a move which called into question how sincerely he held these positions himself. An utterly undistinguished and quite cowardly single term in the Senate was the man’s only time in office, and it provided no foundation for his platform whatsoever. If John Edwards had a fatal flaw, it was this. The idea that Barack Obama was the inexperienced one was laughable. It was John Edwards whose record in politics was a complete waste of time, who wanted us to merely trust that he’d be effective if we’d only give him the highest office in the land.

Yes, Hillary and Barack had the dazzling advantages of being a woman and a black man, but they were also stronger candidates than Edwards. Were Edwards truly the powerhouse his supporters envisioned him being, he could have easily lulled voters away from the “risky” choices. In the end, Edwards was just as much a risk if not more.

So now here we are, with the race officially down to two choices, literally rather than figuratively. Edwards has avoided making any official endorsement, a choice that troubles me. Is he thinking of his career and the prospect of becoming AG under either candidate? He was rather unequivocal after Iowa that he saw himself and Obama as the candidates of change and Hillary as the status quo.

If Edwards is turning into a self-interested waffler the second he drops out, it doesn’t attest to his character. But it may be the one thing he does that benefits most his ambition.


Muddled thinking on Hugo Chavez.

Jan 30, 2008 in Politics

I think it’s important to note what’s wrong with Chavez without resorting to histrionics and sabre-rattling. It’s important to note that so far he has been democratically elected and fiercely socialist, which a democratically elected candidate has the right to be. But one cannot ignore that he has systematically pursued non-democratic methods of governing and done everything possible to consolidate power to himself. Matt Yglesias does:

Here’s a random note from last night. Bush, talking about a free trade pact with Colombia, said “If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” The purveyors of false populism are, I guess, Hugo Chavez and other murky conspirators. But why is it false populism? Chavez is a real populist. Maybe you think he’s a populist peddling fake solutions to Latin America’s problems, but he’s certainly not a secret pro-business neoliberal.

A false populist is a secret authoritarian who isn’t so secret about it anymore. You can’t be for the people while stealing their voices. Chavez is making some interesting uses of resources for the people, but he seems determined to forever define Latin American socialism as being a Trojan horse for men with delusions of grandeur who thirst for power.

Sorry to take Bush’s side against Yglasias, but c’mon, Matt, with so much to criticize Bush for, why waste time with half-baked retorts? Put away the Che “I loved torturing political prisoners!” Guevara t-shirt.


George Bush’s Department of Injustice.

Jan 29, 2008 in Legal, Politics

Way too much weight is given to Iraq when people describe why George W. Bush has been a failure as a president. People say, “Well, if only we were victorious in Iraq Bush would be just fine!”

The government agency that enforces one of the principal laws aimed at keeping politics out of the civil service has accused the Justice Department of blocking its investigation into alleged politicizing of the department under former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.

Scott J. Bloch, head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, wrote Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey last week that the department had repeatedly “impeded” his investigation by refusing to share documents and provide answers to written questions, according to a copy of Bloch’s letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The Justice Department wants Bloch to wait until its own internal investigation is completed. A department official signaled recently that the investigation is examining the possibility of criminal charges.

But that, the regulator wrote, could take until the last months of the Bush administration, “when there is little hope of any corrective measures or discipline possible” being taken by his office.

No. The lesson of Bush’s presidency is that yes, a president can be so corrupt and incompetent that he ruins not just the country he invaded, but the one he was elected to serve. Bush’s reverse Midas Touch turns everything he touches into shit while he looks for a parachute to escape this plunging 757 of a country.

And yes, such a president can and does enjoy majority support within the Republican party.


And the unicorns mated.

Jan 28, 2008 in Election crap

Edwards as attorney general…apparently the idea is taking hold among lots of legal folks, regardless of who becomes president.

We’ll have to wait until November to find out.

Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman, spent two days at the trial lawyers’ conference, delicately searching for donors among the — mostly — Edwards faithful. He said he was asked several times about the potential for Edwards to have a role within a potential Clinton administration, and the topic of attorney general did come up. But McAuliffe noted it would be a felony to promise someone a cabinet post in exchange for political support.

Whoops. Well, nothing wrong with either candidate giving a little wink-nudge towards Edwards. It would be a smart choice for either Hillary or Barack to make. If for no other reason, we have to find something for John Edwards to do or else he’s going to run for president in 2012, 2016…


Item! Reporters assigned to the Obama campaign denied shrimp cocktails and vodka martinis!

Jan 28, 2008 in Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s greatest sin, according to Howard Kurtz, is his refusal to pander to the press:

Obama often goes days without taking questions from national reporters, and when he does, the sessions can be slapdash affairs. In Nevada, for instance, correspondents were reduced to shouting queries at him during a photo op in the kitchen of the Mirage Hotel. (Yesterday, perhaps in a better mood, he did chat with journalists on his plane, now that his campaign has discontinued use of a second jet to save money.)

Some reporters say Obama seems disdainful toward journalists, having submitted to precisely one off-the-record chat over beer several months ago in Iowa. To them, the absence of a senior official traveling with the press is a sign of benign neglect.

So start sucking up Barack, or suffer the wrath of a Kurtz inspired backlash! 

I suppose not going out of your way to placate journalists is a cardinal sin if you’re an establishment pundit like Howie but it would seem to me that if you were a candidate concerned about message control one maneuver to consider might be to eliminate a potential filter entirely.  Especially if it were as fickle as Kurtz.


Time for some perspective, Bill Clinton.

Jan 27, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap

From November 29th:

A new poll suggests the presidential nomination races in South Carolina are getting as tight as those in Iowa. The Clemson University Palmetto Poll finds many people are still undecided — including about a quarter of Republicans and half of Democrats. Among voters who have a favorite:

The top three Democrats are Hillary Clinton (19%), Barack Obama (17%) and John Edwards (12%). In the same poll in September, Clinton led Obama 26%-16%.

I’d wager most South Carolinians knew in September that Obama was black.

One day Bill Clinton is going to explode in front of his aides screaming, “I can’t believe this fucking Sambo is beating us!”


Shrill Shrieking Unspeakably Wealthy Moonbats

Jan 27, 2008 in Energy

Yet another granola-crunching moonbat yammering on about ‘peak oil’ and other liberal lies.

This particular science-disbelieving moonbat happens to be the CEO of Shell Oil.

Seven years, folks! I know there are some people who have this quasi-mystical idea that we can’t mess things up completely – that God will step in right at the moment of impending disaster, or that ingenuity will come into play just when things look darkest. Some people might call these thoughts “Hollywood fantasies,” and that’s one way of putting it, but the itch reaches back further than that. It’s the age-old need for a clean narrative that doesn’t end in one’s own demise. I have news for all y’all’s inner children.

Just because your need for a clean narrative is soul-deep doesn’t mean you’re going to get what you want. If there’s anybody who hears the CEO of Shell say “we’re gonna hit peak oil” and wants to go about debunking and offering alternate theories, let that person ask himself: if I know so goddamn much about oil, why am I not infinitely wealthy, like the CEO of Shell?


We don’t mean to stir up the racial question about that jungle bunny.

Jan 26, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Disappointing Dems, Election crap, Politics

Am I the only one who senses a bit of a contradiction here?

Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

If Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton’s racial skullduggery was “too black” for these Clinton campaign strategists, then no black person can ever be president by their math. Obama has been about as restrained and dignified during the Clintons’ brazen provocations as a human being is capable of being. What the Clintons have seen is a backlash based more on the grassroots. They tried stirring up racial shit with Obama, and people saw it for what it was: ugly. It was from a wide range of voices that the Clintons felt the heat. Honestly, to the degree that Democrats who support Hillary condone it or fail to recognize it, I am ashamed of the Democratic Party. The Clintons heard from the people in the Democratic Party who truly are different from Karl Rove. If these campaign strategists want to run around playing innocent while trumpeting their perception of their own success in calling Obama an angry black man, they’re going to make America ill. If the Clintons want this to be about race, then they load the dice in both directions: if Hillary defeats Obama using these tactics, then it’s a victory for whites over blacks. And while blacks have been used to this coming from Republicans, for them to see this happen within the Democratic party could be flat-out disastrous. Rightwinger crackpots love to try to tell blacks that the Democrat party just uses them. They’ll start to sound right.

Of course, to echo a recurring theme, people could alleviate a lot of these problems by voting for Barack Obama, who did take the high road. South Carolina backed up Iowa’s verdict (and Nevada’s, considering Obama won more delegates there) that there is simply a better, healthier way forward for America.


Matthew 25:35

Jan 25, 2008 in Uncategorized

Also Job 31:32, Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 8:7, Ezekiel 18:16, Hebrews 13:2, James 2:15,16. The spin being put on this is “some of these people are terrorists! Now they’ll buy weapons!” Sure, I guess. I would also guess that people from among these numbers who try to buy weapons will have more basic concerns in mind than political ideology: that most anybody among the 350,000 who crossed into Egypt and tried to get a gun will be thinking “the next guy who tries to prevent me from getting food to my family is going to get a bullet between his eyes.” Is there anybody who can’t understand that? Besides purblind ideologues, I mean.

The plug-in hybrid: Our next logical step.

Jan 24, 2008 in Energy

The plug-in is the bridge to the future. We, by building it, guarantee the existence of the other side.

The big greenhouse gas savings would come about as plug-ins enable a major transition toward clean electricity and away from petroleum-based fuel, which is getting dirtier every year, as unconventional oil, such as Canadian tar sands, becomes more popular.

Unlike petroleum, electricity is poised to get greener in the future, especially as we fight climate change. Indeed, once we have a national cap on carbon emissions, plug-ins will drive even faster growth of the diverse and growing numbers of carbon-free electricity sources, which include solar photovoltaics, solar thermal electric, wind, geothermal, nuclear and, potentially, coal with carbon capture and storage. By providing distributed energy storage to the grid, plug-ins could make intermittent renewables like wind power (mostly available at night) more cost-effective — and ultimately assist renewables in becoming the nation’s primary source of power.

Renewables aren’t just replacements for fossil fuels, they have really attractive virtues that make them ultimately preferable. As the plug-in fosters clean electricity, the abundance of clean energy will engender new power grids and efficiencies in delivery that could potentially lead to more energy use in our daily lives, not less. Electric vehicles will find fast-charging power stations across America within a generation or less.


p.s. Toyota is jumping in the mix by 2010 to match the Chevy Volt.

I’d like my scorpion-tailed flying horse NOW, please!

Jan 24, 2008 in Science

Hurry up with the research before God strikes us dead!

Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components.

While scientists had previously synthesized the complete DNA of viruses, this is the first time it has been done for bacteria, which are much more complex. The genome is more than 10 times as long as the longest piece of DNA ever previously synthesized.

The feat is a watershed for the emerging field called synthetic biology, which involves the design of organisms to perform particular tasks, such as making biofuels. Synthetic biologists envision being able one day to design an organism on a computer, press the “print” button to have the necessary DNA made, and then put that DNA into a cell to produce a custom-made creature.

How about an octopus with eight giant penises…we could stomp the shit out of Tokyo with it if we pump it up on growth hormones. Cloverfield my ass.


This is a low.

Jan 24, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics

The Democratic contest has become a somewhat depressing affair. The Clinton’s descent into Karl Rove’s world of scumbag politics has unfortunately proven to be either effective or not a drawback for Hillary so far, which puts Democrats in the position of saying, if she wins because of it, “Did I object to Karl Rove’s style of campaigning because I found it immoral, or because it was effective against me?”

Such immorality has its blowback:

Representative Jim Clyburn, whose neutrality in the Democratic primary has made him something of a political referee between the Obama and Clinton camps, said on Thursday that former president Bill Clinton’s campaign tactics may have long-term damage on his reputation.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the longtime South Carolina congressman would not, as a member of the Obama campaign has, go so far as to compare Clinton’s actions to that of Lee Atwater, the famed Republican dirty trickster. But he did allow the idea that the former president had sullied his image within Democratic circles.

“I think that may be true,” said Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. “I mean, he is speaking out this way, taking hits on Obama. A lot of times these things happen. What you say may hurt the other guy but it also may hurt you.”

It is now a matter of record that a former president demoted himself to the role of shameless campaign hitman. Democrats lose no matter how this thing turns out. But make no mistake, Bill Clinton: were you to win Hillary the nomination and then blow the general election, your reputation would be instantly destroyed beyond repair. Your legacy will be shit.


This always made sense to me.

Jan 24, 2008 in Economy

Put money in the hands of people that are the most likely to spend it.

Bailing out the bond industry and the fraudulent rating agencies that kept them boosted up for so long is something else entirely.   


Update>  Not so fast, Mike G!  The Krugman pulls a Debbie Downer.

Chickens, Roost, Etc

Jan 23, 2008 in Economy

I’m not an economist (protip: neither are most of the other political bloggers who’ll be weighing in about the economy, attempting to cloak themselves in the mantle of whichever but-he-is-an economist-and-I’m-linking-him pundit they’re crushing on), but I have managed to keep myself and my family afloat through times both lean and fat. Our motto in my house has always been “don’t spend more than you have, and don’t borrow more than you can repay.” Simple stuff I know. I went to an expensive private college when I was 24, but I didn’t quit my nursing job until sophomore year; that way I was able to pay full tuition (2k/mo in 91/92) for the first nine months, delaying my entry into the student loan program by a full year and consequently never arriving at the top tier of borrowing. I paid off the last of my student loans in 2005.

The Bush administration’s first act, and its most personally destructive to the country, was to take the historically unprecedented surpluses it inherited and turn them into deficits. Conservatives are fond of asserting that Clinton’s surpluses were illusory; they like to imply that some book-cooking was involved, though most of the dudes asserting this, again, don’t really understand what they’re talking about, and can only link to things they think of as shoring up their point. Here’s a story that addresses the substance, such as it is, of the conservative take on the Clinton admin’s surpluses and how Bush erased them.

Our economy is not yet in freefall, though you’ll be hearing the term more and more in the coming weeks – it’ll feel like it feels when you’re on a family vacation and a kid in the back seat keeps asking “are we there yet?” You’ll know when we get there, though. You should also know, when we get there, that seven years of not actually have any money – of trying to get by on negative money; of living beyond our means, and of placing principle before policy – are what’s actually coming home to roost. Not the other stuff that the conservative blogs will, in a desperate rush, try to drag out: the ghost of Clinton, whose success with the economy they can’t stand to think about; the “Dem Congress!,” who they’ll invoke since they like to credit Gingrich’s House with the Clinton economy; and, of course, 9/11, which “changed everything.” Except that it didn’t. It didn’t teach anybody from the Bush family how to keep America’s economy out of the toilet. Fool me once, shame on you, right?


On Heath Ledger dying.

Jan 23, 2008 in Culture

I’ll say all I really have the right to say: The man earned my respect as a fine actor, and he seemed to be a very decent human being. On both counts, it must be rendered as a great loss. I remember seeing Brokeback Mountain in the theater, and how my eyes widened in amazement as I saw Ledger create in Ennis Del Mar one of the greatest screen roles in cinema history. There was no way to understand how this young Australian could waltz onto the screen and become so painfully American, except via inordinate talent.

With that and his upcoming role as the Joker in The Dark Knight, the fella made his mark, and I’m thankful for it.


This is a high.

Jan 22, 2008 in Barack Obama

Spreading the love…

[youtube Kf0x_TpDris]


Stupid Humans

Jan 19, 2008 in things so depressing that categories shun them like wou

You know, I’d like for this to be a partisan issue, because it’d make the ugliness easier to sort through. But the plain fact is that stories like this one shine a harsh, unflattering light on everybody that goes near ’em: not so much for the content of the story, which is, at heart, another tawdry crime-of-passion story of the sort that’s been going on since we first learned to walk upright. None of its horror or tragedy has anything to do with the killer or the victim having been Marines. That’s just window-dressing; tabloid detail; a narrative hook to interest you in the story.

No, the ugliness really only gets underway in the comments thread, which should come as a surprise to exactly no-one. Every moronic bias you’d care to encounter can be found in discussions about stories like these: knee-jerk lefties, mostly kids, who think that the USMC is the kind of place where you learn to beat a pregnant woman with a crowbar; dial-it-in misogynists who, upon learning that a pregnant woman was beaten to death with a crowbar and her body burned and buried in a field, start fumbling for explanations about how she might have “brought it on herself”; armchair genetics experts who opine about “the Latin temper,” which, you will be as surprised to learn as I was, apparently is so severe that it can lead you to brain the woman who is carrying your daughter inside of her body and was due to give birth next month, and to light her lifeless body on fire. Are we done yet? Christ, no, that’s only three comments on one thread; you can look through the rest of them or head out into the wild to find people who want to argue, from nothing other than their own received-wisdom “knowledge,” and from what they’ve heard on daytime TV, that this woman obviously lured her partner into sex in order to get pregnant and later ruin his life. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Really, people: if that’s your understanding of your fellow man, and is the first thing you think of when you hear that one of them’s been brutally murdered, her body left exposed to the air and the creatures of the field, then why not just pull the plug now? Clearly all women are conniving hateful lying harpies and all men harbor not just killers but unspeakably brutal sadistic scheming savages, waiting for one minor setback to go completely postal. Right? Isn’t that what these sorts of explanations suggest: a world in which everybody’s essentially a worthless piece of shit, with the notable exception, of course, of the brainiac who’s commenting anonymously on the ABC news comments thread?

Vote Ron Paul, write in Bill Richardson, vote Duncan Hunter, support Wavy Gravy…what is the difference? A man kills a pregnant woman with a crowbar and every asshole with a keyboard starts looking for the angle. An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but the only sign it will be given is the sign of Jonah (MT 12:40), and most of the people who’re even interested by scripture think its meaning is “our side is the winning side.” Woe to ye, O earth and sea, etc.


Credit Where Due

Jan 17, 2008 in Uncategorized

Most everybody knows Governor Huckabee is nuts, and most intelligent conservatives view the possibility of a Huckabee candidacy as you might view an iceberg heading toward the ocean liner, if you had some personal investment in said ocean liner – say, if you were traveling on it. So it’s easy to imagine the Romney faithful, and their sad brethren down at the Thompson & Giuliani levels, lumping in Mike Huckabee’s remarks about the environment with a lot of his other crazy talk, like not believing in evolution. Out here in the Letter-Killeth-But-The-Spirit-Restoreth-Life camp, though, we’re encouraged by a dude who has the intestinal fortitude to answer the foam-sprayers at Townhall like this, even when they try to frontload the question for him in hopes that he’ll give them the answer they want:

Pastore: 7. We understand the need to talk about the environment and global warming for electoral purposes. How serious are you about governmental involvement in this, too?

Huckabee: I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment because God has entrusted us to take care of this world that He created for us. We don’t own the earth, it is on loan to us. In that light, I believe that we must take care of our air and water and forests and wildlife to keep both ourselves and the overall system healthy. We must pass the earth on to the next generation in at least as good a shape as it was handed to us. Anything less diligent and conscientious would be poor stewardship and an abdication of a God-given responsibility.

I believe that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions. A cap and trade system has worked well for acid rain caused by the emission of sulphur dioxide, and I believe it can also work well for the emission of carbon dioxide. At the same time, I don’t want to impose too great a burden on our businesses, which is why I believe that some of the allowances for emissions must be given to our businesses rather than auctioning off 100 percent of them, as some environmentalists are demanding.


We’re still discussing voting machines in 2008.

Jan 16, 2008 in Election crap

History will write that in the year 2000, we had trouble counting ballots, and decided that not having any to count was better. Yes, we chose to put it in the hands of a questionable private corporation. Accountability turned into assurances.

Having electronic machines that leave a paper trail was technology readily available in 2000, yet in 2008 we still have to reach for the Rolaids when a story like this comes up:

To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the “diebold effect” on Hillary’s votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density. While this "diebold effect" varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates.

That’s Chris Chatham at his science blog crunching the numbers and asking the public to think of any extra variables that might account for the disparity besides Diebold machines. Four updates later, the Diebold effect is remaining persistent.

Now, I will repeat myself, this is a fucking headache, first and foremost. Yes, I am an Obama supporter and would obviously enjoy a reversal of the NH victory for Clinton if it fell into my hands. But in 8 years, every instance of voting machine shenanigans has been met with an equal and opposite reaction of “Ah, you cry baby losers whining about stolen elections!” Facts are met with indifference.

Yet I can’t give up my subservience to the facts. If somebody can come up with a statistical model that can point to something besides Diebold machines clearly skewering Hillary’s way and leaving Obama cold, I’d LOVE LOVE LOVE to hear it. You hear me, you bastards? If this is wrong, BRING IT ON. Destroy the case. Tell me how it’s just pure chance that calculation after calculation keeps pointing at one variable, Diebold. Make me believe it. Let’s all pray to the gods that our democratic process isn’t being hijacked. Let it be so, so that we can quietly attend to preventing the need for such arguments in the first place. This should not be a topic for discussion!

It’s 2008, America! The fact that we do not have transparent voting methods at this point is indirect evidence that we have been massively gamed already. This is your by-the-hour repairman taking two hours to solve a 5 minute problem. Somebody has an incentive to keep dragging their asses, and we’re getting conned.


Captain Ed, you just got your ass handed to you by Glenn Greenwald!

Jan 16, 2008 in Clueless Conservatives

Ouch. Glenn Greenwald takes note of how rightwingers tend to scream “judicial activism!” at about any legal ruling they don’t like, regardless of the reasoning or mechanics of the ruling. Those familiar with rightwing efforts to soil the Constitution with anti-gay discrimination know this already, but Glenn shows us that the right will gladly use the same rhetorical junk on any ruling on any issue, as long as it violates their ideological pablum.

Greenwald takes the case of Dennis Kucinich, who sued NBC for breach of contract for first inviting him to debate in Nevada and then disinviting him.

The complaint (.pdf) filed by Kucinich is simple and straightforward. He alleges that he had a binding contract with MSNBC once they offered and he accepted the terms of his participation in the debate, and that MSNBC’s refusal to allow him to participate constitutes a breach of that contract. He also alleges that his exclusion violates the mandates of Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters — who operate the public airways, i.e., airways which are public, not private, property — “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance.”

The rightwing-o-sphere went aflutter, so Glenn samples one of its most notorious fools, “Captain Chickenhawk” Ed Morrissey (damn you for sharing that name with the greatest musical artist of all time!). Does Private Ed address the actual legal facts of the case?

[T]he judgement is absurd on its face. In the first place, the state courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction for a national broadcast. Constitutionally, this case belonged in federal court, which has jurisdiction on any interstate commerce complaints. Kucinich filed his tort in state court hoping to find a sympathetic, activist judge who didn’t know much about the law, and apparently succeeded.

More offensively, the courts don’t have any business telling NBC or any other network that they have to include certain individuals in a debate. It may be a poor decision to exclude certain candidates, but the broadcast is the property of the network and it’s their decision to make. The court apparently has no respect for private property in that sense.

Apparently Ed spent all his time looking at the judgment “on its face.” Says Glenn:

Morrissey, in his indignant condemnation, makes no mention whatsoever of the only actual issues that are relevant — Kucinich’s breach of contract claim and Section 315 claims. One wonders if Morrissey even has any idea what the arguments are that the court had to resolve. That seems doubtful, and if he did, he doesn’t bother to mention them. How can someone condemn a court decision without bothering to inform oneself about the legal issues the court has to resolve? All Morrissey knows is that he wants a certain outcome — he thinks MSNBC should have the right to decide who gets excluded from its debate — and his “analysis” is based exclusively on whether or not the Judge gave him the outcome he wanted.

Private Ed later updates his post to reflect a higher court siding with MSNBC (mostly saying that blocking the debate would be a step too far), claiming the “Nevada Supreme Court agrees with me, and not Glenn Greenwald.”

Ah, but Ed, Glenn never stated his preference for the outcome of the case at all, did he? He was simply pointing out that you didn’t know anything about the case before you opened your mouth to protest it.

And personally, I’d state outright that I have no idea if Kucinich’s breach-of-contract claim should hold up, but I agree with the reasoning that blocking the debate would be excessive. MSNBC certainly shouldn’t have such burdensome restrictions on its content, ideally, but then again they should be careful about making contracts with people, an entirely separate issue.

In conclusion, I’m satisfied with how the case went, but it seems in any case that the courts were just doing their jobs, not partaking in any damned “judicial activism.”


No Matter Who You Are

Jan 16, 2008 in whores

You gotta love prostitutes. Am I right, or what?


Your liberal media.

Jan 15, 2008 in Uncategorized

Trying to block Kucinich from the debates.


Bush’s disastrous terror policy.

Jan 14, 2008 in War on Terra

That’s simply what it is. The man has never known what he was involved in, has bungled up as much as humanly possible, and in most cases produced the opposite of the desired effect, making necessary continuous re-writes of why we went into Iraq and why we really aren’t that concerned about Osama bin Laden anymore (his regular videotapes are better than any Republican PR campaign could dream of). A Democrat with Bush’s record would stain the Democratic party for 30 more years (though to be honest, I think the hissyfits over Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy are more hype than substance).

With Bush, we have a bunch of strutting preening macho blather, followed by utterly deranged actions such as this:

(Bush) came bearing gifts. His adminstration informed Congress on Monday that it intended to sell Saudi Arabia $20 billion worth of arms. His message, though, has focused consistently on the need for piece between Israelis and Palestinians and on the dangers posed to the region by Iran.

Bush wants to sell Saudi Arabia $20 billion of arms, while warning of the “danger” of Iran.

Saudi Arabia, which said it would back the Sunni insurgency if the U.S. left Iraq.

Saudi Arabia, the home of state-sponsored Wahhabism, the physical and ideological birthplace of Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers.

Saudi Arabia, who bizarrely pulls some serious weight in America.

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

As one, I guess, must always expect. The Bush administration and modern GOP is constitutionally incapable of dealing with terrorism as a threat.


It’s hard to feel Bill Clinton is helping Hillary.

Jan 14, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics, Racism

First of all, calling Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale” right after Bill claimed that he himself had been opposed all along. Now this:

The interviewer, Roland Martin of WVON-AM in Chicago, played Mr. Johnson’s statement Sunday in which he praised the Clintons for having “been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book…” Mr. Martin sounded incredulous about Mr. Johnson’s subsequent denial, in a statement issued by the Clinton campaign, that he was referring to drug use by Mr. Obama. “When you listen to that tone and the inflection, he was not talking about community organizing. It seems to me very clear what he was implying,” Mr. Martin said.

“Ironically, this is the first time I’ve heard it, what you just said,” Mr. Clinton said. “I listened to it on the tape and I think we have to take him at his word.”

Oh, really? You think we have to take him at his word, Bill? An obvious sham of a retraction of Johnson’s crystal-clear implications should be taken seriously?

No, we don’t have to take Johnson’s crap retraction, Mr. Clinton. We can take his original statement for what it clearly suggests, and until that implication is addressed, it shall stand as another example of Hillary’s ground troops hurling slime and mud at Obama while Hillary puts on a smiley face, in clear emulation of King George II and Karl Rove’s election strategies.


American Turing Machine

Jan 13, 2008 in Iraq

I’m so glad this story appeared in the New York Times. That means I don’t have to read it; or, if I choose to read it, I can do so knowing that its content is only fodder for some armchair debunking. Maybe I’ll spend my Monday morning hunting down the mental health records of some of the 121 Iraq war veterans who’ve committed murders since returning home; maybe I’ll hunt down some evidence of liberal bias on the part of the reporter. Either way, the Times is liberal! So I won’t be bothered by this story; it’s not even a story. It’s just propaganda, and I can sleep soundly knowing that none of the facts alleged in it need affect me, nor sadden me, nor even give me pause. Because the story ran in the Times, and they’re the bad guys. The 121 shattered American lives the story references are not as important to me as knowing where I stand, and staying on the right side of the line.
Ideology, man. It’s a wonderful thing!


Oh, Andrew, you beautiful fool.

Jan 13, 2008 in Clintonitis, Clueless Conservatives, Politics

I loves me some Andrew Sullivan, but anybody must admit the fella can go completely off course at times. In recent times, he has accepted a drubbing or two for his flying off the hinges regarding all things Hillary (“Nixon in a pantsuit,” he says). In a column where he points out that the overexcited enemies of the Clintons have always made them look good in comparison, Andrew says:

In a country exhausted from the toxic polarisation of the last eight years, reelecting the most divisive politician in America didn’t seem so brilliant.

Andrew, wake up. You forgot about the guy who happens to occupy the White House at the moment. There can be no argument, George W. Bush campaigned as a uniter and immediately turned his White House into a slash-and-burn Republican campaign headquarters, dedicated to a permanent Republican majority and little else. Andrew forgets that the Clintons have also survived regularly because they make frequent concessions to conservatives and embrace many of their policies. Yet Hillary is the candidate that will famously unite the entire Republican party in opposition to her, even though nobody can explain why anymore. Is this really to be laid at the Clintons’ feet?

The truth is that the Clintons have not been the source of responsibility for the crazed rightwing jihad against them. They way they have governed makes them exactly the kind of Democrats Republicans like to have in office. The way they have campaigned, generally, offers more than one appeal to conservative voters. And so in his excess, Andrew Sullivan makes my Barack Obama supporting ass step up to defend Hillary Clinton. Slick!


Holy shit, the pomposity of the NYT.

Jan 13, 2008 in Clueless Conservatives, Journamalism

Fer fuck’s sake…if this is the kind of shit you have to drudge up to defend hiring fiction-writer William Kristol as a columnist in the nation’s most respected editorial page, Clark Hoyt, then maybe you should quit before you embarrass yourself.

Of the nearly 700 messages I have received since Kristol’s selection was announced — more than half of them before he ever wrote a word for The Times — exactly one praised the choice.

Rosenthal’s mail has been particularly rough. “That rotten, traiterous [sic] piece of filth should be hung by the ankles from a lamp post and beaten by the mob rather than gaining a pulpit at ANY self-respecting news organization,” said one message. “You should be ashamed. Apparently you are only out for money and therefore an equally traiterous [sic] whore deserving the same treatment.”

Kristol would not have been my choice to join David Brooks as a second conservative voice in the mix of Times columnists, but the reaction is beyond reason. Hiring Kristol the worst idea ever? I can think of many worse. Hanging someone from a lamppost to be beaten by a mob because of his ideas? And that is from a liberal, defined by Webster as “one who is open-minded.” What have we come to?

700 e-mails, and Mr. Hoyt gives us that gem. The rationale for hiring a completely disgraced hack like Kristol? “Eh, we could have done worse.” Wow, no wonder you guys stay ahead of the pack.

The truth is, this is the kind of leeway conservatives have to be given. You have to grade them on the curve, compared only to other deranged rightwingers instead of objective standards of accuracy and insight.

Mr. Hoyt bothers noting that all this protest came, “before he ever wrote a word for The Times.” Quite true, Mr. Hoyt, quite true…but at what relevance? Kristol has a long history in print. Did we need to wait in suspense to see that he hasn’t changed his stripes? Should a person’s precedence not weigh in on the decision to give them such a platform?

I’m not the most street-smart person, but over the years I’ve learned to tell the difference between somebody explaining their honest beliefs versus just trying to hide the smell of their shit. It’s simply impossible that Mr. Hoyt is giving us the best, most honest explanation. He’s stuck in a corner, caught selling snake-oil. Honesty apparently wasn’t the instinctive choice.


Making rightwinger blood boil.

Jan 13, 2008 in Racism

Chris Rock lays down a simple rule of etiquette that will piss off many rightwingers.

If Mr. Rock is facing a dilemma, don’t think he doesn’t know it. During his discussion of Mr. Imus, he laid out some guidelines: White people aren’t allowed to mock black people; rich people aren’t allowed to mock poor people; skinny people aren’t allowed to mock fat people; and so on. The more stuff you have, the less stuff you’re allowed to say.

Librul hogwash. It’s the haves and the have-mores who are allowed to sneer and point and giggle at the less fortunate, the whites who are allowed to mock blacks, straights who are allowed to mock queers, men who can treat women like cattle, and so on. The more stuff you have, the more weapons at your disposal…and you should use them, before somebody uses them on you.


Role Reversal

Jan 13, 2008 in Clintonitis

What’s kinda funny about this is that if you think for just a second about how it would play out on the blogs if it were a Republican candiate’s advisor in the mugshot. First, we’d hear about how the liberal press was going overboard in reporting the incident: how we don’t know what exactly happened, how the jury’s still out on what exactly went down, and so on. The second ring of circling wagons would be a barrage of re-chewed bits about media bias: first there’d be lots of “why isn’t the media reporting this other aspect of the story?” entries, accompanied by the strewing of trivial details in the path. These details are properly called “red herrings,” and the process of handing them out is called “running interference.” Its key refrain is “imagine if this were a Republican,” the inverse of which is exactly what I’m doing here. Bundled in with this part would be the all-important verification of the arresting officer’s party affiliation, since, as we all know, nobody who ever in any way obstructs the progress of our preferred party could possibly be acting out of any interest save partisan bias. Finally, very quickly following on the second level, the Grand Conspiracy would be revealed: armchair jockeys would demonstrate beyond all possible doubt that the arrest photo had been “doctored,” and that all reports of the arrest had been a coordinated attempt at smear.

What’s fascinating about this is that the right lifted this blueprint from the radical leftism of the early seventies, when anybody who you didn’t know was “probably an informer” and all news narratives were propaganda. The right-leaning blogger is essentially a shrieking leftist radical in different clothes; anything that might make him look bad is just another example of the Man trying to keep him down. All photographs that make his candidates look bad are Photoshopped; all documentation of his party’s malfeasance are fakes; every cow pie his partyman steps in was a media frame-up. The SDS ought to be suing Republican bloggers for violation of intellectual property rights. One can only hope that the next page from the playbook that the Republicans will pilfer is the one that teaches them how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


Christians so loving they want to parent your children too.

Jan 12, 2008 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Culture, teh gay

Would you like to be able to go to the library and show your kid a book that provided a sensible, rational lesson about why gays aren’t worthy of hatred or second-class citizenship? Or do you have no interest in doing so? Either way, do you feel the decision is yours as a parent, or some gang of moralizing hypocrite Christians who want to keep hate and disgust towards homosexuality institutionalized. Why, you say? Because Jesus told them to, of course. He was all about regulating books in libraries, you know.

Go ahead, you want to hand over the reins of what appears in our libraries to a gang of know-nothings, don’t you? You’re obviously not responsible enough to make your own choices (since this phrase doesn’t appear next to an argument for corporations to run wild, poison and enslave us, it will have no effect on Republican readers).

Smintheus at Daily Kos spots this story:

”I just want kids to enjoy their innocence and their time of growing up,” Jeff Issa said, explaining his persistence. ”Let them be kids … and not worry about homosexuality, race, religion. Just let them live freely as kids.”…

Kathee Rhode, the library’s director, said censoring books based on subject matter is the duty of parents, not the library. She said the library strives to provide material representing a spectrum of views and ways of life.

”That’s what a public library does, and you make the choice,” Rhode said. ”We certainly want parents to make that decision for their children — not one parent making that decision for all children.”

I guess we’d better get all those books about MLK and the black civil rights struggle out of libraries too, eh? Of course, this is pablum. Mr. Issa is trying to protect a kid from accidentally picking up a book at the public library and reading that hatred of homosexuals is irrational and bigoted. If some poor parent who teaches their child that Jesus hates fags has to contend with such a book polluting their child’s mind, they may lose control. Satan plants evil thoughts in your head, and your first duty is to make sure they never get in. Because Satan will kick your ass and you might not be able to make it back to Jesus in time before you die. An interesting mindset, certainly.

Personality theory and social psychology research suggest that when we encounter someone whose arguments for censorship are dogmatic and simplistic, we are probably dealing with an authoritarian personality who is reacting to something he/she fears. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by a strong desire to exert power, an equally strong need to submit to power (often the power of a social, political or religious group), resentment of weakness, fear of ambiguous situations, and an unusual fascination with sex.

Today’s modern GOP Christianist could only ask, “What’s so wrong about that?”

Note: I don’t mean this post to be explanatory for most people. The model is already well understood, I simply believe it needs to be forcefully restated on occasions because Christianist censors and anti-gay bigots are relentless in trying to put a happy face on what they do.

That face ain’t happy, folks.


Jedi Mind Tricks

Jan 11, 2008 in Uncategorized

So I guess the big question in the parlor today is “what do we make of the President’s and Karl Rove’s surely coincidental yet strangely simultaneous announcements that they think of HRC as the frontrunner? Jury’s out, but it seems like the options are:

1. They’re just sayin’ what they think, only a conspiracy theorist would imagine there’s anything strategic about their remarks or their timing – whoever heard of strategy having anything to do with elections?
2. They’re trying to make Clinton seem like the heir apparent to the nomination, because front-runner status might sway undecideds toward Clinton, and they’d rather face Clinton than Obama
3. They’re betting that the specter of a Clinton nomination will rally the Obama troops, which they’d like, because they’d rather face Obama than Clinton

I have to admit, at moments like these, I understand why both the right wing & the DC press have always been so enamored of Karl Rove. His talent for throwing his enemies off their game is positively athletic. All his blogging friends have to do is keep the meme in play; they don’t even have to understand what he’s saying. Brilliant stuff. As for me, I think the truth is probably closer to option #2 above, because the crypto-racist stuff he drops into the parentheticals when he talks about Obama – well, it makes him look pretty desperate about the prospect of an Obama candidacy. Which is food for thought for anybody who still hasn’t decided where they’re going to stand when the primaries come to their state.


Holy smokes.

Jan 10, 2008 in Britpop, Music

Morrissey is going to play Tehran.

Gee, Hillary won New Hampshire. Who could have seen this coming?

Jan 09, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics

So exciting, Hillary winning. She behaves like a human being for the first time in over a decade, something that should not really be material for positive headlines, and suddenly all is hunky dory? That sounds fairly weak, if you ask me. There are a number of factors related to Hillary’s win, including the turnout of older women. One can certainly sympathize, and having a female president would be just as much a step forward for America as Barack Obama being the first black president would be. Logically, the two novelties should cancel each out, however. Elsewise, you’re stuck trying to explain why one is necessarily important than the other, and all you’re going to do is end up pissing off another constituency. If anything, Hillary suffers because electing a woman for being a President’s wife isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the system. However, the leap forward has essentially been made, so the question really needs to boil down to who these candidates are and what will their term in office really mean for the US, both pragmatically and in terms of heart and soul.

These are, of course, terms in which Barack Obama simply decimates Hillary. Would America honestly choose to listen to Hillary spam talking points for 8 years or listen to Obama engage the country in a dialogue about where we really are headed?

Mike’s previous link referred to the Republican disarmament in the face of Obama:

Scarborough dismisses the notion that some conservatives are talking up Obama in the belief that he would be a weak general-election opponent. “I get e-mails from Republicans, who’ve never voted for a Democrat before, saying they were tearing up during his Iowa speech,” he says from New Hampshire. “I don’t think they’re being calculated and cynical. This is so damn great for America.”

Oh, but yay, go Hillary, or something. C’mon, folks, she’s likely to win by at least a full percentage point!

New Hampshire, Iowans tried to tell you something. And honestly, 39 to 37 shows you listened somewhat. But you could have chosen smarter. A whole hell of a lot smarter. Like another group of people.

How’s that 17 feeling, Edwards supporters?

Gonna win South Carolina or something? And then cinch it up Feb. 5th?

You sure?

The numbers prove that those ready to truly change the rulebook in Washington can beat the pants off Hillary Clinton. But some of them insist on persisting in support for Edwards, even when he himself is hinting that he’d rather see the election go to Obama than Clinton. Were it not for these people, this race would not even be close.

Keep it up, John Edwards fans. I’ll have to keep remembering that I might have to be stuck arguing for a Hillary Clinton presidency in November, because of you bunch of geniuses. Good intentions need to be tempered with pragmatism, folks. So quit pulling a Nader.


Is Clinton shifting into desperation mode?

Jan 08, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap

If this is true it’d be suicide for the Clinton campaign:

A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.

At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama “527 committee” that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton’s super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator’s image.

If Hillary starts wielding a fire hose it would spell the end of her campaign.  Not only would it reinforce what voters already suspected about her (that she’s cold, ambitious and calculating), it would hand her opponents ample ammunition to castigate her as an agent of Establishment Politics who will do or say anything to get elected.


“Even Conservative Media Chorus Sings Obama’s Praises”

Jan 08, 2008 in Election crap

It’s time to commence the Dana Pico Suicide Watch.


Turning This Economy Around

Jan 07, 2008 in Uncategorized

I know my Anglophile friends will be stoked to exchange their “what what!”s for “wot wot?”s, but the rest of us can be pretty bummed about this news. Great work there on the conservative economic principles, President Bush! Way to put the QB ahead of the team, Bush supporters!

The Devil Made My Website Suck

Jan 07, 2008 in satire

This is the funniest thing I expect to read this week, and given that we’re in an election cycle, I don’t say that lightly. But what could be funnier than conservatives – the same people who once, a long time ago in a land very far away, used to view the taking of responsibility as a cardinal virtue – whining that the reason their website performed under par was OH NOES LIBERALS!!1! That’s right: an absence of right-leaning Scoop developers meant RedState couldn’t find anyone to fix their problems. NB: the guys at RedState actually believe this; go read the article if you don’t believe me. Their site had problems; it was the liberals who done it. So they sought out a developer with fewer liberal ties, because, as everyone knows, nobody ever did good work for anyone with whom they disagreed in principle; when a guy works on your car, you always check his politics first, right? Now RedState needs twenty-five grand to pay for upgrades that would get it back to the bells and whistles they used to enjoy when they used Scoop.

Really, if you can, I think you should give RedState some money, whether you lean right or left. People who blame others for their own failures all the time are the same people who’ll sue their employers at the first sign of job stress, or who bump their heads reaching for the Slim Jims on the top shelf and then sue Hy-Vee. If RedState people have to return to the IRL workplace, they’ll be placing a drain on the economy in no time flat. We don’t need that. Let the baby have his bottle. Help keep these menaces out of the general labor pool. Donate today.

I Reveal My True Face Unto My God

Jan 05, 2008 in Uncategorized

Does everybody remember the forced-battle scenes in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the finest of the Apes sequels? After the rescue crew from Earth gets thrown into a prison cell by the A-bomb-worshiping mutant priests, who use psychic powers to force the astronauts to fight each other with spiked clubs? If you never saw the movie or your memory’s not what it used to be, the reenactments are a blast.

Form a circle and fire away, Republicans.

Jan 04, 2008 in Clueless Conservatives

Sadly, No! has some fun observing the meltdown:

Remember those heady days after the 2004 presidential elections when liberals were chided for being coastal elites who were being punished by the electorate for mocking the heartland and its treasured traditional values? Remember when those folksy Christian Midwesterners were endlessly praised for their quiet resolve to support their godly President Bush and reject the sissy-assed negativism of the traitorous liberal establishment?

Pass the popcorn.


ps – Roger Ailes has some great snippets from some the elitists at The Corner.

pss – Dowdy Art Downs gets in on the act:

His twice-born, double-dipped hard-shell piety might appeal to the snake handlers and Biblical literalists but it could turn off a lot of South Park Republicans.

So it’s alright if the Jethros are all “gunned-up and ready to roll” for an Ivy League Republican like George W but once they nominate a candidate from their own ranks it’s time to rein them in.  Republicans, it’s time to accept your base.


Jan 04, 2008 in Election crap

Interesting graf in Salon’s coverage of the GOP caucuses:

(One pundit who got it right: former President Bill Clinton, a fellow native of Hope, Arkansas, who for weeks was telling anyone who would listen that Huckabee was the real deal, and who showed up Thursday at Huckabee’s Des Moines headquarters for a visit.)

If you make the mistake of taking blogs seriously, you’ll get the impression that the relationship between right and left in America is one of frothing hatred – that the differences between American Democrats and American Republicans are deep ideological chasms across which few if any bridges can be built. Both parties like this a lot, because it’s convenient to have people in your constituency who are so stupid that they have confused politics with the imperative to support the home team. Politics are, in fact, complex; party affiliations are for morons incapable of grasping complexities. Anybody who thinks “voting Republican” or “voting Democrat” is an expression of political ideology deserves the mistreatment he’ll get from the candidates he supports.

Right-wing bloggers are especially hilarious with respect to the Clinton family – they’re like the divorced guy in your workplace: all you have to do if you’re bored is mention “marriage” in his presence, then sit back and watch the fireworks. Should any of the assembled Clinton-allergic blog massive note this parenthetical caucus-night event, it’ll be a treat to watch them spin. Should any of them be reading this, they are invited to briefly contemplate the political reality that Governor Clinton’s visit to Governor Huckabee’s HQ represents. It differs rather dramatically from the political fantasy that you guys seem to think is good for the country.

Dodd’s out.

Jan 03, 2008 in Election crap

For real.

Obama wins the night in Iowa City.

Jan 03, 2008 in Barack Obama, Iowa, Iowa City

Just got back from caucusing here in Iowa City and I’m glad to report that it was a resounding Obama victory.

There was a total of 719 people in attendance at Precinct 24 and before I left the numbers went thusly:

  • Obama: 382 votes
  • Edwards: 169 votes
  • Clinton: 120 votes

Keep in mind there were a little over a hundred votes that weren’t yet counted but considering the above I think it’s safe to make conclusions.

I’m watching CNN right now and they’re openly mourning the loss of their preferred candidates; Clinton and Giuliani.


PS-the Clinton camp almost didn’t make viability and even after they reorganized they were only a few over.

Caucus time in Iowa City

Jan 03, 2008 in Uncategorized

I’ll be caucusing tonight at the local high school gymnasium.  I’ll post updates later.


This sums up my bank rather well.

Jan 03, 2008 in Uncategorized

[youtube ZJZDg0tYxeM]


They Eat Their Own

Jan 02, 2008 in Uncategorized

This is one of the dirtiest tricks we’ve seen yet, and we’re not exactly spring chickens. What is it about the South Carolina GOP primary that brings out the worst in these guys? I suppose our visitor Mr. Pico would point out that, since the book of Nephi really does say what it says, this is perfectly fine, but we kinda don’t swing that way – this is dirty politics, and whoever’s responsible should feel ashamed. But “shame” isn’t exactly among the finer feelings over on t’other side of the aisle these days, it seems.

$100 a barrel.

Jan 02, 2008 in Economy, Energy

It finally happened.