Well, kind of.

Be patient. Member Joe Lisboa has vowed to give Truthseeker77 "heat" in regard to his post about Keith Olbermann's response to Bill O'reilly's comment. Lisboa keeps it interesting by not revealing right away his line of attack.

For this reason, comments have been enabled in the "Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy" threat until the heat is delivered.

At face value alone, this is a welcome and long overdue gesture. Consider the array of means-tested programs and policies that currently have bearing upon the circumstances of low-income households in America's cities:

• Housing assistance, the Community Development Block Grant, and numerous other urban programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• TANF (formerly AFDC, aka "welfare"), Medicaid, SCHIP, and other related programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (aka food stamps) is administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Supplemental Security Income is administered by the Social Security Administration.
• The Earned Income Tax Credit is administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
  

Grover Norquist's of the world notwithstanding, none of these social "safety nets" are inherently flawed. They each do more good than harm, to varying degrees and with varying effects, no doubt, but the net effect is a positive one. There is also of course room for improvement, from one program to the next, from one policy to the next. But now there appears to be an opportunity to put forth a more comprehensive urban policy agenda that not only seeks to improve each element of urban policy, but also seeks to make the interaction of the parts work more efficiently to create a better whole.

Whether it is even feasible to coordinate such a diversity of programs and policies in a meaningful and beneficial way remains to be seen, but I do know that it has been over three decades since we've seen a president with any inclination to create an opportunity for a comprehensive urban policy agenda. Reagan sure didn't do so. Bush I and II sure didn't either. And Clinton's urban policy was, at best, haphazard and riven with compromise. So there is an opportunity here, under an Obama administration, for much greater cohesion and efficiency with respect to urban policy than anything we have seen in more than a generation.

There is also an opportunity here to once and for all dissociate the Democratic party from the worn-out but still lingering stereotypes regarding "welfare" and racially hued "redistributionist" policies. We all saw that ugly head rear itself once again this time around. But that's another topic for another day.

He called the sun a great musical instrument.

Using around-the-clock daylight in the Antarctic summer to make relatively impossible high altitude solar studies, he gathered data confirming that our very sun oscillates every five minutes, rather like a bell.  Once a Syracuse journalism student, he changed his major to science after taking a "physics for poets" class.  He passed away last month at age 91, leaving behind a research facility at the South Pole. 

Following are a few favorite lines of mine, fellow blogmates, in celebration of a life that fostered inquiry: astronomy in Antarctica.  

Wishing heaven's endless embrace upon the dear soul of astrophysicist Dr. Martin Pomerantz.

Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half-light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

Cloths of Heaven

William Butler Yeats

 

A few members angry about the fact that in some diaries I disable comments are asking that no one read my posts.

I can't say you won't try. You guys genuinely want not to be tempted to read my stories, but this will be an impossible task, as you will itch to know what logically sane argument lies behind my titles. "Curiosity killed the cat," says the proverb.

We can't even say with certainty that member "hrebendorf" is being honest when he claims not to have read my famous post, which has become the focus of the TPM readers section today; I don't think his claim is consistent with his obsession.

The judgment of the average TPM'er is often clouded by their extreme pro-liberal/Obama bias, and this makes my balanced, out-of-the-TPM-mainstream posts irresistible. like a cold Pepsi in the middle of the desert.

Me criticizing Keith Olbermann and his straw man is what ticked them off today. The fact that I was right in that particular thread made them rabidly mad.

I wish there were a button that when pressed would allow you to see how many views or "hits" each individual blog post has. Without it, you will never know if you are succeeding in your pledge to ostracize me. Until then, good luck in your enterprise; you will BADLY need it.

TPM management, I ask you.  What was the thought process behind giving posters the "ability" to disable comments?  It would seem to be contradictory to the very premise of TPMCafe.  There are currently two posters (perhaps more?) who by utilizing the option are incurring the wrath of most others on this site.  New posts being written to respond to a post with comments disabled, then another post by the original poster to ... you get the idea.

It appears to be a hornet's nest being occasionally hit with a stick.  What's the point?

Dude, either turn on comments to your lame-ass blog post or stand down, son. Seriously: if you can't take the goddamn heat at least put down your Philosophy 201: Critical Thinking textbook long enough to stop deriding others for engaging in "strawman" attacks whilst shielding yourself from any sort of feedback whatsoever. Grow a fucking backbone already, douchenozzle. Jesus Phucking Christ, ya ponce.

"One of our principles is that power corrupts, and you need to disperse it," Senator Jim DeMint said, to a group of GOP officials at a conference in Myrtle Beach.

Raw Story article.

Wealth is power, n'est-ce pas? Also, information? Also, access? When have liberals ever been all about concentrating power? Of course, DeMint doesn't really mean what he's saying, I feel. I think he means states as opposed to federal (when it's the other guys in charge). I don't remember much discussion about concentrated power during arguments about FISA, Iraq, intelligence, executive privilege, and so on.

Read more »

Since I managed to draw the ire of at least 3 people (at least one of whom clearly didn't understand the technology) with my last post pimping ground-assist heat pumps, I thought I'd give it another go, but this time I'd like to focus on another really cool high-tech, low-cost and low-work way to boost home energy efficiency.  Before I go there, I'd just like to offer up this link to those of you who find geo-thermal or ground-assist heating and cooling systems intriguing.  It's a cool savings calculator that allows you to plug in your location, home size, existing heating & cooling system info, and then shows you the annual savings on energy bills you could realize with a geo-thermal heat pump system.  Keep in mind that this IS a manufacturer's website, and the calculator doesn't take into account your personal energy usage habits; in my case, the fact that for 2 - 3 months per year I open up the house and run a whole-house fan means that I wouldn't save as much as they indicate.  But still it's a cool toy that can help you see the savings these systems could offer in your part of the country. 

Now, on to today's geek topic:  radiant heat barrier.

Basically what we're talking about here is aluminum foil that you staple to the framing in your attic, floor, or exterior walls.  It operates on the principle that most heat loss/heat gain is due to radiant transfer - heat moving through an object or air.  The "R-value" you see cited on insulation stands for "resistance".  Basically, that's what insulation does - it "resists" heat transfer, mostly through trapped air pockets.  It doesn't stop heat transfer; it just slows it down by trapping the heat in the insulation's air pockets.  And when it has trapped all the heat it can hold, it then "radiates" that heat out, in all directions.  That's at least one of the reasons why, in summer, a house that's been shut all day with the A/C off will still be hotter than the outside air when you return home at night - there's insulation and air up in the attic that's now releasing the heat it stored during the day into your living space.  The same thing happens in reverse during the winter, only now the heat trapped in the insulation is heat that's rising from your living space.

What radiant barrier does is reflect heat.  In summer, the heat in your attic is mostly radiant heat being given off by the underside of the roof.  A radiant barrier under the roof joists will reflect up to 97% of that heat back out so the attic space never heats up in the first place (and the insulation on the attic floor never traps it to release it later back into your home).

There are a number of radiant barrier products on the market now.  One that I have used successfully in several installations is Prodex, which is a layer of closed-cell foam sandwiched between aluminum foil on each surface.  It has an Energy Star rating.  I first used this product in a 100-year-old home which had closets tucked under the roof slope - one of them on the south side of the house.  So much heat radiated through the roof in the summer that the homeowners complained they couldn't sleep in the bedroom during hot weather.  They wanted to demolish the back plaster wall and sloped ceiling of the closet and install insulation, then close it back up.  But since insulation needs an air space to work effectively, and there was only about 6" of space from the back of the wall surface to the bottom of the roof deck, I told them I didn't think they would gain much relief with fiberglass batts.  So I started researching and found this stuff.  Working with it was easy - it's flexible, only 1/4" thick, can be cut with scissors and installed with a staple gun, and it has an R-value of 15.  With the space we had to work with, we weren't going to get even that high of an R-value with fiberglass.  We left air gaps between the material and the roof deck, and between the material and the wallboard.  By the time we put the last piece in, the temperature in the bedroom had dropped - by about 20 degrees!

Well, after that I was sold, and since then, I've recommended to every customer that we install the barrier any time we open an exterior wall or someone wants to insulate an attic or crawl space.  For one thing, it's easier to handle than batts or blown-in insulation and it works better, too.  For another thing, the cost of the material is only 50 cents per square foot, less if you are buying a larger quantity - this compares favorably with the cost of both fiberglass batt and blown-in insulation.  For those customers doing new additions, I've recommended it as a house wrap in place of Tyvek - it provides the same vapor barrier, but adds insulation and soundproofing as well.  And thanks to the energy incentives included in the bailout, if you install this stuff any time in 2009, you'll get a $300 tax credit.

As for myself, I'm planning on installing it next year in my own home.  I'm going to be installing it over the ceiling joists so that I get the winter benefit of heat being reflected back down into my living area.  We're going to screed down the top couple inches of existing blown cellulose to allow an air gap and then staple this stuff to the tops of the ceiling joists.  Then, we'll run 2" sleepers over the top of it, perpendicular to the ceiling joists, and install decking above.  The decking will keep the foil surface free of dust so the top refelective layer can do its thing during the summer - reflecting the heat of the attic up and away from my living area.  One of the reasons I'm installing this way is due to my only concern with this product - I would hesitate to place it in direct contact with the bottom side of a roof deck, or on top of a roof deck under the tar paper, because I worry that the additional heat being reflected by the product would cause shingles to deteriorate more quickly.  I don't think this is a problem if the proper air gap is allowed for and the attic is well-ventilated with a ridge vent, where the heat can flow up the gap between the barrier and the roof deck and out through the vent, but I want the winter benefit as well.  I'll be jacketing the water heater and wrapping the water pipes under the house with it as well.

So, for those of you who advocate "envelope improvements", this one's for you - though you'd still get better efficiency and greater energy savings with a ground-assist heat pump.

There are times in every election season where pundits, prognosticators and political junkies (guilty!), bereft of the daily gotcha games, policy shifts and sharp attacks of the campaign trail, find themselves starved for news. 

When there is no actual news to report, these people do what they do best.  They attempt to create news to fill the perceived vacuum.  And that is where the madness - the delirious, frothing, rabid analysis, replete with the requisite hand-wringing, finger-shaking and concern-trolling - takes full flight amongst these people. 

These times usually occur in the two weeks or so before the vice presidential nominees are unveiled, and in the ten weeks or so between the end of the Presidential election and Inauguration Day, when the next President's transition efforts are at full steam.

This is a time-honored tradition in American politics, as old as the Republic itself, and this year is no exception.  Barack Obama has been President-elect for exactly 11 days as of this writing, and the new meme appears to be that he's choosing people who are too (Clintonian, male, Democratic, partisan, not me).

I find all of this frenzied speculation utterly unconvincing.  Let's see if we can calm the waters and maybe even stop the madness a bit. 

First, there's the notion that Obama isn't looking at enough women or other "special" groups. 

As far as I am aware, the only people who are currently signed on to the Obama Administration are Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff, Robert Gibbs as White House press secretary and Valerie Jarrett as senior advisor.  It appears that Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson are under consideration for Secretary of State, and David Axelrod will be a senior advisor or special assistant of some sort if he chooses to leave his insanely lucrative consulting business. 

That's right.  Obama is guilty of selecting a Jewish man, a White Southerner and an African-American woman to top posts.  On top of that heinous offense, Obama is also guilty of considering a White New Yorker, Hispanic Westerner and a White Illinoisan to staff other top posts.  (Sounds positively monochromatic, no?)  One thing is certain, though:  their plainly evident excellence defuses any rational opposition.

Again, note that the above people are the only ones confirmed by the transition team as either being in the running or already on board.  That means that everything else you may have heard is nothing more than gossip, and should be given appropriately short shrift.

Second, there's the notion that Obama is picking too many Clinton "loyalists", thus ensuring there won't be any "change" to "hope" for.

The truth is that there has been exactly one Democratic President between 1981 and now.  So, what's an incoming Democratic President to do if he wants experienced people from his own party to help in his transition and administration?  The simple truth is that most Beltway Democrats probably have the phrase "Clinton Administration" somewhere on their resumes. 

Incidentally, there's also a huge difference between the atmospheres faced by those Clinton staffers who came in after 1992 and those Obama staffers who will come in after this year.  Clinton did win a ton of electoral votes - but he only won 43% of the popular vote.  He did not have the sort of public mandate and support that Obama will enjoy.  That translates into political capital that the Obama Administration can deploy to enact big planks of the campaign platform. 

Of course, whether that will actually happen remains to be seen.  However, I surmise that Obama will go after the biggest items early in his term, when the public will be most tolerant of bumps on the road to change.  The point, however, is that Clinton's staff didn't have nearly as much muscle to flex as Obama's will.  Moreover, these people are Democrats interested in doing good things in government.  I suspect they will be on board with the new President.

Third, there's the notion that Obama isn't doing anything to "heal" any "divides" by not considering any Republicans for positions in his administration.

This is where I issue a warning to all those who see the GOP as irrelevant.  They still have a large base, and they still have the support of the MSM.  (Don't believe me?  Take a look at this Sunday's talking-head-fest, and see the guest lineups.) 

This notion was started by John Boehner, carried forward by other Republican Congresscritters, and reported with typical credulity by the MSM.  Memes such as this one, while blatantly false and frankly idiotic, can drive wedges if care is not taken to slap them down immediately upon conception.

Obama is reportedly considering keeping Robert Gates at Defense (my speculation:  he'd like to have retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, but he's not available until 2010).  He's also reportedly considering other Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar for various positions.  Yes, I know what Lugar said about it...but that's what Joe Biden said publicly about the Vice Presidency, too.  Anyway, that's five Republicans.  Seems like a lot of Republicans.

A few final points to consider about the transition and staffing process.  Being on the Obama transition team is no guarantee of being in the Obama Administration.  For example, Robert Reich is highly unlikely to do anything other than his current duties as a transition advisor, and that position should expire by January 19. 

Also, notice that, while the GAO's transition offices are going full-steam and being run by Obama operatives, Obama himself has been on the ground in Washington for about four hours since November 5.  He's handling his end of things out of his transition offices in Chicago.  This means that any major appointments will come from Obama - not from Foggy Bottom.  The President-elect is very much in control of the selection process, and will not be rushed or successfully pressured.

Barack Obama is building his administration carefully, with ample political and personnel consideration, focusing on quality rather than meeting some artificial quota, and with control over all parts of the decision making process. 

These were, as I recall, cornerstones of his campaign.  That should be reassuring, given the success of said campaign.  In the meantime, as Mark Halperin (!!!) said about the media frenzy following Republican crocodile tears over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment:  "Stop the madness!"

Giving some thought to her recent interview for Secretary of State, I think that her being married to Bill raises a multitude of issues that could interfere with her being the best person for the job.  I see Hillary as wanting a more independent role that would not involve her husband.  I don't see how as secretary of state her ex-president husband would not be much more involved than appropriate.  It creates a sticky mess.

I think Bill Richardson would be the best person for the job of Secretary of State. 

"Richardson has met face-to-face with some of the world's most intimidating leaders. He negotiated the release of prisoners from Saddam Hussein, convinced corrupt foreign heads of state to step down, and oversaw and reformed one of the most challenging and unmanageable agencies in government, the Department of Energy. In recognition of his concern for human rights abuses and his diplomatic work throughout the world, Richardson was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize." - from the Governor's website

The world is experiencing the issues of global warming, energy crisis, economic crisis, abd food/water shortage.  He might not be perfect but I think he has the natural skills for this position and has already taken actions based on his natural tendencies and that is the same reasoning that made me feel that Senator Obama would be a great president.

I think having Hillary in the cabinet is very valuable. She does not have the seniority in the senate to lead on Healthcare etc. but if she were the Secretary of Health and Human Services she would have the format to be a leader on Healthcare reform in her own right working with congressional leaders.  This would give her a seat at the table and a chance to deliver on something very important to her.  This position also gives her a role where her husband will not really factor into anything.  She would have her completely independent role. 

1-) A post yesterday praising the option to disable comments became so popular here that it made it close to the top of the recommended posts list. Now all of a sudden when the most hated TPM member (me) exercises that popular right, TPM'ers flip out, seemingly because I offended a liberal icon (Keith Olbermann).

2-) In a response to my "Keith Olbermann..." post by a member who confessed not to have read it at all, only one replier addressed the fact that Keith Olbermann purported to debunk a comment by Bill O'reilly by providing "first time voter" statistics, despite the fact that O'reilly did not refer to "first time voters" or turnout by any group. This replying member made the puzzling claim that "Maybe Bill-o didn't mean to imply that, but I took it that way at first. BFD". As you can see, the level of confidence this member places on his own interpretation of O'reilly's words is very low. "Maybe he implied it, or maybe he didn't.

Even if we accept that O'reilly implied that voter turnout by African Americans was high enough to decide the elections, Olbermann provided very different statistics as his proof: Statistics for first time voters. And that's a "straw man".


You are all welcome prove that O'reilly did this in the form of comments here in this new diary. Warning: If you instead choose to name-call or change the subject, you will have proved me right.

Thanks.

Politoc.com, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, AP, and a number of bloggers are reporting that Obama secretly met with his long time barber, Zariff, yesterday.  According to sources close to Obama, a couple of folks who work in the sandwich shop down the street from transition headquarters, report that Obama has asked Zariff to serve on his transition team. 

Transition officials had reported Zariff was simply cutting Obama's hair, but declined to deny Zariff had been offered a transition position. 


 

Outside of parenthood, working on the campaign just ended has been the proudest accomplishment of my adult life. I started working in late December of 2007, worked through the primaries and into the summer. Just after the convention I attended a mini Camp Obama to learn some basic organizing skills. With my wife and another active community member I helped organize and coordinate a 170 volunteer member grassroots campaign group that we called Cherry Hill for Obama.  Along the way I met many terrific people, some famous (Rahm Emanuel, James Carville & Howard Dean), and have made new friends. We helped to elect a new Congressman in New Jersey's 3^rd Congressional District (the first Democrat to win the seat since 1882), and, a new President. We're all very proud of our work. It was a great victory, but now it's time, after a little bit of a rest, for us to effect the change that we helped to begin.

 

This was the first time in forty years that I became directly involved in a political campaign. I became involved because of the critical nature of the issues facing the country and because the country was so clearly in need of competent leadership. I decided to support President Elect Obama because I wanted my country back and because he has such a clear strategy for how to move the country forward - that is, that change is created from the bottom up by asking for participation through shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, while at the same time providing accountable and inspired leadership from top.

 

But he can't do this alone. We have to continue to be involved in one way or another.

 

To that end my watchword moving forward is purple. Why purple? Because to me purple signifies unity, not just the obvious mixing of red and blue, but the unity of purpose of America. The result of all of our hard work on this campaign has provided us a chance to improve our community and our country. But we can only do that if we stay involved. Sometimes our involvement will be symbolic. For instance, following the lead of one of our terrific group members, on November 5^th I took down all of my campaign signs and in their place put up American flags. Just a symbol yes, but also a reminder to me of our common purpose and our obligation to find common ground. And sometimes our involvement must be active participation. This is a time for each of us to start considering how we can actively stay involved. In the months ahead our new President will call on us to participate, but we need not wait until he asks; we can start thinking about and organizing that process right now.

 

We must continue the job. I'm looking forward to the work ahead.

 

What else should I be?
All apologies.
What else could I say?
Everyone is gay

 

Kurt Cobain

 

Rarely does anyone emphasize their non-membership within an ethnic minority when defending said group's civil rights, yet it seems a few appear to feel the need to remove any doubts about their one hundred percent sterling heterosexuality before advocating for the rights of gays.  Many are so eager to point out bigotry that led to the passing of Proposition 8, and yet they betray a necessity to assert their unequivocal straightness while doing so, lest the audience may inconveniently misconstrue, or perhaps to emphasize the extent to which their advocacy is untainted by personal stakes in the discussion of the rights of what we view as a straight majority and a gay minority.

 

However, such a demographic breakdown seems at odds with the Kinsey scale.

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Today, truthseeker77 published a "comments disabled" post entitled Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy.  I'm not recommending that you read it.  In fact, I didn't read it, and I'm making it a general rule to never read posts that have comments disabled.  But after I clicked the link, I realized that when someone posts something that looks interesting or provocative, I often scroll down to the comments first--before reading the post.  I guess sometimes the effect is more interesting to me than the cause.  Seeing that grey "COMMENTS DISABLED" thing at the bottom of the post caused me to reach for the Back button before the page had even finished loading. 

The futility and arrogance of trying to prevent replies to your public pronouncements should be obvious to all, but apparently it's not.  In my opinion, disabling comments is a silly, cowardly practice, and I'd like to see a warning right on the "Recent Reader Posts" list so I could avoid clicking the link in the first place. 

At any rate, if you happen to feel the overwhelming urge to read and/or respond to truthseeker77's post, please feel free to use the space below to reply to whatever the hell it was truthseeker77 wrote.

COMMENTS ENABLED

Professor Mark Perry shows how much the Big Three's costs are out of whack

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/50b-bailout-would-only-be-down-payment.html

Transcript as follows

Today, the leaders of the G-20 countries -- a group that includes the world's largest economies -- are gathering in Washington to seek solutions to the ongoing turmoil in our financial markets. I'm glad President Bush has initiated this process -- because our global economic crisis requires a coordinated global response. And yet, as we act in concert with other nations, we must also act immediately here at home to address America's own economic crisis. This week, amid continued volatility in our markets, we learned that unemployment insurance claims rose to their highest levels since September 11, 2001. We've lost jobs for ten straight months -- nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, many of them in our struggling auto industry. And millions of our fellow citizens lie awake each night wondering how they're going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement.

Make no mistake: this is the greatest economic challenge of our time. And while the road ahead will be long, and the work will be hard, I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis -- because here in America we always rise to the moment, no matter how hard. And I am more hopeful than ever before that America will rise once again.

But we must act right now. Next week, Congress will meet to address the spreading impact of the economic crisis. I urge them to pass at least a down-payment on a rescue plan that will create jobs, relieve the squeeze on families, and help get the economy growing again. In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. If Congress does not pass an immediate plan that gives the economy the boost it needs, I will make it my first order of business as President.

Even as we dig ourselves out of this recession, we must also recognize that out of this economic crisis comes an opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen our middle class, and keep our economy competitive in the 21st century.

That starts with the kinds of long-term investments that we've neglected for too long. That means putting two million Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. It means investing $150 billion to build an American green energy economy that will create five million new jobs, while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil, and saving our planet for our children. It means making health care affordable for anyone who has it, accessible for anyone who wants it, and reducing costs for small businesses. And it also means giving every child the world-class education they need to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.

Doing all this will require not just new policies, but a new spirit of service and sacrifice, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. If this financial crisis has taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers -- in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. And that is how we will meet the challenges of our time -- together. Thank you.

Awesome first fireside chat, don't you think?

This was posted at the change.gov website

Bloomberg is often right on the issues. (He's wrong quite often, too, of course, but we can save that for another post.)

Regarding my earlier prediction, I would like to officially apologize to the state of Pennsylvania, and especially it's citizens for my miscalculation. Once deadspin picked up the similar sentiment, I should have known how wrong I was. I would especially like to apologize to first time voters, recent citizens and most especially to lifetime Republican voter Americo Monteiro, who previously had not imagined such a vote possible.

Many of you are probably acquainted with the logical fallacy known as "straw man," which is a flawed argument that occurs in the following form:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.

Keith Olbermann's behavior during last Wednesday's "Countdown" is a case in point.

Olbermann took issue with the fact that Bill O'reilly mentioned Proposition 8 in California as an example of how Democrats, in his view, have a double standard with respect to non-blacks who oppose gay marriage and blacks who hold the same stance:

O'reilly: "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?"

To which Olbermann replied that pro-Obama turnout among first-time voters was not the reason why Proposition 8 in California passed.

OLBERMANN: Our runner up tonight, BillO the Clown, again reading the conservative talking points, trying to pin the victory of Proposition 8 in California on black voters. "The African American community came out for Obama. While they were in that booth, they said, you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?" Maybe because they're not racists and you are.

Our friend, Nate Silver, who relies on statistics rather than on things he heard in the hallway, has dispensed with this version of reality, simplified for the BillO's of the world. Nate writes, "the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters, the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama, voted against Prop 8 by a 62 to 38 margin. If California`s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin." Nate Silver, Bill--FiveThirtyEight.com. Learn something--well, try.

Here, K.O. sets up a straw man called "first time voters", which would represent position Y in the above-mentioned example. O'reilly at no point tried to "pin the victory" of Proposition 8 on African Americans. Nor did he blame "first-time voters" either. In fact, O'reily did not even mention first time voters.

O'reilly simply noted the high support of the proposition among African Americans in California and he wondered why the left  condemns those groups that oppose gay marriage while making an exception with African Americans.

His point can be deconstructed like this:

The left condemns those who oppose gay marriage.
African Americans in California opposed gay marriage and the left did not condemn them.
Therefore there is a double standard.

One way to attack O'reilly's point would have been finding instances in which the left had criticized African Americans' behavior during the voting. I saw an article by The New Republic's senior editor, for example, slamming African Americans for their support to the proposition, although for the most part I've heard nothing from main liberal blogs.

But Olbermann, who earns $4 million a year to keep his readers well-informed, instead chose to commit the fallacy of the straw man.

Recommended reading: "Keith Olbermann makes an ass of himself"

The first Romney campaign for president, that of Mitt's father, George, famously started on a downward spiral when he tried to explain his changing views on the Vietnam War by claiming: "I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get."

Badly put (a family trait apparently) it was not that hard to understand what he meant, and it is easier still to understand it when considering how brainwashed we have been by the Cheney/Rumsfeld view of the presidency which has dominated thought for so long (predating the Bush II administration, but reaching its high point in recent years). It is time to start the healing, and to restore the republic formed by our Constitution, as we shed the monarchical pretensions that have been beaten into us.

Read more »

About a month after a bailout that did not do much good, the American government is considering bailing out another essential sector of the American economy: the Detroit-based automobile industry. It seems like everyone opposes the auto bailout. Many progressives see the industry's failure as a referendum on their unflinching alliance with gas guzzling SUVs and refusal to convert to more environmentally conscious vehicles like the automobile industries of Japan, China, and South Korea. Conservatives are weary of more government intervention in an already heavy regulatory year and an assault to fiscal conservatism.

The auto bailout makes me uncomfortable for a variety of reasons. First, as mentioned above, the failures of American automobile companies are largely their fault. Second, the continuing stream of government bailouts raises larger questions of which industries are valuable enough to protect. And are we truly a capitalist society if we ditch the dogma when times get tough? Aren't we supposed to let the market correct itself?

This is the problem with rigid economic ideologies. In an ideal capitalist state, we would let the failing companies declare bankruptcy so that they would either be forced to improve operations or allow a better company to fill their place.

But a government cannot work that way. A government must protect its people, and that means ensuring that banks are operational and can continue to give loans, and that a country's largest industries can continue to employ their workers.

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic has written on the many reasons that the U.S. government should bail out the automobile industries. His most persuasive argument comes at the end. By bailing out the auto companies, the U.S. government would be in an ideal position to enforce conditions that would make the companies more efficient, both economically and environmentally.

Those conditions would include limits on executive compensation, as in the Wall Street rescue, but also more specific requirements designed to push the Big Three toward greater innovation and fuel efficiency.

I think that as much as it pains us to admit it, Cohn is correct: we must bail out the automobile industry. Letting it fail would be too devastating in this economy.

But the larger issue here concerns the ideology that drives the American economy. The bailouts of the past few months - suggested by a Republican President - have made a mockery of fiscal conservatives and should usher in an era of more responsible governance.

A country's economy is only as good as its reaction to a crisis. And the current meltdown has proven that fiscal conservatism is not adequate. We need big government to prevent big problems. I'd trade slightly limited short-term growth for consistent long-term growth any day.

In the past few months, I have come to equate the economy of the past eight years to an overgrown lawn. Yes, all of the weeds are growing very well but who is going to mow the lawn and pull the weeds when it gets out of hand?

I'll be interested to see if small government conservatives forget this period of absolutely necessary government intervention when the economy gets good again. My guess is that their ideology has made conservatives short-sighted enough to forget the lesson and refocus on their creed.

Obama appears to still be living in the 90s with his choice of ex-Clintonites  and being super selective on who he chooses to be working for him. According to Daniel Schor on NPR, Obama picked out Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton because he though they have experience. But the world is a completely different place than it was dring the nineties. The United States now has try to end two wars and solve the financial crisis. To do this requirres fresh new minds and not veterans from the Clinton administration. Also Obama appears to fear that press would go after anyone with something in their closet due to the fact that applicants applyng for positions in his administration must have a perfect record. This appears to be mainly a 90s fear when the press had nothing to write about but scandals . With the economy in the toilet, I doubt that the public would have much of an appetite for tabliod stories about the Obama administration. Moreover Obama his once again limiting his choice of advisors and viewpoints.  Obama needs to realize that the nineties are over and that he needs new perspectives even though they could offered by someone, who may not have a perfect private life.

They'll be down the box wine by the time Barack moves in.

(CNN) - The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.

After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.

To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet "Hillside Select" 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com...

...McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at...

"...it was an appropriate time for the White House to use this stock."

In 1908, the Ford Motor Company introduced the exciting new Model A passenger car. This roomy, zoomy (up to 30 mph!) newfangled contraption was meant to put the horse out of work, and actually put the country to work. Henry Ford's 'Assembly Line' made it possible for an average of almost 600 per year to roll away from the plant, and the base price was $750. An optional rubber roof ($30) could be upgraded to the luxe leather roof for another $20. Children were still learning to read by Whale Oil Lamps. By about 1930, the Car was born. The second generation of Model A got 40 miles per gallon of fuel. The 1908 Model T got 25 mpg. (This is an editorial. Look here for a report)  Several colors were available too.  I won't spend time on it, but Oyster Grey may be the most important advance in the current era. Thank you, Audi.

In the last two days I heard people using the B word, revisiting her campaign low points, her hawkish FP rhetoric and her kitchen and sink strategy.

 

Is it Hillary's fault she is being considered for a key position in the White House?

 Are you just venting your anger toward her because you're not yet ready to bash Obama? Don't feel comfortable questioning his judgement?

 

 

 

The Republicans could not find a central message, so they adopted "Change".  They sought a cohesive VP to hold the base and draw disenfranchised HRC supporters, so they adopted SARAH!!!  Looking to their future they are now considering an AA for the party lead.

Sundheim said of Michael Steele: "He understands where the party needs to go, he has got a strong set of principles, he is well able to articulate a message in all the media forms, and can take that message to the growing areas of the country -- youth and minorities -- and he does very well with women. He is the future of the party."  Full story here....

So they borrowed the Dem message, they thought boobs would win over women, and now they believe that all the country really wanted was an AA president.  When will they get it?

I just finished watching a video clip of Gov Palin at the Republican Governor Association's shindig and I flashed back to my student pilot days.  Listening to Palin reminds me of flying a small plane.  While piloting the plane, you look to the horizon and steer a general course to your destination, rather than making small, herky jerky corrections. To listen to Palin, you have to hear to the horizon:  if you listen to each word in her sentences, your mind is jerked left and right by the redundancies, inconsistencies, lost threads, and head-shaking statements.  You must simply steer your "earcraft" towards the end of her press conference.  When she's finished, your craft pops out of the fog, you orientate your position, reflect on what you think you thought you heard, and head for a safe landing somewhere.   

For those in the Prop 8 doldrums - very interesting development in the fight against AIDS came out in on Nov. 7 - what seems to be a successful gene therapy transplant of AIDS immune bone marrow appears to have cleared a patient of all AIDS symptoms after 600 days.

Oddly enough, the German doctor is not an AIDS specialist, and the treatment was for leukemia, but he took the chance that perhaps a transplant from the 1% of people with an AIDS immune gene would work.

While bone marrow transplants aren’t exactly the simplest procedure to provide, compared to the alternative it’s certainly good news. Here’s hoping it’s not a fluke.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html

PS - also, a new 50-state strategy for gay rights.

Stomping on my own post since it’s rather unseemly to write multiple Hillary posts - see the original below.

Alright, I hate to break it to you folks, but a 69-year-old woman is not going to be running for President in 2016.

There are so many reasons to make this an absurd longshot - that there would be no other interesting rising stars in the next 8 years, that Hillary will still be seen as having fresh enough ideas, that the Democrats will have successfully weathered the next 8 years to be in top position, that the public won’t be tired of a Democratic Administration already, that her health will hold up for that kind of 2 year campaigning starting at 67, that she’ll still have the needed endurance and enthusiasm at that point.

Hillary could have potentially been a candidate in 2012 had a Republican won. That one is gone, and there’s no way should could run in 2012 without alienating half the party as a conniving traitor, unless Obama turns out to be an unmitigated disaster (which wouldn’t say much for his Clintonite staff, and wouldn’t put Hillary in very good position to face someone like Jindal).

So just give it up. If Americans show reluctance to elect women, they show much much more reluctance to elect old people (especially on the Democratic side), so the combination is simply poison. Save your bets for something more sure, say Earth being hit by a Moon-sized asteroid or the United States being bought by China. And when you’re posting comments about Hillary, just leave that one off the table until the Enquirer verifies Elvis is really coming back. (He’d make a great VP for her, don’t you think?)

But a progression that is interesting and could fit nicely would be a possible future stint at the UN as Secretary-General. I’ve heard Bill advocated for the position before, but it never seemed quite right. But if Hillary pulls off a good job at State, why not? There’s no ridiculous campaigning to do, no big issue with age, would fit her style. And it’d be a first for the world, a precedent that didn’t have to be set at national level. Plus, after the current Secretary-General, we need a bit of excitement.

In any case, you read it here first (unless some bastard thought of it before me). Tell me what you think.

Frank Schubert then (Oct. 20):

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his stand on all the ballot propositions yesterday. I got a call from someone asking for my reaction. Here it is: "Who cares?"

Frank Schubert now (Nov. 14):

Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger while churches are being attacked?

Yesterday's Prop 8 tough guy may have become today's woeful whiner, but one thing that's always remained constant with Frank is the depth of his constitutional acumen.

When Frank's not busy with his Prop 8 duties, he's been known to enjoy a relaxing smoke. He'd also be the first to admit that being a smoker in health-conscious California is no easy thing. In Frank's own words:

I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.

If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it's the principle of equal protection for all. It's not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It's ALL. Yes, even smokers.

You tell 'em, Frank. It's always a pleasure to read a Yes on 8 campaign manager defending the principle that smokers deserve equal protection no matter how unpopular they might be. Now I'm off to advise ALL my gay friends to take up your bad habit and thereby qualify themselves in your eyes for the equal protection that you've heretofore worked so hard to deny them.

Chino Blanco

*Why the potential energy is unlimited? * The definition of potential energy is not correct and the conservation law of mechanical energy is faultiness for the following reasons. Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy, the resistance removed. Otherwise, the kinetic energy can't be changed into potential energy at all. Mechanical energy is just produced by the movement of objects according to the definition of it. Force is the cause to change the movement of the objects by the first law of Newton. Therefore force is the real source of mechanical energy. The force (outside force) is limited. However, gravity is a special force which is unlimited. As a result, mechanical energy can be divided into two types; one is called kinetic energy (limited) the other potential energy (unlimited). Potential energy of objects is unlimited because it got from gravity, and it is general knowledge that gravity is eternal. Gravitational potential energy of objects is created by gravity. If there is no gravity, the potential energy will disappear. At present, the potential energy is generally agreed that it comes from the movement of objects being taken from low to high. But people have ignored that the kinetic energy has already been consumed during the period of movement. The movement of objects takes place depending on the force acted on. Without force acting on the objects maintain static. Even with equal forces from opposite directions act on each other, they can't move as well. Gravity is just in this condition. The potential energy is always equal to the weight of objects no matter the objects is low or high. Potential energy will be zero only when the gravity disappears. In the absence of resistance, the potential energy will be released to do work. The formula of potential energy: U = mgh, U represents work more suitable than energy. In a word, force is energy itself or a form of expression of energy just like the electric energy, the heat energy and so on. According to the following formulas: W=F•S, F=ma=1/S(E2-E1), Work or energy is made up of force while the quantity of force is measured by work or energy. The force consumed has turned into work; unconsumed, energy. We can get potential energy by producing a vacuum without doing work. Referring to the Torricelli experiment, We put a cylinder with water into a water basin ( set a splints in the upper part of the cylinder, switched by lines), get a inflated balloon with a hollow tail from the bottom of the cylinder, when the balloon floated up to top, release the air by pulling the switch wire of the splints, then pulling the deflated balloon out. In the course of the experiment, W1=G(water)h, W2=G(air)h, W3=G(water)h=P(atmospheric pressure)V . We will get W1 from W2, and W3 from the atmospheric pressure will compensate for W1.

The energy used to put the balloon into the water is: W0=G(water)h(1m) The buoyancy of the balloon will do work: W1=G(water)H(2-10m). Releasing the air out of the balloon only costs us W2=G(air)H. The vacuum produced by the balloon can absorb the water up, W3=W1=G(water)H, The energy we get should be: E=W1-W2-W(W0 and other waste). W2=775W1; W0=W1/10; W2=P(atmospheric pressure)V(water or air)=100,000(J). η＞80％.

Why the potential energy is unlimited?

 

The definition of potential energy is not correct and the conservation law of mechanical energy is faultiness for the following reasons.

Potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy, the resistance removed. Otherwise, the kinetic energy can't be changed into potential energy at all.

Mechanical energy is just produced by the movement of objects according to the definition of it. 

Force is the cause to change the movement of the objects by the first law of Newton. Therefore force is the real source of mechanical energy.

The force (outside force) is limited. However, gravity is a special force which is unlimited. 

As a result, mechanical energy can be divided into two types; one is called kinetic energy (limited) the other potential energy (unlimited).

Potential energy of objects is unlimited because it got from gravity, and it is general knowledge that gravity is eternal.

Gravitational potential energy of objects is created by gravity. If there is no gravity, the potential energy will disappear.

At present, the potential energy is generally agreed that it comes from the movement of objects being taken from low to high.

But people have ignored that the kinetic energy has already been consumed during the period of movement.

The movement of objects takes place depending on the force acted on. Without force acting on the objects maintain static. Even with equal forces from opposite directions act on each other, they can't move as well. Gravity is just in this condition.

The potential energy is always equal to the weight of objects no matter the objects is low or high. Potential energy will be zero only when the gravity disappears.

In the absence of resistance, the potential energy will be released to do work.

The formula of potential energy: U = mgh, U represents work more suitable than energy.

In a word, force is energy itself or a form of expression of energy just like the electric energy, the heat energy and so on.

According to the following formulas: W=F·S, F=ma=1/S(E₂-E₁), Work or energy is made up of force while the quantity of force is measured by work or energy. The force consumed has turned into work; unconsumed, energy.

We can get potential energy by producing a vacuum without doing work.

Referring to the Torricelli experiment, We put a cylinder with water into a water basin ( set a splints in the upper part of the cylinder, switched by lines), get a inflated balloon with a hollow tail from the bottom of the cylinder, when the balloon floated up to top, release the air by pulling the switch wire of the splints, then pulling the deflated balloon out.  In the course of the experiment, W1=G(water)h, W2=G(air)h, W3=G(water)h=P(atmospheric pressure)V . We will get W1 from W2, and W3 from the atmospheric pressure will compensate for W1. 

 

The energy used to put the balloon into the water is: W0=G(water)h(1m)

The buoyancy of the balloon will do work: W1=G(water)H(2-10m).

Releasing the air out of the balloon only costs us W2=G(air)H.

The vacuum produced by the balloon can absorb the water up, W3=W1=G(water)H,

The energy we get should be: E=W1-W2-W(W0 and other waste).

W2=775W1; W0=W1/10;

W2=P(atmospheric pressure)V(water or air)=100,000(J). η＞80％.

 

The Far Righters (Hannity, Limbaugh, et al) are making all kinds of noise about Barack Obama resurrecting The Fairness Doctrine. This funny piece of regulation stipulates that bradcasters give equal time to both sides of the issue (or all sides?). So, in essense, if this were reenatced, Fox News, for example, would have to devote equal time to Fair and Balanced coverage to both the Republicans and the Democrats. Whether you agree with it or not ("In what way, Charlie?"), I think it's fascinating all the pot-stirring that the Far Righters (FRs) are doing.

The reason I find this so interesting is that on one hand the FRs are always screaming about the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) and how they don't give fair coverage to their candidates. During the just-ended presidential race, all the FRs were babbling on and on about how the press was biased towards McCain-Palin, and that the press was slanted towards Obama. So, it would seem to me, that if one thought the press was slanted unfairly against your candidate, that you would be happy to have some regulation saying that the media needs to give equal time to everyone. Instead, the FRs are blathering that it's a negative against Obama if he brings the Fairness Doctrine back. (Obama has indicated that it's not something he's in favor of). Why would this be a bad thing, if you're the one complaining that you aren't getting fair treatment. I think you would be all for it!

The other thing about it that strikes my funny bone is that their protesting seems so transparent: that old 'he who protests loudest,' adage. The fact that they are screaming so loudly about this simply indicates that they know they lie and twist facts and they're simply afraid they might be forced to tell the truth.

The Far Righters (Hannity, Limbaugh, et al) are making all kinds of noise about Barack Obama resurrecting The Fairness Doctrine. This funny piece of regulation stipulates that bradcasters give equal time to both sides of the issue (or all sides?). So, in essense, if this were reenatced, Fox News, for example, would have to devote equal time to Fair and Balanced coverage to both the Republicans and the Democrats. Whether you agree with it or not ("In what way, Charlie?"), I think it's fascinating all the pot-stirring that the Far Righters (FRs) are doing.

The reason I find this so interesting is that on one hand the FRs are always screaming about the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) and how they don't give fair coverage to their candidates. During the just-ended presidential race, all the FRs were babbling on and on about how the press was biased towards McCain-Palin, and that the press was slanted towards Obama. So, it would seem to me, that if one thought the press was slanted unfairly against your candidate, that you would be happy to have some regulation saying that the media needs to give equal time to everyone. Instead, the FRs are blathering that it's a negative against Obama if he brings the Fairness Doctrine back. (Obama has indicated that it's not something he's in favor of). Why would this be a bad thing, if you're the one complaining that you aren't getting fair treatment. I think you would be all for it!

The other thing about it that strikes my funny bone is that their protesting seems so transparent: that old 'he who protestes loudest,' adage. The fact that they are screaming so loudly about this simply indicates that they know they lie and twist facts and they're simply afraid they might be forced to tell the truth.

With the economic disaster taking its proper center stage role, and the intense interest in who will be selected for Secretary of State, perhaps it is just asking too much that anyone pay attention to some of the other possible cabinet picks.  But if we can, let's keep our eyes on some other balls. 

Rumor in New Orleans has it that President-elect Obama is considering tapping Mayor Nagin for Housing Secretary:  Nagin is presumed to have done a good job after Katrina.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The failures after Katrina occurred at all levels of government, to be sure, with the federal government's negligence being the most egregious.  However, Nagin has been completely ineffective.  More than that, he has been mostly absent.  Following Katrina, he moved the mayoral election forward several months, ostensibly to allow more people to return to the city and vote (despite the fact that people were permitted to vote from their temporary homes in other states) and to work on his "plan."  We were told that he would have a plan for the city within 100 days after his election.  Months later, we were told that he was developing a plan to make a plan and that the plan for the plan would be available in a few months.  It is now mid-November 2008, and he still has not presented any plan, not even a plan for a plan for the recovery of New Orleans.  About a year and a half ago (that is, a year and a half AFTER Katrina), he hired an academic, Dr. Ed Blakely, to head the recovery.  This week we learned that Dr. Blakely spends less than 50% of his time in the city or on recovery-related business, devoting himself instead to research for his academic career.  Mind you, no one was heading the recovery BEFORE Ed Blakely. 

Most people do not realize that New Orleans is far from "recovered."  Many neighborhoods are virtually empty.   Whole sectors of the city are still protected by the National Guard rather than police.  Many fire stations have not been rebuilt.   We talk about these areas of the city as the wild west frontier--lots of squatters, meth labs, criminals living in empty buildings.  People who try to rebuild find that as fast as building materials are delivered, they are stolen.

Nagin is a folksy guy, and he used to seem fairly intelligent.  But he has done virtually nothing for this city, spending most of his time immediately after Katrina convincing people who had emigrated to Houston and Atlanta to vote for him.  He does not communicate with the people of the city.  Occasionally we see him on the news talking to the city council about his budget, but he has not exhibited any leadership since the storm at all.   He refused free help from major urban planning organizations.  He summarily rejected several great ideas for bringing attention, materials, and planning efforts to the city.  This city has been rebuilt, to the extent that it has, solely on the efforts of its citizens and a host of volunteers from around the country.  Nagin's administration hasn't even cleaned up the blighted properties owned by the government.  He effectively supported Congressman WIlliam Jefferson, the politician who was caught by the FBI with $90,000 of cash hidden in his freezer collected in a scam to reward his own family when he doled out lucrative government contracts to Nigerian companies.  Jefferson has no committee assignments now and so can do nothing to help the city.  One must wonder why Nagin did not throw his support behind another viable candidate. 

But perhaps worst of all, he is a terrible manager.  He hires unqualified people, he does not supervise them or require them to do their jobs, he is constantly at odds with other elected officials whom he needs to work with him, and he is impulsive.  He has done nothing to solve the housing crisis--or even to begin to address the housing crisis--in this city after Katrina or in this current economic downturn.  I can't think of a worse choice for this position. 

Anyone who has Obama's ear should make sure that Clarence R. Nagin is a name that never is considered for any position in the new administration.   Come on down here, President-elect Obama, and talk to the citizens of New Orleans.  Take it from us, you do not want this guy on your team.  

Hillary. Hillary. Hillary.

Will you never learn?

President-elect Obama meets wirh her, and floats the idea of Secretary of State. So she tries to lock that "offer" in with a couple of well-placed leaks.

There are no immediate denials from insiders like Rahm Emanuel, so Hillary proxies like Carville go on record that such silence often signals confirmation.

Obama don't play like that. And if you think the latest leaks about Bill Richardson discussing exacly the same position as head of State are freelancing, I've got a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you. That's a calculated, pre-authorized Obama message to Hillary.

A brushback.

Maybe Hillary would be a solid choice for State. Offhand, I'd say she'd be better than Richardson. But my guess is she just really screwed up her chances.

This daily post is a clearinghouse for links to posts that either flew by too fast, didn't get the attention they deserved, or are so good they need to be up even longer...

ANYONE can link a post here, and we encourage you to do so. The post is only as good as its links. If you do add a link, please describe it briefly and tell us why it deserves another look.

As long as the archives are messed up, this is the only way to preserve good posts!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to rec this post, even if you don't read any of the links or add anything. It only works if it makes it to READER REC everyday. If it barely makes it, it gets bounced off and good posts are lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sarah%20palin%20africa&st=cse&oref=slogin

Hi there, come on in.  Good day?  Me, too - I did very little and luxuriated in my laziness.  I've spent the last few hours snuggled on the couch with a pillow and a glass (or two) of Zin.  Lights low, listening to sweet memories through the medium of music.  My muse.  Thanks for letting yourself in, help yourself to whatever you'd like to drink.  I'm too enchanted with the mellow sounds of the night to move.

I said I might try this, so let's do it.  I'm feeling quiet ... talk to each other.  If you're willing to pull up a pillow and join in my intimate evening, talk to me. 

It started out being two Obama advisors saying Obama was 'considering' Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.  That rumor stewed for a day and a half across the airwaves. 

Late this afternoon more scoop is released that, yes indeed, Hillary did visit with Obama in Chicago yesterday. 

Tonight, sources are saying the President Elect Barack Obama has offered the position of Sec of State to Senator Hillary Clinton - with one reliable source saying that Governor Bill Richardson 'also' met with Obama today about the position.

Now on The Drudge Report, they have headlines saying, "NYT ON CLINTON/OBAMA: 'Associates of both Democrats cautioned that their conversation was mostly general and that no job was offered'..."

Do any of you remember the wild rumors about Barack Obama offering (or not) the VP slot to Hillary Clinton in July and August of this year?  Remember those of us that called them false, that the Clinton's were trying to negotiate for the position?  Some of us said the Clinton's were warning Obama, of consequences if he didn't select Hillary.

Well folks, I'm thinking somebody in the Clinton camp is pushing, once again, for something.  Is it the Sec of State position?  I don't know, I don't think anybody really knows but the parties involved.

I still think if Hillary is in the cabinet, it should be Secretary of Health because that's supposedly been her life long dream (or so she claimed during her campaign - get universal health care for all).  But, if one stops to think for a moment - what would 'really' be a surprise to all of us?  Could Obama name her as his Secretary of Defense?

I'm serious.  You don't have to have military service to be one.  She's a war hawk remember and she has a plan to get out of Iraq now.  She's got Washington, Congressional and diplomacy experience.  She's worked with the troops over the years and 18 million people thought she qualified as President - so doesn't that give her even more clout as Sec of Def?

We'll see what happens, but I think most of the hype in the media is negotiations going on AGAIN.

I will remain very disappointed in Barack Obama if he does allow her to be his Sec of State.  She will out stage him in the media simple because of 'who' she is.  She will undermine his goals with other nations - I'm sure of it.  Remember folks, she would love nothing better than to help him lose that 'attraction' from voters he just received on November 4^th so that she could run again in 2012.

I can hear her now, "I warned you folks, he just didn't have the experience required to do the job.  I warned him that the direction he was taking was wrong while in his cabinet, but he wouldn't listen."

President Elect Obama will be very sorry if he even considers her to be in his cabinet - he will not be able to control her or her husband Bill Clinton.

It's best to leave her in the Senate where other Senators have control of 'her'.

Most of the revelations about the Bush Administration's firing of U.S Attorneys have highlighted three basic motivations that may have been behind the firings:

1. To slow down or interfere with prosecutions of Republicans (Carol Lam,Paul Charlton )
2. To pursue bogus prosecutions of Democrats (Iglesias, John McKay)
3. To install Bush/Rove cronies ( Bradley Schlozman, Timothy Griffin)

But there is another commonality that was noted repeatedly, at least on this site--when TPMM and their readers first poured over those DOJ document dumps, looking for clues.  Several people noticed that almost all the fired USA's were on the Native American Issues Subcommittee(NAIS).  Minnesota USA, Thomas Heffelfinger even said it was the only reason he could think of why he might have been targeted: 

"The only thing I can think of is my advocacy on behalf of Native American issues," Heffelfinger said.  

This connection was mentioned and puzzled over here , but I never saw any real argument made why the Bush administration would want to be rid of them for that.  The most plausible I read was that they might be afraid of other GOP connections to Abramoff that the FBI might not yet know about.

However, there have been two recent investigative reports about the incredible crime wave that is taking place on Indian Reservations,  which have made me think of another possible motive.  In July 2007 and again in July 2008, NPR ran reports about the fact that it is estimated that 1 in 3 women on reservations will be raped in their lifetimes, in part, because predators know that rape and other violent crimes often go uninvestigated and unpunished in Indian Country.  The reason for that is that the Major Crimes Act of 1885 of  forbids tribal courts from trying any crime more serious than a misdemeanor.  All felonies fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice to prosecute and they lack the resources and the will to handle the workload.

Still no motivation for the Bush Administration to fire those attorneys unless they just didn't want them asking for more resources.

But I just saw a PBS Expose based on a Denver Post investigative piece about crime on the reservation called Lawless Lands.  And there was one piece of information that really caught my eye. 

Congress has doubled the amount of money allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal police. But that increase - to $200 million this year - has been largely spent on patrol officers and chasing misdemeanor crimes. Federal investigators and prosecutors have also received sizable boosts in their budgets for work in Indian Country, but those increases have failed to produce a perceptible rise in the number of investigations or prosecutions from reservations. [emphases mine]

This is my rampant speculation, based on nothing more than the evidence above, but what if the Bush administration had taken some of the budget Congress had designated for Indian law Enforcement and had moved it to something Congress had specifically de-funded like, say, Total Information Awareness, a la Iran-Contra?

What do y'all think?  Is that totally farfetched?

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Understand that I have no intention of dying anytime soon, but I do have every intention of leaving TPM better than I found it, just as I want to leave the world better than I found it. This will, in fact, be my final post here at TPM. Yes, I've said that before, but this really is my farewell. You'll understand why by the end of this post.

I want to be "busy being born," as Dylan said. And so I must be getting on with what is left of my life. You will find these words are my final gift to you. To my dear friends, like-minded acquaintances and detractors alike.

Read more »

I have to respectfully disagree on the note about more conservative Republicans making the Sunday rounds this week than Democrats. There is a good reason for this: The MSM has spent a lot of air time this week (what with the RGA meeting in Miami) on the future of the Republican party. From what I've heard so far, most of the GOP-ers that I've heard on TV really don't get it. It can only help Democrats if a parade of top GOP figures go on TV and argue that they lost because they weren't conservative enough, that they lost their way. The election was a repudiation of movement conservatism, so if these guys want to go on TV and make the same losing arguments, I have noooooo problem with that!

Alaska voting update: Begich increases lead to 1022 votes!

Begich, Mark	DEM	138959	47.37%
Bird, Bob	AI	12144	4.14%
Gianoutsos, Ted	NA	1249	0.43%
Haase, Fredrick D.	LIB	2270	0.77%
Stevens, Ted	REP	137937	47.02%
Write-in Votes		786	0.27%

http://www.elect.alaska.net/data/results.htm

The Anchorage Daily News reports:

Mark Begich has extended his lead over Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to 1,022 votes with the latest count of absentee and questioned ballots. The Elections Division counted 14,508 ballots today. The count of absentee and questioned ballots will pick up Tuesday. The state has an estimated 24,000 more ballots left to count in the race.

*****

The fact that the Democratic Begich's lead over the Republican Stevens is increasing even as ballots are counted from the Stevens stronghold of the Mat-Su is not a good sign for the 40-year incumbent's chances to retain his seat.

The Elections Division on Tuesday will count absentee ballots from Anchorage, which has generally been split between Begich and Stevens, as well as Southeast Alaska, which is heavily pro-Begich.

Update from Kos:

That's another 10,000 counted, leaving roughly 28,000 or so ballots left, most from Begich-friendly districts.

So we're at .35 percent. If Begich gets over 0.5 percent, any recount would have to be paid by the GOP. Under that, and the state pays for it.

http://www.dailykos.com/

So. This is it. We have one of the most corrupt presidential regimes in the history of the country and like frat boys after the party, they trash the place then just leave? Is this how it is now? We are all moving on? Forgetting that our Speaker of the House in concert with our Congress blew off an illegal war where thousands died, is forgetting about the outing of a CIA agent, the gutting of environmental protections, the blackballing of long-time dedicated government employees, the firing of judges for political purposes, the wiretapping of our phones, reading our mail, lying, lying then lying some more, allowing corporations to write policy, working in secret, abolishing Habeus Corpus, Posse Commitatus, advocating and practicing torture, bankrupting our treasury then asking US to pay for it over and over? C'mon. You're kidding me. Throw in a vice president who blew somebody's face off with a shotgun.

Did I miss anything? Yea. Actually. I did. A lot.

 But, hey, it's been 8 years. Relax. It's almost over.

This is how it works now?  We're all supposed to "move on", get over it, rage about change?

No permanent damage done right? Right? We'll just glide back to how it was? And how was it?  

Let bygones be bygones?

No accountability of any kind? And we think this will not affect future regimes? This kind of phenomenal level of disrespect if not contempt for our country? How come I got stopped recently for running a stop sign? I mean...if I can't run a lousy stop sign after all the stuff they have done? I mean, a stop sign? I tried to reason with them. Look at what our government has done in our name. I did not get a ticket. I drive on incredulous.  

And here is the final travesty: that indeed, they will walk away from this free as birds.

Never held accountable.

Never punished.

In the end, no matter what happens, this will comprise the darkest time in America's history and America will wear the scars forever and Nancy, these are not the kind botox will ever get rid of...but oh- do you care?

 

 

 

 

 

The election is over. Let the post election parodies begin!! See "Why Can't We (at least pretend to) Be Friends?" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkS6qZg4mo4

 

BE A GOOD AMERICAN. SHARE THIS VIDEO WITH A POLITICAL ADVERSARY!!

 

See more at http://parodyandson.blogspot.com

Let's face it, he's the new liberal darling embedded with the enemy over at FoxNews.  God love him.  Even TPM's "Day in 100 Seconds" gave him the last word today. 

"Nothing means anything and everything means nothing." - Shep Smith

Allow me some introduction the subject. I have been headhunting on and off for almost twenty five years and periodically my practice has involved the auto industry. Basically the corporate executives and most engineers who have come out of the auto industry don't have a clue how to compete outside their world. They are worse than the utility industry or the military and display entitlement and false superiority. The most important thing that sticks out is a steadfast denial that innovation or risk is a worthy thing.

Now I have worked in the alternative and renewable energy sector where things are quite exciting when it comes to innovation of personal transportation outside a burning fuel car. The loss of the Big Three would not be the worst where like all industries the remnants could be reorganized. My thinking is that if the personal transportation industry and trucking/train engine world should be split up. These companies should be broken up where technologies are divided where one group goes hybrid/transition. Another group goes hybrid/rechargeable. Another group goes all electric. And another group goes fuel cell. 

The US takes stock in each group like a venture capitalist with Board of Directors. The taxpayers receive the investment. You create a competitive marketplace both for engineering and parts and overall competition over what technology emerges.

One anecdotal example of what is on the horizon. A scientist at Purdue in '07 discovered that a simple chemical reaction of water running over an alloy of aluminum and gallium  instantly releases the hydrogen molecule into a vacuum where conceivably a hydrogen fuel cell reaction could take place---emitting water. The oxygen molecule bonds with the aluminum in the alloy and is converted to bauxite, the original form of aluminum. This system could then be commercialized where once a car uses up its usable aluminum it removes the chamber and replaces it with a new one, the old chamber could be commercially recovered like a fill up or toner refill cartridge.

The thing is for at least 30 years and possibly for 60 years the Detroit auto industry has been mining the world for its own entitlement and strategically, economically, environmentally and fundamentally they are out of chances. Break them up, retrain the working class work force and let the middle managers and executives find their way in the new century.

Hey gang. Seeing as how I volunteered for the Obama campaign and am completely elated by his victory, I've decided to attack my own happiness.  Because this is the topic Du Jour, I've decided to play Devil's Advocacy here and help out my former Republican Brothers and tell them what they can do to get the party back on the right track.  I'm sure this being a column not bashing the Republicans, it won't get many recs but i've been surprised before.

1.  Create and Champion the cause for serious immigration amnesty and reforms.

It must expand upon The Dream Act allowing children of immigrants to get scholarships, and have a path to citizenship for those that are already here.  John McCain and President Bush tried this already and the far right voted this down.  Someone has to do it again so that the Republican Party can become "The Party of Latinos."

Doing this will counter the automatic African American Voting Block that the Democrats enjoy. Also this is the fastest growing segment of the Voting Population.  Alienate them and you are declaring defeat in the entire southwest and other sections of this country.

Another Bonus, Many Latinos are devout Catholics.  They share many of the same social values the the Social Conservatives hold and cherish.  Once you bring them into the tent you won't have to alter your core message very much.

2.  Oppose but do not block Obama, Reid, and Pelosi Legislation.

There will have to be a couple of Republicans that are willing to jump on the grenade for the Party.  The hope is that with an over reaching Democratic majority they will make some large mistakes.  They will make some costly mistakes.  If you allow them to over reach then you have something that you can run against. Otherwise the Republicans will be scapegoated into being the party that kept change from happening.  You have to give Reid and Pelosi enough rope to allow them to hang themselves.  In the short run, this will cost a couple senators BUT in the long run if they do in fact overstep their boundaries it will give the Republicans a hard Mantra to Run again.

The downside is that if they don't overreach and Democrats accomplish all they set out to and the country is happy then you're screwed.  But really, isn't bottom line that what we all want, a bunch of happy American, regardless of what party they vote for.

3.  Pray Obama doesn't run the government as well as he ran his campaign. 

This will take a large collective prayer from every evangelical and some non-evangelicals.  The Republicans will almost need an act of God to help them out in this regard.  If Barack governs as well as I know that he can, he'll solidify those young voters and the other coalitions of voters that he's mobilized and they'll be Democrats for life.

4.  Recruit Better Leadership.

This cannot be just the party of the South and the Northwest.  There just aren't enough electoral votes to sustain that.  Mitt Romney, who passed health care reforms as Governor of Massachusetts, was the closest thing that the Republicans had to someone that could appeal to independents in Non traditional Areas.  John McCain ran too much as an angry partisan with no ideas.  The electorate wants a solver not a fighter.

How about recruiting a moderate or slightly conservative minority candidate.  Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice serve as great templates.  Bobby Jindal (who maybe too conservative) Michael Steele or Mel Martinez might actually be other great possibilities.  They should be Minority Candidates that do not run as minorities and don't run on minority issues.  Look at Obama as the template. Alan Keyes can't be the face of diversity of the Republican Party.

5.  Come up with some viable policy that can counter that of the Democrats.

Don't just say "Their Health care plans are bad!"  Come up with one that addresses the needs of everyday citizens. Don't just say "Abortion is Murder."  Come up with some solutions to the problem.  Become the party that wants to defend the unborn through preventing abortions but by creating education that allows fewer children to be mistakenly conceived.

We don't live in the 1950s anymore.  The Genie is out of the bottle.  People are going to have sex.  Either you can accept that and try to help those that do have it safely so they don't have unintended pregnancy which leads to less abortion, or you can stick your head in the sand. 

This last thing maybe the hardest to accomplish but I'll say it anyway.  If you want Roe v Wade repealed you'll need a Pro-Choice Republican that believes in States Rights in order for it to happen.  Good luck with the ideologues on the Right allowing that to happen though.

6.  Admit your faults and find some credibility.

It's hard to take the leaders of a party seriously when they never admit they they weren't correct in a situation.  Going into Iraq was a mistake. Admit it.  Wire tapping and torture were mistakes.  Admit it.  Sarah Palin wasn't the wisest choice for V.P.  ADMIT IT!!!

This will allow you to gain the credibility that you are about governing and not just about winning.  Every time you scream the sky is RED when the world is looking at a color wheel and sees it's blue you lose credibility.  When ever you stand there and tell us that Sarah Palin was the most qualified person, man or woman, to be the Vice President of The United States over Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Powell, Rice, Snowe, Hutchinson, you're telling us to not trust you.  We saw the truth for ourselves on television.  You're scaring away independent thinkers.

For that matter Acknowledge that YOUTUBE EXIST!!! We have a public and living record of pretty much everything everyone says in the media.  You can't tell us one thing in one place an another in another place.  There will be tapes cut of you lying all over the internet.  The generation that is computer phobic will be gone in two presidential election cycles.  Embrace that fact and go from there.

7.  Embrace Intellectualism Again.

Faulting someone because they are smart, or they have achieved or because they went to a great school isn't a way to build a party with the best and brightest on your team.  People want to know their leaders are smart.  The great thing is, although you'll anger some of your Southern Base, they're not going to all of a sudden vote for "The Liberal"  BUT this will allow you to capture some of the intellectual in other regions.

The best thing for the party maybe to put in place the proportional delegate system that the Democrats have.  Right now the Republican with the Best Name Recognition will always win the big states.  Proportional voting will allow other candidates that can appeal to several different swaths of the electorate to actually having a shot at representing the party.     

8.  Focus on solutions for this country and not on imperialism in other countries.

I realize this will anger the Tom Clancy Readers in the base.  But you have to start creating solutions for the people at home.  Too many of the right wing think tanks are focused on how to spread democracy.  You must get back to focusing on how to make this democracy work.

9.  Create a message that says you don't want to take anyone's rights away.

You want people to be able to decide for themselves in a state wide manner.  Yeah, you'll be taking away some of people social rights, but you'll make it so that it's the people and not the party.  (See Prop 8)  I personally don't like this approach BUT its a way of selling social issues that Republicans Cling to.  Having a Republican say that he supports gay rights in general but he wants to allow states to make that decision on their own.  Will be much more appealing to independent voters.  That allows the Evangelicals that are concentrated in the South to still get behind you because you don't want them to have to change their traditions BUT those that do in the North are free to.

10.  For the second time, as unlikely as it is to happen, pray for an Obama mistake.
--------------------------------------------------

There are a few broad assumptions that I'm making.  Most Hardcore partisans will be upset with some of these moves, BUT they won't vote for the other side.  This is to reach to those voters in the center.  The truth is we are a CENTER nation (tilting slightly to the left because of the economy).  Although Republicans like to call this place a center right country, they govern from the HARD Right.

They've got to get some other age groups besides the current 65 and older voters because they'll soon die out and be replaced by the middle aged ones of today.  Think of the next crop of 18 year olds, they'll be playing video games with Barack Obama advertisements in them for the next 8 years.  You've got to do something to Hook their parents quick or you'll lose that entire generation too.

With Clinton getting State and an Obama McCain meeting set for Monday is the Defense Secretary's portfolio in McCain's future?

Is anyone else as depressed as I  am over the concerted effort by President-Elect Obama and the Senate Democrats to let Lieberman's political perfidy go unpunished?  I have read all the reasons given for this course of action, and they all leak like a sieve.  His capacity to do harm tp Democratic Policy has been demonstrated too many times for me to accept Senator Evan Bayh's statement that if he acts up we can remove him from his Chairmanship. (Translation: Wait until Lieberman shoots a hole in hull of The Ship of State.  We can remove him as the ship sinks).  In Heaven's name, is this political expediency the new politics we were promised?  

Is anyone else as depressed as I  am over the concerted effort by President-Elect Obama and the Senate Democrats to let Lieberman's political perfidy go unpunished?  I have read all the reasons given for this course of action, and they all leak like a sieve.  His capacity to do harm tp Democratic Policy has been demonstrated too many times for me to accept Senator Evan Bayh's statement that if he acts up we can remove him from his Chairmanship. (Translation: Wait until Lieberman shoots a hole in hull of The Ship of State.  We can remove him as the ship sinks).  In Heaven's name, is this political expediency the new politics we were promised?  

More good news today. We have just deployed the first of two rounds of bug fixes. We're kicking off a global rebuild of the site, so these fixes will gradually start showing up for all users over the next day or so.

The fixes:

• Replies: You will now get updates in your dashboard when someone who you are not following replies to one of your comments on your blog
• Comments and Recs pages on your blog should now instantly update
• The YOUR BLOG link in the top nav bar will now work if you have a two word username.

We're also going to roll out another set of bug fixes next week, and I'll talk more about them then.

Enough!  Jay the Priest has about as much expertise regarding politics as Joe the Plumber.  Why has the MSM felt obligated to report on this guy's opinion as a Catholic priest when he's not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church. He's not a bishop, never mind a cardinal.  He's little more then the french fry guy! 

The single issue voter should be discouraged by a church and society.  They fail to see the whole.  In this instance, the logic of the priest and these single issue voters is severely flawed.  Having abortions be legal does not guarantee that anyone will have an abortion.  It remains the choice of an individual.  We all know that whether abortions are legal or not, they will be sought.  An unwanted pregnancy is a desperate situation.  

Legalization does nothing to increase the frequency of abortions.  The truth is that Obama suggested we find ways to reduce the frequency of abortions, so what is wrong about that?While making abortions illegal may reduce the number of abortions, illicit back alley abortions have led to the deaths of many young woman.  Is it Christian to dismiss their lives?

John McCain supports the war.  He even sang about bombing Iran, leading some to refer to him as a war monger.  Going to war guarantees death.  It is a decision to impose death.  Allowing abortion is not the decision to impose death.  It merely allows a safer environment for the mother to survive.  Her choice will not likely be based on whether it is legal or not.

Jay the Priest, your fifteen minutes are up.  Alert the MSM.

I first learned about the concept of micro-lending in 1996, when I had the opportunity to meet Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen Bank. Professor Yunus founded the bank in 1983, to provide small loans to poor Bangladeshi women who wanted to start small businesses. To date, the bank has served over seven million women and, in 2006, Professor Yunus and the Grameen bank were the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Grameen Bank was founded on some specific ideas. First, that access to credit is a human right. Second, that women and children who bear the brunt of worldwide poverty have less access to credit than men. And third, that self-employment for women is the road out of poverty for entire families.

Although things have probably been modified and improved, the original Grameen model was based on lending circles--small groups of women who borrowed at the same time. Each of these women had to pay back their entire loan before they had access to another. In addition, each of the women in a circle had to pay back their entire loan before any other member of the circle could borrow again. For women, this model worked to ensure a remarkably low default rate.

The Grameen Bank still lends primarily to women because in Bangladesh they have been traditionally underserved, and also because studies have shown that women are more likely to use their income to better the lives of themselves and their children. However, organizations in many countries are now following the Grameen Bank model for microlending and I'm happy to report that the model has been expanded in some places to include loans to men.

Because Grameen Bank is now fully funded by its borrowers and customers, the organization no longer accepts charitable donations. The good news is that you can still get in on the microlending phenomenon. Kiva is a Web-based organization that partners with microlenders worldwide to grant loans to existing and potential entrepreneurs. On the organization's Web site, you can sift through the stories of hundreds of prospective borrowers and make loans as little as $25.00. That's loans. You'll get your money back. And when you do, you can loan it to someone else. Or you can spend it on Starbucks. The point is, it's your money and you're choosing to invest it in human capital to improve the world.

Today, I made a loan to Gloriose in Byumba, Rwanda. Gloria is a 44-year-old mother of 6 who runs a clothing and shoe shop in the Byumba Market.

From Kiva: "She believes that once she gets this loan, her shop will become bigger because she is planning to buy men's clothes, which are more desired in the market. Furthermore, she says that this loan will increase her profit, which will enable her to feed and pay the school fees for her children."

I only gave what I could afford, which isn't much, but my loan was added to other loans that had already been made. Now, Gloriose only needs another $25 to meet her target.

I've made charitable donations before, but this time it feels really good to know exactly where my money is going. Gloriose gets it all. And someday soon, I'll be getting it back. If a friend asked for a small loan, I wouldn't think twice, because when I help somebody out, I know that the person, or somebody in his or her place, will be there to help me when I need it. But what happens if you live in a place where all your friends are as poor as you are? What happens if the traditional banks won't loan you money because it doesn't make sense from a profit standpoint for them to manage microloans?

That's the brilliance of microfinance. While traditional banks are now stuck in a credit freeze, we can keep making a dent in worldwide poverty. These small loans make a huge difference in the lives of the borrowers. Helping to ensure that one more family somewhere in this world is able to feed and educate its children lifts all of us.

So, I encourage you to go to kiva.org to make an investment in wealth creation that matters. If you do, please come back and share the story of your borrower. I'd love to hear it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at Dagblog.com, where the estrogen level is on the rise. I think the Dag boys are a little alarmed.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/transition_20082009_/2008/11/my_candidacy_for_drug_czar.php

The only 'bright' spot on election night for the Republicans was their win on Prop 8 in California.  The fact that this happened in California is not lost on those of us from places where we're constantly inundated with the idea that California is mostly a vast and useless wasteland of aging hippies and homosexuals (as well as every other imaginable type of sinner and reprobate).

<RANT>
It's almost as hard to imagine the homosexuals losing a vote in California as it is imagine Obama losing in Mississippi, though, to be precise, I doubt that even California has a population that is 36 percent homosexual.  Mississippi has a Black population in excess of 36% (pdf) yet somehow the Republicans managed to steal Mississippi's electoral votes from Obama!  I don't know how, but I'm not some hick who just fell off the back of a watermellon truck.  It defies explanation in my mind moreso than the missing votes in Alaska, which may ultimately now be 'found'  (with the help of all the media scrutiny sorely lacking here!).  We're mostly helpless, as our best Democratic lawyers are in jail under a Seigelman-like Rovian Justice Department move, but it's crickets in the mainstream (and blog) media compared to TPM headlines like this.  I'll get deeper into that subject later....
</RANT> 

But I digress.  The minority crowd around here is still jubilant compared to the morosity of the homosexuals over prop8, (even though the locals have gone berserk in trying to stifle enthusiasm).  Black folks are breathing a sigh of relief because of their perceived boost in political fortunes.  The religious right, in control of the Republican party, has been forced to shift their zealous nonsense away from Cain (mark of Cain is being Black - Baptist 101) and onto the homosexual boogey man. 

Though not yet confident enough to call for the mass relocation and sanitization of the homosexual ghettos, the Dominionist Republicans (i.e. Republicans) are giddy with delight over the uncomfortable position they've managed to inflict on the homosexual community.  Though I fail to see how the infliction of suffering and emotional distress on an insignificant percentage of overly gifted Americans is going to help them, they must believe that if the "gay menace" is defeated, their hetero marriages will suddenly stop looking like a cross between a Jerry Springer and Desperate Housewives episode.  In any event, the message machine of the Christian Reconstructionists, and all their knowing and unknowing accomplices in the so called MSM are going WHOLE HOG against the homosexuals.

It's a win-win situation for the haters.  They can ridicule and gay bait at will with no worry of a repercussions of the 'nappy headed hoes' variety! (hence the title of this post). The worst of them can get away with all forms of overt and openly hostile statements and behaviors while the more 'moderate' can play concern trolls, constantly reminding us of the 'overreach' of Clinton when he tried to openly allow homosexuals in the military (ultimately folding like a cheap lawn chair).  I keep seeing a whole lot of  references to that 'military misstep' from the press lately.  Maybe it's just me, but it pisses me off, and I'm not even homosexual!

When I see reports of individuals being targeted for giving to the Prop8 cause, it gives me cheer and warms my heart.  For once, the haters are being called out and subjected to the ridicule they so aggressively foist upon others.  The only things that make me happier are the thoughts of our troops coming home soon and war crimes trials for self admitted torture enthusiasts.

Enjoy. 

The Bush administration has made any number of outrageous claims of privilege and power that have had the practical effect of shredding the Constitution.

 

Lieberman's own party will never endorse him again.

 

 

The party he abandoned is agonizing over how they can entice him back.

 

Only one of these parties remains a haven for traitors, warmongers, and Bachmann-like bussers of Bush.

 

Remember that next time you go to the ballot.

 

 

For the sake of discussion assume the D's run the table on Alaska, Minn. and Georgia Senate seats and that with Lieberman they achieve the mystical 60 seat majority.

Stop Obama Now!

Stop His Plans To Ban Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Boortz 

That's the latest pitch from the the National  Republican Trust PAC. Send cash a.s.a.p. so Saxby Chambliss can win the GA senate runoff and stop Obama from re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine.  

The National Republican Trust PAC is the outfit responsible for the three sleaziest ads of the entire campaign. Among other things, Obama was accused of being a pro-terrorist black supremacist.  

From NPR's Secret Money project:

"You know you're bigtime when Factcheck.org dedicates a full article to debunking your ad. National Republican Trust got that distinction this week, with the added bonus of being accused of producing "one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign."

The National Republican Trust PAC was only registered on 9/29/08 but somehow it managed to spend $6.8 million since then, most of which went to a $5.2 million media buy. According to the New York Times, $3.1 million went to broadcasting the despicable ads on television. That leaves $2.1 million unaccounted for as yet.  

After compiling all of the National Republican Trust PAC financial data filed with the FEC to date on a spreadsheet, my question now is whether National Republican Trust PAC raised  $5.2 million in less than three weeks or whether someone or some entity guarantee the debt.

Per FEC filings: 

Contributions:
9/29 to 10/15 - $463,000

Expenditures:
 9/29 to 10/15  - $379,000 (including $120,000 in debts)

Net cash on hand at 10/15 - $205,000

Expenditures:
10/16 to 11/3 - $6,371,000
Post-election day - $122,000

Total Expenditures through 11/14 - $6,872,000

(Note: Contributions after 10/15 do not have to reported until 12/4.)

How was a two-week old political action committee with $191k in the bank on 10/15 able to run $5.2 million in ads on television two weeks later?   

I'm not an expert in election law but if campaign debt is guaranteed, isn't the guarantee a constructive contribution? A $5 million guarantee certainly exceeds the $5k that can be legally contributed to a PAC within a single year.   

The $5.2 media buy was made by Philipse Brook Group, Inc. which was registered in NYS on 8/28/08 by Brooklyn attorney, Sherman F. Sosnow. The address for the group given in FEC filings, 53 Philipse Brook Road in Garrison NY, is the home of Joseph Mercurio, a long-time, oft-quoted political consultant identified sometimes as a Republican and other times as a  Democrat.

Mercurio owns National Political Services and Mercurio Consultants. He is best known in NYC for being fired by mayoral candidate, C. Virginia Fields, after a campaign photo was doctored to to include an Asian couple for diversity.   

Recently, Joe Mercurio has been telling some media outlets that he worked on Joe Biden's campaign but after checking a few of Biden's FEC filings, I couldn't find any evidence to support Mercurio's claim.

The National Republican Trust PAC also spent $1.2 million on NewsMax email blasts. NewsMax is owned by Christopher Ruddy, one of Richard Mellon's boys and a certifiable '90s style wingnut lunatic.      

The PAC was registered on 9/29/08 by Scott Wheeler, Peter M. Leitner and Joshua Ambush. Leitner and Wheeler both have business ties to NewsMax. Wheeler, a former "correspondent" for the Rev. Moon's Insight magazine,and Leitner, a former DoD employee, created a slanderous "documentary" about the Clinton administration peddling influence to the Chinese which was marketed by Jerry Falwell. That''s just for starters. 

Ambush, an attorney, and Leitner apparently collaborate on a lawsuit against the Saudis on behalf of John O'Neill's estate. Ambush is wired into the Orthodox community after having represented an Orthodox youth sent to an infamous disciplinary camp by his parents.

Dig deep enough and you can connect Wheeler and Leitner to Curt Weldon and every other crackpot GOP conspiracy theorist in the last twenty years.  

Sigh. It looks like I'm going to have to wait until 12/4, though, to find out if the wingnuts at the National Republican Trust PAC came up with the cash to run their slimy, racebaiting crap on network television.

11/16/08 Update: This post has been updated to reflect data from the National Repubican Trust PAC's most recent filings and correct minor errors.  

The information presented here has been summarized in a Daily Kos diary.

(Cross-posted to The Lion and Gun)

I think it's a bad idea, and I'm sure Obama's transition team agrees.

Ezra Klein suggests that this is just an elaborate show of respect that will ultimately result in nothing, and that sounds about right. One of the reasons Clinton was not seriously considered for Vice-President was her (and especially Bill's) refusal to be vetted. As I've mentioned, however, Obama's transition team is just as carefully vetting applicants for high office. And with State there's not just a concern about the potential political ramifications of some of the Clintons' doings. Certain beliefs and revelations could have a deleterious impact on the conduct of American foreign policy.

Central Asia, for example, with its oil reserves, is being jealously eyed by the Russians, Iranians, Chinese and others, and could become an international flash point in the years ahead. That the American Secretary of State's husband might have had shady dealings with the government of Kazakhstan therefore becomes a real problem. Even the appearance of impropriety could negatively impact America's ability to act.

What about Clinton's Presidential ambitions? As a base of operations for Hillary's plotting State doesn't make much sense. It's a high-profile position but not one that lends itself to politicking. And after that, what? Some have suggested Obama wants to build a 'team of rivals' in the manner of Lincoln; that allusion has a double meaning here, since Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, was the only Secretary of State in American history to serve two full Presidential terms. It's unlikely Clinton will repeat that. So let's say she rests at State for three or four years. Then what? Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher haven't exactly aged well, politically speaking.

And if she were to make State a base from which to establish a rival or shadow administration -- which is not unlikely -- that would be even worse. The President famously has to wrangle with Congress to get anything done but has a relatively free hand in foreign affairs. Would he want a Secretary of State, then, that's working to undermine him? And how would that affect American interests abroad? Clinton had a very different (and much more hawkish) foreign policy agenda than Obama's during the primaries. What happens if she goes rogue? At some point the President might have to ask for her resignation. That would be pretty harmful to his administration. It hurt Bush's legitimacy when Colin Powell departed amongst speculation that he mightily disagreed with the country's direction in international affairs, and Powell didn't take half of the Republican party with him.

Andrew Sullivan suggests that Max Baucus's recent moves on health care are 'a sign that Obama might have already been signaling this maneuver.' I doubt it. Max Baucus's emergence as the front runner on reform is a natural consequence of Senate organization. Clinton was never going to be able to take the lead on health care from within the Senate unless Harry Reid decided to step aside and open up a path to leadership -- which he hasn't done. Clinton's on the wrong committees and has little seniority. The leaders for health care reform were always going to be Kennedy and, if he got on-board, Baucus. And Baucus has made it clear for the past year that he's on-board.

I'm not sure what Obama should do with Clinton, but my suspicion is nothing. Leave here where she is. Unless a great opportunity opens for her in the Senate she'll probably return to New York and run for Governor. That would be a better launching pad for a second Presidential run in 2016, and it would make a potentially very popular President Obama's life a hell of a lot easier.

Photo provided under a CC license by Chris Dunn

Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.

Earlier this year, hardly anyone (except me!) could imagine Hillary's ego accepting the Vice Presidency, much less the SoS job. 

But now, we have PUMAs who are furiously outraged than Hillary ISN'T the VP, and the offer of SoS to her is no longer unimaginable--it's on everyone's lips...as a rumor, but still, it shows how quickly some casual political observers' minds can change. 

Ten months ago? Everyone would have laughed at Hillary for SoS. Now? Uh...not so much, they're even saying pleasepleaseplease, Obama, give her the plum she 'deserves'...

Eh. Bill would be the greatest SoS ever. The world LOVES him. He could move MOUNTAINS. He would love the job.

There is massive popular outcry in Bosnia demanding that President-Elect Barack Obama designate their war heroine, Hillary Clinton, as their future Ambassador.  As this dramatic video demonstrates, she has earned the adoration of Bosnians everywhere.



Hillary Clinton, in her modest way, says that she is proud of Barack's election and his likely selection of her for this important role, then she is moved emotionally.

TPMM and TIME comment on emails disclosing improper jury-prosecution contacts. The emails also disclose problems with the US government ignoring court orders.

There is a curious pattern between Siegelman and Wecht: The same players involved with FISA and Geneva violations are linked with prosecutorial misconduct. 

This summarizes for TPM how the WH likely applied the lessons from Siegelman to Wecht.

The information below may help Congress, DOJ OPR, and other interested parties explore the deliberations occurring between (1) the White House and (2) legal counsel connected indirectly with the University of Chicago.

Read more »

I'm not an economist, so I'm seriously asking this question. Why should we bail out the auto industry?

Bankruptcy would not mean that GM would just disappear. After all, lots of businesses have gone through bankruptcy. They'd simply be re-organized. Shareholders would lose out, but considering the huge drop in share price, most of that damage has already been done. Bond holders would lose big, too, but again, I suspect that most of the damage has already been done.

There would be pay cuts and layoffs, no doubt. And maybe even a change to pension plans (though I've heard that they're relatively well-funded). Clearly, none of these are good things,... but why would propping up a bloated carcass with tax dollars be any better? The American auto industry has been mismanaged for decades, propped up by their tame politicians and our willingness to keep buying gas-guzzling SUV's. Why continue with a failed policy? Have we become some third-world country that considers the auto industry a status symbol? Or is this just a matter of the industry's political power?

As I understand it, there was good reason to bail out the banks. With the toxic mess on their books, letting them fail would have been like tipping a long line of dominoes. Our credit markets would have frozen up, even more than they are today, since no one knew - no one knows even yet - what that stuff is worth. But this doesn't apply to the auto industry, except perhaps to their financing arms (which could be separated in a re-organization).

As I say, this would not mean that GM would simply close its doors. Bankruptcy would just mean a court-supervised restructuring. They'd still be in business, but better equipped to compete going forward. Yes, there would be pain, but how is that different than people losing their jobs all across the country? We can't bail out every single company, can we? So why should the auto industry get special consideration? Why should my tax dollars prop up such a poorly run company, since there IS a limit on what we can realistically do. Aren't there better places to put our money?

Sure, this is a huge company, and there might well be special circumstances. But again, we're just talking about re-organizing under the bankruptcy code. There's no doubt that the company would continue operation during this procedure. Yes, there would be pain, but there IS pain already - everywhere. And our government payments can only go so far. Should the auto industry get special treatment? Is that really the best use we can make of our money?

As I say, I'm not an economist, so I'd be interested to hear of any justification for bailing out the auto industry. I'm thinking that court-supervised restructuring might be just what these companies need. Given their size, I'm sure the government would need to keep a close eye on it. But a bailout? Where's the sense in that?

McCain's legacy is going to be leaving his party figuring out what to do with her.

She has enough of a following among The Base that she can't be disregarded but she could never lead the party.

I wonder if "progressives" will end up treating the Obamas like the Clintons?

Kerfuffle in Italy after their high court ruled that a persistently vegetative coma patient could be allowed to die. The Church is of course aghast, and had been firing with all guns at the courts during the long appeal process. But this case exposes the clash of dogma and data.

Church fury as coma woman allowed to die.

A hundred years ago, the woman in question would have been long dead. But our capability of maintaining life also is the capacity to sustain Hell, as the father referred to his life for the past 17 years. And of course there is that tricky beginning-of-life question.

Read more »

With rumors reaching a feverish pitch that President-elect Obama may be considering selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, it is worth noting the parallels between Obama and Clinton and another rivalry between the top political leaders from Illinois and New York in the 1860 presidential campaign, as documented in Doris Kearns Goodwin's superb book, Team of Rivals.

Even Obama himself has discussed creating a Cabinet fashioned after Abraham Lincoln's.
The similarity between the 2008 campaign and the 1860 campaign is striking:

1. A Stunning, Swift Ascent - Abraham Lincoln in the run up to the 1860 presidential election, was famous largely for his "House Divided" speech and his failed Senate campaign against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858. Barack Obama, was famous for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, his best selling books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope, and his failed run for the House of Representatives in 2000 against Bobby Rush. Within a decade of sustaining the most serious blows to their political careers, both men were elected to the Presidency.

2. Opposition to War - Both men stood against the defining wars of their young political careers - Lincoln opposed the Mexican-American War led by President James K. Polk and Obama opposed the second Iraq War led by President George W. Bush. Opposition to these wars - both of which initially commanded broad support among the political classes and the public at large - were seemingly foolhardy positions for ambitious politicians to hold, but in retrospect, turned out to be very wise ones.

3. Underestimated and Attacked for Inexperience - Doris Kearns Goodwin and Gary Ecelbarger in his excellent new book on Lincoln, The Great Comeback, detail how Lincoln was overlooked and even ignored as he pieced together his winning Presidential bid for 1860. Obama himself was not seriously considered to be a contender for the 2008 presidential election - some thought he would sit out this election and contest in four or even eight years (ie, wait his turn), once he gained additional seasoning in Washington. Obama, like Lincoln, realized the value of striking while the iron was hot - even if that meant they faced withering attacks for their relative inexperience in the process.

4. The Convention Site - In 1860, Lincoln's campaign was able to dexterously maneuver the Republican convention to Chicago, which gave him home field advantage as he tried to secure the nomination. Chicago was seen as a frontier city, a new, exciting city of the future that was supposed to mirror the hopes of the nascent Republican Party, which had been founded in 1854. Likewise, in 2008, Denver was chosen for its symbolic value representing a reborn Democratic party, forged in the fire of a disastrous Bush presidency. Choosing Denver for the convention played into the hands of Obama, as he offered himself as the Candidate of Change. The Democratic party, led by Obama, would once again contest western states such as Colorado in presidential contests and no longer be a party confined to the coastal states (plus a prayer to win either Ohio or Florida) under DNC Chair Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. 

5. The Hillary-Seward Connection - Both Hillary Clinton and William Seward were Senators representing the state of New York. Both had experience in the governor's mansion as well - Seward served four years as New York governor, and Clinton's husband served as governor of Arkansas for 13 years.  Hillary Clinton had the added bonus of actually being in the White House for eight years. Although both were seen as strong Presidential candidates, along the way they accumulated their fair share of enemies. Both also made the politically fatal error of failing to size up their rivals, assuming that the nomination would be theirs for the taking. If Hillary Clinton were to become Obama's Secretary of State, she would assume the role that Seward did for Abraham Lincoln during his presidency.

6. Obama's So-Called Third Clinton Term - Obama virtually patented, trademarked and copyrighted the term "Change" in his run for the presidency. Throughout the campaign, it meant at once moving away from the failed governance of George Bush, a rejection of the conservative ideology on a myriad of issues that had prevailed since Ronald Reagan's time, and an end to the battles over the legacy of the Vietnam War. For a time, during the primary, it also meant an end to the Bill Clinton-Dick Morris triangulation style of governance that Obama fiercely attacked during his 2007 Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech.

Now barely a week removed from his Election Day victory, some are surprised at the presence of so many Clinton veterans in the Obama transition staff and potentially, in his Cabinet.  Some wonder how he was able to at once criticize many elements of the Clintons while embracing many Clinton loyalists. This has earned Obama criticism on the left from those who think Obama will favor a centrist, modest governance style rather than the significant change he proposed during the campaign. This is very much similar to the attacks Lincoln faced during his term for governing more as a centrist than a Radical Republican - Doris Kearns Goodwin devotes some space in her book to the belief among many that Seward was the real power behind Lincoln given their closeness and the lingering perception of Lincoln's lack of experience even after he became President.

*****

A "Team of Rivals" Cabinet has its merits and its appeals in challenging times like this one. Obama has made no secret that he will consider talent from all sides of the political spectrum if they he believes they have a real contribution to make to the country. It is a risky strategy, though - Lincoln was able to demonstrate real command of his Cabinet through many trying situations that weaker men would not have been able to manage. Note how George W. Bush's Cabinets consisted almost entirely of ideological yes men, with those who dissented - Lawrence Lindsay or Paul O'Neill for instance - being swiftly eased out of power. Much has been made of Obama's heralded campaign and how he ran a remarkably tight ship for almost two years. If he can replicate this success in Washington, DC, then a "Team of Rivals" Cabinet may not be an exception, it may become a rule for American government.

No, the sins of Summers aren't drinking too much at the neighbor's barbecue or not putting enough Sun Tan #30 on. It's the idea that we have to listen to the usual suspects praise the likes of Lawrence Summers who has enough past sins that wandering in the wilderness for a long period of time seems more appropriate than giving him another shot at screwing up the last vestiges of democracy.

In my essay "Uppity Women and Morons" on October 12 and my "Who Should Run the Treasury", I make the case against Larry Summers having a place in the next administration I cautioned against employing the current Wall Street hucksters and free market flim flam artists. On Sunday I heard the same old talking heads yap about the genius of this Summers guy. (Why we don't "change" all the TV anchors, pundits, and so-called journalists with a "change we can believe in" is the subject of yet another essay). Why oh why do the people responsible in part for the loser ideas of the last 40 some years keep turning up like bad pennies? I finished a pretty darn great essay by David McClintick "How Harvard Lost Russia" written in 2006. It's not a flattering piece on Lawrence Summers and some of the Harvard crowd's misadventures in Russia in the 1990's. What struck me at the end of the Mc Clintick piece was Summers
lack of ability to judge ethics. This from his deposition in the civil case
against Harvard:

Summers said conflict-of-interest "issues," in his Washington experience, were "left to the lawyers." He said he was sensitive to "ethics rules," but testified that "in Washington I wasn't ever smart enough to predict
them...things that seemed ethical to me were thought of as problematic and things that seemed quite problematic to me were thought of as perfectly fine..."

Read more »

I've been watching this for a while with curiousity as to what job offering Hillary Clinton will end up with after the election, and I have a theory as to a cross situation with Joe Liberman.  Again, just a theory, but the way the Liberman thing is being handled by Obama and staff, and the way they are not really behind what Senator Reid is doing each step of the way makes it appear to me that it is being used as a possible way to discredit the Majority Leader.  I don't think Clinton would want Sec. State, I might be wrong here but it's just a gut feeling, but I am SURE she would love to be Majority Leader of the United States Senate. 

Let Harry Reid make the mistake of mishandling this Liberman thing, or just the perception of it take hold, and see how fast the revolving door slams shut allowing Clinton to drop into his spot, making her the first female to hold the position.  Again, this is just theoryspeak at this point, but I don't think I've heard Reid say anything yet that Obama's people supported, they seem to be throwing wrenches in the cogs whenever he gets the wheels moving.  It wouldn't be any type of shock to see the switch.

 

(Revolving door slamming shut is a little rahmbonics for those that don't catch the reference.)

The Republican ruse has worked!  As the US auto industry collapses, and this Adminstration stands idly watching, the UAW and organized labor will bear the brunt of the blame.  Adamantly, George W. Bush has retained the fallacious position that raising taxes on the wealthy will not help this economy.  Zom-Bushes, the unthinking, will echo this fairy tale.  These slaves to their emotions who have had angry reactions to unions making too much money never asked themselves why are they were making so little.  The raging rabble will never admit that maybe they were worth more then they were being paid, that they should have received a larger share of the profits from their labor. 

Since Ronald Reagan, that presidential icon of conservatism, dismantled PATCO, the problem with our economy became that the workers were paid too much.  Be assured that we will soon find out how little workers will accept to build cars once the US auto industry and the unions are history.

What will this world look like without the middle class?  Just go south of the border, anywhere between Texas and Antarctica.  The US will resemble any one of those countries.  What made this nation a great place to be was the ability for common people to rise above a meager existence, to obtain an education and figure a way to wealth.  As the treasury is plundered in these last days of Dubya, and he spreads the wealth around to his base, "the haves and have mores", the future for Joe the Plumber looks very grim indeed, but he's ready to scream at anybody who disagrees with him.  Because he sees the problem as this simple equation of labor being paid too much ... and they get too much healthcare, too! 

 

 

Bwakfat and Clearthinker suggested that rather than simply collapsing comment links for posts with comments disabled by the author, we grey them out to avoid mistaken recommends.

I have done just that. Hopefully this is a good resolution to a rather thorny problem. Here's a screenshot of what it now looks like:


To make it clearer, I have also added a line of text to the comments area in entries with disabled comments to make it clear that closing comments was the user's decision and not a technical glitch.

The Republican Governors Association met in their annual get-together, and had the singular honor of being fronted by the governor of a state with less than a half-million voters, not counting the oil industry. Their 670,000 people put them at about the magnitude of a North Dakota. By contrast, Maine has 1.3 million residents. Alaska: 1.1 persons per square mile. Maine: 79.6. With so many people living together, ME had no delegate to the RGA meeting, but the relatively few encounters with American humans may explain Palin’s horrible small-town beauty queen demeanor.

The Repubs are already glum, but with Palin out in front they risk another crush in the mid-terms and in ‘12, as she outlines her intention to push back and impede the new administration’s agenda. They should look forward to some help, but she sounds like they expect to gain popularity by obstructing the Obama mandate. She drank the Kool-Aid- she thinks only the wings should vote Republican (I agree with her?), and that the RNC will accrue supporters by increasing exclusion.

But Sarah Palin was the coup d’grace, the last straw in McCain’s masterful plan to take a dive with honor. He effectively got the RNC out of the way, at a time when thoughtful people of all stripes need to come together to start a bucket brigade, everybody pitching in to haul the muck out of the Capitol as the “President” is led out of town, finally capping the decade-plus of RNC hegemony. Only McCain’s successful failure could ensure legislative opportunities for compromise, ensuring some opportunity for Republican influence, and he could only fail by succeeding. He acquiesced to the North Pole of his party in his VP choice as he would in his cabinet and everything else he’d do as president. Would have done- he’s not going to be President. Whew.

I choose to believe that the senator is now stumping for Chambliss, using the same base-only rhetoric he used to sink his campaign, because he knows the demographics simply do not favor that base, the fringe, the frontier. Somehow Georgia (9.5M, 79 people/mile²) is trending psychologically reverse (backward?). But Palin was perfect, snowmobiling all the way from that frontier. In case you missed it, she’s some kind of rugged woodsman, but smarmy, hostile, condescending, unintelligible, the human-interest prima donna with mooseburgers. And a hockey mom.

My dad used to yell at the Flyers so hard it kept us up at night. To see him at my little brother’s hockey games was to watch a man transform, from scalp to collar, into thirteen pounds of throbbing veins. But everyone involved in keeping youth hockey alive in the US and Canada is seriously very insane, even before they start demonizing Drosophila research and pushing teen parenthood. My mom will kick your ass.

No, Sarah, Fruit Flies don’t match the ‘Are Squirrels Gay’ research, although that was a valuable question too (the answer is,”sometimes”, by the way). It’s called molecular genetics and developmental biology, it represents hope, another way forward in health as we age and evolve, and it’s over your head. Things can’t be over the Executives’ heads any more, and they won’t be for at least the next four years, in part due to the heroic work of Senator McCain, who deserves to sleep soundly at night. His service to this country, taking a bullet for us all, even the party that treats him badly, makes him a good role model, and I hope our next President leverages his wisdom.

II am so sick of hearing about Regan Democrats it's time that Republicans learned about Obama Republicans and the fact that Republicans are no longer a majority of our country and will not be for some time to come. Democrats are now the majority party in the USA and will be for some time to come based on how first time voters voted.

 

Remember it is now OBAMA REPUBLICANS!!

Imagine, you wake up on Sunday morning, stir the kids, shower and put on your Sunday best. After breakfast everyone piles into the car and off you go to church. Your eldest bemoans having to go to Mass and you're secretly worried your little one is going to create havoc running up and down the aisle so you pre-plan putting her straight into the children's room. When you get there however, all that remains are the foundations, the whole building has gone and you are left wondering if your auto-pilot has malfunctioned and you've taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way. "I'm sure the church was here, have I taken a wrong turn dear?" You recognise many of the bemused faces in the parking lot as the parishioners you've seen every Sunday and then it dawns on you. Someone has nicked the church.

For the villagers of Komarovo, a village 186 miles north-east of Moscow, this scenario is a stark reality. Local prosecutors where informed by members of the Russia Orthodox Church that the 200-year-old church in a rural location near Komarovo has all but disappeared. All that remains of the two-story building are the foundations and some sections of wall, the church said. It's not uncommon in rural Russia for thieves to target churches. Religious icons can be sold and building materials from church structures can be sold on the black market but I wonder if this is the first time an entire church has disappeared.

My own church was built at a time when the locals where starving, one generation on from the potato famine, perhaps as this economic recession and property bubble that has hammered the Irish economy bites, we will tear down our own church in order to feed our people.

Although Fox anchors and pundits like Ben Stein laughed him off, guest economic analyst Peter Schiffer accurately, and repeatedly, predicted a collapse of the financial markets:

About ten minutes long. If you have trouble with embeds, watch on Youtube here.

h/t Andrew Sullivan

BTW, I won’t be disabling comments. :-)

After the break Michael Lewis, who exposed Wall Street shenanigans in Liar’s Poker, talks about the current crisis.

Read more »

One of the first ironies I have noticed about Barack Obama's victory is the inability of many liberals to follow his lead on positioning his coming progressive changes.  I have yet to hear the words "democratic dominance" out Barack's mouth.  All of his initial moves seem to signal a shift away from the left-right pendulum swing of the last 40 years.  He speaks to national unity at a time when many democrats shout for heads to roll. 

"It's our time now!"

Read more »

After reading another letter to the editor in our college newspaper defending California's proposition 8, discussing how gays have the same rights as we do because they can also marry people of the opposite sex, it occurred to me that common sense was not in high supply for these folks. So, rather than use empathy to explain how they wouldn't be very happy with that argument if the shoe was on the other foot, another approach occurred to me: show where their silly argument breaks down—not for gays, but for women (or men).

Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't. Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't. That sounds like gender discrimination to me. Does this argument stand a chance of breaking through that dense wall of willful ignorance?

I’m getting the feeling from discussions going round these last 2 weeks is that many people view discrimination towards gays is basically about getting married and the inconvenience of having to stay in the closet.

And if losing your job and profession because you were outed was the only repercussion, I guess I would rank that as less severe than death and slavery. But only as a matter of proportions. Because losing your livelihood, your ability to work, is indeed a form of slavery. The Communists used this all the time - forcing intellectuals into back-breaking menial jobs to grind them down over the years (or simply as a slightly slower way to murder, as the Gulags offered).

And I think many of us know that Oscar Wilde spent a few years in jail for being gay, which had the result of ruining his health and sending him to an early grave. Of course he’s not the only gay to be imprisoned, and arbitrary extra-legal punishments by mob rule have been the norm for millenia. [I had a friend who suprised me by telling me about a gay guy who came onto him, and how he viciously beat the guy up and threw him in a dumpster. I never talked to him again, but I’m still amazed he would brag about such a thing.]

But the origins of the Pink Triangle bring greater shame. Not only did the Nazis round up gays, castrating some and sending others to jails and concentration camps (it’s hard to get the numbers right - only recently did Deutsche Welle up the estimates to 55,000 killed, while other estimates have from 20-40,000 dying at Auschwitz alone). But they were also abused by their fellow campmates, not just their guards. And then after the war they weren’t even eligible for reparations because they were still illegal “sodomites”, some sent back to jail for crimes brought up by the Nazis. Of course other gays had the good sense to flee in front of the Nazi onslaught when from a publicly gay population of over a million (Berlin was a flourishing cultural city of gays and Jews, a la Cabaret), some 100,000 ended up on Gestapo lists.

Just as it also took Gypsies 50 years to get full acceptance as victims of the Nazi holocaust, belated acknowledgement for gays has been slow in coming, and for most people the fate of the gay community in Germany and Poland remains just another unknown historical blind spot.

I would be really disappointed in Obama if he picks Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Hillary is to the right of Richard Holbrooke, whom I strongly disapprove of , and her foreign policy basically resembles that of Joseph Lieberman. Her comments about getting involved in a potential Israeli-Iranian conflict and supporting the second Iraq War raises serious concerns about her judgement. But for those who do not like Hillary's foreign policy we must remember that it is ultimately is Obama, who makes the decisions.

    A few new books basically describe that it is ultimately the leader and and not his advisors that make policy. In the book Lincoln and his Admirals by Craig Symonds, Lincoln rejected his naval secretary's advice to block all trade with the Confederacy, instead Lincoln  allowed a limited amount of economic interaction between North and South in order to soothe postwar tensions. While in another book Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein, Kennedy ignored the hawkish advice of Bundy and McNamara to get his involved in Vietnam, while LBJ accepted their reccomendations in deploying American ground troops in Vietnam. Finally in Carlo D'Este's book Warlord: A Life of Winston Churchill at War 1874-1945, Winston Churchill ignored his military advisors and made the disasterous decision to divert British forces from North Africa into the doomed effort in Greece in 1941. Although the British political system is different it was still the leader of the country who was responsible in conducting the war. All three of these books basically state that cabinet member or minsters, in the British case, have no real power to stop the leader of the country from implementing policy.So when it comes to dealing with Iran and Russia it will probably be Obama in the driver's seat and not Clinton. 

       

 

 

I call bullshit. We already know there were two brains examined during the days following Kennedy's autopsy: The real one on November 25th, and the fake one between November 29th and December 2, 1963. The existence of a cover-up to blame Oswald for the death of Kennedy is indisputable.

This new analysis pretends to recreate John F. Kennedy wounds to determine through blood splatter analysis where he was shot from, but the Parkland doctors and military Bethesda doctors have wildly disagreed as to the nature of the throat wound, for example, and many witnesses have said to have seen a wide wound to the rear of Kennedy's back, as opposed to the front, which is the official story.

I can't even find a damn "contact us" link or any contact form in their website.
 

1) Fairly common in world politics to shuffle your enemies into the foreign sphere to keep them out of the more important domestic sphere. They may not be enemies at this point, but I wouldn’t call them completely rehabilitated trusting friends.

2) I’ve never felt that Hillary would get more power in the Senate from her candidacy, despite obviously a lot of voter support out there. A lot of Senators lined up against her, and I don’t think that will transform into political power come 2009.

3) Obama wants it his own way in the Senate. He’s not going to turn to Hillary over and over to do it “Obama-a-la-Clinton”, so he’ll find someone else to be rubber stamp and enforcer on his take of things. And there’s a good chance that Obama will get his back up more with Hillary’s pushback than others’.

4) Hillary’s a policy wonk and issues-motivated, which is why she wouldn’t make a Supreme Court Justice. Heading out on the world stage she can push her poverty, women’s rights and other initiatives as it segues right into meaningful work she and Bill have always done.

5) Hillary’s got street cred on military issues through her work on Armed Services, knows Gates well, etc. Her roll in smoothing a withdrawal from Iraq could be invaluable.

6) The foreign stage is a good place for a superstar, especially at a time when we need to mend one whole lot of bridges and take on some tough problems. Sending a known face allows us to hit the ground running, “Ready on Day One” so to speak.

Caveat: I don’t know how the Middle East sees her in context with her staunch support for Israel. Bill certainly gave Arafat prime time in his presidency, but the final deal still has a bitter taste as too slanted to the Israelis. But my guess is that everyone will be happy to have some chance of progress after 8 years of treating Muslims like crap.

PS: Too bad Larry Summers got axed from Treasury consideration just because of the Harvard women’s issues flare-up. I always thought he got a bum deal - he was at a Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce Conference trying to address why the lack of female participation might exist, in order to counteract it - in an academic studied fashion. The whole outrage seems way too PC to me, and the students supported him staying 3:1 at the end, and it was almost completely Liberal Arts faculty that had a beef with him (Harvard is more than Liberal Arts). But that people are bringing this up will ineveitably doom him.

I don't know about you, but as an angry progressive blogger, I'm feeling just a little but frustrated since the election. I've got no one to hate. John McCain gave a little speech and disappeared. G.W. has been reduced to giving tours of the Oval Office. It was fun to laugh at Sarah Palin when the McCain people dished on her, but without her V.P. pulpit, she just seems like a clown, and yelling at clowns is boring. Thank goodness we still have Joe Lieberman to crap on. That's why I created this hateboard so that we can all crap on Joe Lieberman. So crap away. I recommend that following syntax: Joe is a #$!*@ because ...

I'll get us started:

• Joe is a #$!*@ because he supported McCain, and everyone who supported McCain is a #$!*@.
• Joe is a #$!*@ because Obama endorsed him in the last election, and then Joe stabbed him in the back. Or maybe the front. Whatever, Joe stabbed him. And even though Obama doesn't seem mad, since Obama doesn't get mad, I'm going to get mad for Obama's sake because it's not right.
• Joe is a #$!*@ because he supports the Iraq war and other Republican stuff. His voting record his almost as Republican as Evan Bayh's. But we like Bayh because he supported Obama. We like anyone who supported Obama even if they directly facilitated the war, like Colin Powell.
• Joe is a #$!*@ because he's a lying, opportunistic politician. Can you believe it? A lying, opportunistic politician. Appalling!
• Joe is a #$!*@ because he played for the other team. People on our team should never, ever, play for the other team. It's a betrayal, that's what it is. We like it when people from their team play for our team because that shows integrity, like when Chuck Hagel praised Obama, but it's different the other way.
• And finally, Joe is #$!*@ because he's a weenie and deserves to be stripped of his committee chairmanship and given a big old wedgie in the Senate locker room.

Wow, that felt great. I haven't felt this good since I wrote about how much I hated Hillary Clinton.

Crap away people, crap like you've never crapped before. You may not have another chance for a while.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This piece was NOT cross-posted at dagblog.com, because those people are a bunch of Lieb-loving losers.

It appears that with the new Movable Type format it is possible to not "accept comments" and sadly, after this post, I shall put a check on that option. I say sadly, because most of the comments I receive, even harshly critical ones, are  very useful to me as a mirror and I often get new ideas reading them or marshaling my resources to answer their critique.

However there are a few posters who are simply intolerable in both content and form and to receive them into ones space and engage them is degrading.

At first I was amused that "moderate centrism" was being defended using tactics that one associates with Stalinists or skinheads, I suppose I thought there was something Monty Pythonesque about it all, but finally, sullen, hostile, brutality palls.

I don't like to stand on my dignity, but I don't think any of us have to tolerate personal allusions, comments on our private lives or to be insulted or intimidated. Nobody has to tolerate or put up with that. I certainly won't.

I think that the presence of these little cyber-thugs is probably discouraging many beginners, people with valuable things to say that are less case-hardened the myself, from blogging, but the decision to allow the little bullies to continue is not mine, the only possibility open to me is to disable comment in the space that carries my name. "I am David Seaton and I approve of this message"  should apply to anything in a space that carries my name.

I shall miss many of the people who comment on my TPM blog and I imagine they know who they are so I won't single them out... Who knows this might make them future targets for abuse.

From now on, if anyone wants to comment on anything I post here they are welcome to visit my home blog, "David Seaton's News Links" and leave their comments there. The address is:
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/   This is because Blogspot has a feature that we don't have at TPM yet (or I haven't discovered it yet) that allows me to moderate my space and to filter the comments. I read them, but I am not forced to give them space to insult me or other commentators.

I am allowing comments on this last post because I think the topic might be of general interest to many members of this forum, but I shall not answer of participate in any discussion that follows.

I'd like to propose a constitutional amendment. I suspect that after eight years of Bush rule, that idea has crossed many people's minds. Because we've discovered the hard way that the current constitution provides little protection against a president who decides to become a law unto himself.  Looking back over the Bush II reign, I am astonished at the depth and breadth of this president's admitted duplicity:

 

• invasion of a sovereign nation on at the very least, cherry-picked intelligence, at the very worst, false pretenses
• admitted that prisoners were subjected to waterboarding and promptly redefined the meaning of "torture"
• admitted to wiretapping American citizens without warrants, a clear violation of the 1978 FISA law
• called the Geneva Convention Treaty "vague" to justify the violation of this internationally recognized agreement that outlines treatment of prisoners of war
• claimed authority to disobey laws in over 700 signing statements
• said he was not informed of the severity of Hurricane Katrina beforehand, though videotape clearly shows he was informed by disaster officials that the levees could be breached putting lives at risk
• claimed executive privilege to avoid Congressional oversight
• admitted creation of secret prisons overseas 

And these are just off the top of my head. Books will be written that expose the full constitutional breaches of this administration. And the incompetence of the administration is glaring - witness Abu Gharib, Alberto Gonzales and the Attorney Generals fiasco, Osama Bin Laden still at large, Walter Reed hospital problems, a sinking economy, strained international relations, especially with Russia, an unfunded No Child Left Behind policy, ignoring an August 2001 memo which read Osama Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S., the Guantanomo Bay fiasco. And these are just off the top of my head.

 

But I digress. My idea of a constitutional amendment springs from a desire to give Americans some satisfaction on seeing the 43^rd president leave office.  It's really a simple thing, and I believe would carry the necessary majority needed to pass. So here's my idea for the 28^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 

 

Citizens of the United States shall have the right to determine how a president with a disapproval rating of 75% or more will finally depart from office. This departure method will be determined by a duly elected body of citizens called the Citizens Revenge Consortium (CRM).  Said body will have the final say as to the method by which a grossly unpopular president is escorted from the White House. Furthermore, this method will be implemented immediately after the inauguration of the new president which occurs on January 20^th every four years beginning January 20, 2009.

 

See, simple. And this year, as the uncontested head of the CRM, I have my suggestion for George W. Bush, 43^rd president of the United States.  Right after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, Bush will leave the podium and be escorted to an awaiting car. A clown car. I'd like it to be yellow too. And I'd like to see that visual stay in the news cycle for at least 48 hours.  Bush in a yellow clown car - now isn't that befitting of a president who is prone to tap dancing at press conferences? In other words, befitting of a president who has acted non-presidential for 8 years. And though his presidency has been anything but funny, it will give 76% of Americans some measure of relief - and hope.

*Cross-posted at my website, The Danifesto*

Move over, Condi.

There are reports that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton, among other big shots like John Kerry and Bill Richardson, to be Secretary of State.

Here's my take on this:

Personal Reaction: Hillary Clinton doesn't do it for me, and never has. I have no problems saying that, while I agree with her on virtually every policy issue (notwithstanding her Iraq War vote), I don't find her particularly appealing as a politician. I am still angry about some of the shit she pulled in the primary ("Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," the gas tax holiday, the 3 AM ad, "He's not a Muslim... as far as I know," etc.). Much of my distaste for her has subsided since then, and I even donated money to her in August ($10, but hey, I'm poor), but I confess I remain somewhat leery of her. I just don't completely trust her.

So the conspiracy theorist/paranoid/still-smarting Obama supporter in me isn't necessarily thrilled at the prospect of her being so high up on the Obama food chain. I think Hillary, while - I'll say it again - right on most policy issues, would have been a disaster as president. For all her intellectual capabilities and political gifts, I think she would have been a terrible fit as chief executive of our country. And even though Secretary of State is waaay far down the line of presidential succession (after vice president, speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate), there's a fairly large part of me that doesn't want to see her in line at all. I'm just not really comfortable with her being in that kind of position.

All that being said...

Political Reaction: If this happens, Obama gets an A+++ for playing politics and for making a decision that will be almost universally praised as a sound governing choice. No one in the Democratic Party will be unhappy with the choice, and most will be thrilled. Republicans... they don't like her anyway, but they'll be thrilled that she'll be spending so much time abroad.

Furthermore, this is straight out of Team of Rivals. It's the whole "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" thing. Obama still probably feels like he can't completely trust Hillary, and she probably still wants to be president, and she definitely thinks she'd be a better president than he would, but that's actually an excellent reason to put her on the team. Hillary can do much less damage to Obama - and could even do him a great deal of good - if she's in "the tent," so to speak. If Hillary's in the Cabinet, the chances of her conspiring behind Obama's back are greatly reduced. Plus, in all fairness, she'd probably do a good job at the State Department. Personally, I'm still a little skeptical of her management skills after the atrocious campaign she ran, but I have no doubt she'd be a good diplomat. And since she'd of course want to excel at her job, she'd probably give it her all; if she didn't, she wouldn't make Obama look bad, she'd make herself look bad - and she'd also kill any chance she might still have at becoming president.

Bottom Line: It's a bold move. Like the Rahm pick, it has its pluses and minuses, but it's probably worth the risk. I say go for it.

This daily post is a clearinghouse for links to posts that either flew by too fast, didn't get the attention they deserved, or are so good they need to be up even longer...

ANYONE can link a post here, and we encourage you to do so. The post is only as good as its links. If you do add a link, please describe it briefly and tell us why it deserves another look.

As long as the archives are messed up, this is the only way to preserve good posts!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to rec this post, even if you don't read any of the links or add anything. It only works if it makes it to READER REC everyday. If it barely makes it, it gets bounced off and good posts are lost.

I can lumber my way through Latin, but Greek is completely out of my reach.Hopefully someone here at TPM Cafe can offer some insight.

In a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814 is found a two word phrase in Greek. Here is a direct link to the page in the Writings of Jefferson (ME): Volume XIV, Page 140.

My transcription of the phrase is:

Το κυλον

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Over at Salon, James Ross thinks that those behind Bush's torture policy will be in the mix:

So don't be surprised if some time before Inauguration Day 2009, President George W. Bush issues a blanket presidential pardon to ensure that those who organized and implemented brutal interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding" (a terrifying simulated drowning) are never hauled before the courts. A pardon would prevent future administrations from ever prosecuting those responsible for torture and other mistreatment at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA detention facilities elsewhere overseas.

The president may well want to protect loyalists who designed or oversaw his most secretive tactics in the war on terror, and behind closed doors he may be under some pressure to do so. If in the end Bush pardons the stewards of his interrogation policies it would be a final act of injustice by a president whose legacy includes running roughshod over fundamental freedoms and undermining America's ability to promote human rights abroad.

That sounds about right to me. So who else will Bush bail out in the final days of his presidency?

Hi there, come on in.  Good to see you, too.  Here, let me take your jacket ... it is, isn't it?  Did you notice the full Moon a night or so back?  Missing just a sliver now, but still breathtaking.  Find a seat on the sofa, I'll get us both a glass and see you in a minute.

I've not been here as often as I once was.  If you've stopped by only to find all the lights out I'm sorry.  Thanks so much for dropping by again when you've seen them lit.  Why the inconsistancy?  Sometimes I think I'm boring you, and wasting your time much better spent elsewhere.  Taking up space that is not mine to occupy.  Sometimes I just don't know what to say.  Guess we all have those days, once in awhile.  Awfully hard to turn on the lights, invite folks inside and then say, "Hi there, come on in.  Now talk to each other".  Although I'll admit that I've considered it.  I wonder what would happen?

I've said far too many times that my little posts probably don't belong on TPM.  You've all been so kind in welcoming me even when you haven't had the slightest idea why.  That makes me laugh.  Thanks ever so much.  

Where did I put our wine?  

Great.

Salon reports today that those who engaged in torture will be investigated by a non-partisan commission formed shortly after Obama takes office.

The catch: "Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one."

More:

On Wednesday, a person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to "bullshit" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Bullshit it is.

This week, and just before Christmas, Inspection will be based around Bart Ehrman's book Lost Christianites. Mr. Ehrman's book opened my mind to possibilities I had slightly imagined: at best.... and concepts, I'm sure, beyond what he intended. This edition will be about...

                                 Rethinking How We Teach History

     Does religion belong in our public schools?

     Would you be surprised if a certain columnist; whose columns are mostly featured on Liberal websites, answered, "Yes?"

     For the past eight years we have had a head of State who had fundamentalists as a large part of his base, probably more so than ever before in recent history. That base played part in his reelection and many of his decisions. One might even argue, at least since Jimmy Carter, they have played an increasing role in public life and public policy. Most Americans have, at best, little knowledge about religion in general and its major influence on history: especially fundamentalism. But those who are the most fundamentalistic in three of the most major world faiths; Islam, Judaism and Christianity, have contributed much more, over the span of human history and to whom we are today, than we have been taught.

     I am neither claiming bad, or good, for the purposes of this discussion. But their influence is undeniable. No matter what anyone thinks of them, we ignore them at our own peril. Lightly skip over their influence; and the influence of religion in general, then we are no longer teaching history, but a major misrepresentation of history. And they become a very efficient weapon that can be used against us by ambitious, perhaps even evil, politicians.

     This is what happens whenever any large constituency is ignored, or under estimated.

      We need to rethink how we teach, how much we teach and what we learn from history in our public schools. I know the trend is away from actually teaching history: combining and diluting it with other disciplines instead; wrong headed as that is. But we desperately need history to be taught... and to help us teach it well religion: in a comparative way, absolutely belongs in History courses.

      I am not asking for "faith" to be taught: far from it. I think school prayers in a public school; for example, are either so generic that they would be offensive, or so specific they would be offensive. Neither faith nor belief should be taught, except as needed to explain the differences among sides in a conflict, or regarding any issue.

      But religion used as an aid in organizing and presenting History; especially World History courses? Invaluable.

      Studying and learning from history without understanding how the different faiths have influenced is like studying the Civil War and skipping the slavery issue. One might argue that states' rights was far more than anything else the reason for the war; an argument I would consider faulty when it come to the qualifier "far," but even if true... skipping slavery just doesn't make sense. It had a major influence on those times and how we as a society developed after that conflict. One could argue that a straight line can be drawn to this year's election from slavery and the issues that surrounded it; complete with differing religious influences that once upon a time either defended or bashed slavery. Then we have the obvious religious connections and symbolism of the Scopes trial... the absurd and quite racist claims that after Cain and Abel the Black race was born... the Klan, Martin Luther King, Black Panthers... to mention just a few examples. The line continues; drawn up to Barack Obama. We cannot deny that racial issues connect to religion... and religion: that Muslim Fundamentalist vs. Christian Fundamentalist dynamic, all played a major part in this 08 election. Then we have religion and patriotism; sometimes it's so hard to separate the two it would be like attempting to split twins who share the same heart and mind.

     The fact we do skim over the influence of religion for the most part doesn't surprise me: or that the trend is towards teaching less and less of it. It's easy in a society where you might anger one faith by teaching about it one way, others by choosing some other way. But teach it we must. More than anything else, who we have been has a massive influence on whom we are, and who we will become.

     When it comes to teaching our past, American History courses have an unfair advantage that I would like to use for all history courses: a simple, easy: singular timeline. When Mrs. Heinlein, my fourth grade teacher, started her timeline on the board, and showed how America developed through time; history came alive for us. Indians who weren't stupid enough to let covered wagons form a circle to protect themselves made a lot more sense. Abe Lincoln's attempts to compromise away the slavery issue at first by providing less than emancipation breathed the reality of those days into a American icon.

      If World History had been well taught as American History I might have veered towards a teaching degree in History rather than English. But I have to be fair: focus on any one country and almost any fool could damn near teach history well, but even if we just taught European history... rather than attempting to teach World History, there would still be too many ruddy countries to give history the attention it deserves. Timelines become messy, so it tends to be taught by hopping all over: hard; to damn near impossible, to organize. Aggravating to teach... boring at best.

     I think we could clear this up by including religion in a different type of timeline for all courses: even American History. This would provide a sense of continuity from year to year. Some of the pivotal points on the timeline may change to reflect the main focus that year, but students would begin to see the inter-connectiveness between freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year history courses.

      After teaching American History in 9th Grade; before teaching a course that combines what was learned from II and III with American History in the 12th grade: here's my suggestion for a two one year courses...

                            Issues, Conflicts and Resolve II and III

     (By "conflict" I mean it is a far wider sense than just war. "I" would be American History. "IV" would be American and World combined. That would be an opportunity to also include discussions about countries rarely mentioned during I, II and III.)

     The first year would be more religion and social oriented, the second more political and social: though they could be switch around, and referred to during both years. Other causes are, of course, discussed. I will examine; in this column, the first year. But by examining the pattern and timeline I provide, I think possible additions and subtractions from the second year should become obvious, and I think you can probably extrapolate the other two years as well from what I provide here. Anyone interested in my ideas regarding the other courses, feel free to contact me by commenting on the column.

      Begin by examining major religious and social issues that have occurred and reoccurred over human history: use this overview throughout the year, and every year: adding and subtracting what issues you might need for that specific year. Then start a timeline; choosing amongst the many history-changing major conflicts over human history. I am referring to them as "pivotal points" in this column. Conflicts that deal with reoccurring issues would be crucial to our timeline, but other more era specific conflicts and causes are mentioned as well... just not as much. One should start with such a pivotal point in history... then move forward in time to another, then another. I would suggest three to four pivotal points at the most, and others as more of a minor mention.

      For the purposes of this column the first pivotal point will be the beginning of Christianity vs. the Roman Empire. Why? Well, to quote the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Bart Ehrman...

"In considering the importance of the victory of proto-orthodoxy ...we also reflect on broader historical implications. A case can be made that this victory was one of the most significant events in the social and political history of western civilization."

(pg 249)

  (Note: "proto" as in "before they came to be considered 'orthodox'")

    A Roman Empire that did not become Christian? No Crusades? No Inquisition? Society developing as a collection of various faiths, rather than one bent on conversion? Possible. We tend to forget that the Roman Empire was a collection of many faiths; both the various pagan faiths, Judaism and many others. Though various versions of paganism; and one more specific version of paganism, were in the majority faith-wise within the Roman Empire; until Christianity took hold, all those differing faiths were relatively tolerated. Jesus wasn't executed to please some Roman pagan God, or because when he was under Rome's power he didn't worship as the Romans did. As long as someone wasn't an insurgent; some anti-Rome rebel, or an agitator determined to force your faith upon the Empire, you were relatively free to worship as you wished. The Romans were more interested in keep power and the peace; in a quite brutal manner, than anything you believed... or didn't. Pilate didn't even want to get involved and eventually "washed his hands." Jesus was executed mostly because certain powerful Jews viewed him as a threat; demanding he be executed: giving the Empire an excuse to pull, at best, a very slightly annoying thorn out of their side and stick it into Christ's head. One could validly claim that Jesus was a victim of too much religious influence over governance.

    I'm going to repeat that...

    One could validly claim that Jesus was a victim of too much religious influence over governance.

    Obviously, if we are to go with my example, students would need at least as little knowledge about what different factions, sects and faiths believed.

    Now introduce two to three other pivotal conflicts further down the timeline; some seemingly related... some not: draw parallels and distinct differences. Conflicts other than the pivots certainly should be mentioned, but not as a major focus. The object here is to be a linear as possible; that way the students can organize the information in their heads and in their notes. The more you complicate your timeline method, the less effective your teaching. Plus we have a four year span here where we can cover something that wasn't mentioned before, because these courses are connected to each other. Obviously teachers will need to spend some time planning together to make this effective as possible.

    One of the methods used to draw the student into this would be making it more personal. A method I recommend would be the time machine. "If you could go back... what differences would you notice between how we view the issues they had then, and now? Similarities? If you started in that nation: as they are today, and you went back in time, what might get you killed, thrown in prison or tortured then, that wouldn't now?" Of course whatever part of the world this conflict happened in should be examined to see how they handle these issues now to make this process accurate.

    Then we come to an important question regarding the first year of World History... what would be the best pivotal points? If you feel other conflicts are more important, of course the method is the point, but my choices for the religious/social conflict focus in year one would be...

1. Roman Empire and Christianity. Without a doubt a pivotal point in history, which I will explain some more in a while.

2. The Inquisition, the Crusades and the Thirty Years War; between Catholics and Protestants.

3. Religious influence on other conflicts and issues, with a special focus on WWII. (WWI would be year two, since it's more about misunderstandings and political...far less religious: though a case could be made for it being the result of that somewhat religious trend of the time; Social Darwinism.)

4. The world confronts terrorism. This brings us around full circle.

     Year two would have some different pivotal points, but a timeline that generally follows along with other years: with obvious mentions specifically back to the first World History course.

     Now there's a timeline concept that can include true world history and the influence of many faiths.

     But let's get back to the start of that school year: our first pivot in course I. An important point needs to be made that shows how everything is connected in a way we don't even realize because history has glossed over, and glamorized, Christianity. Some of this is caused by a reluctance to refer to religion at all, but a lot because even Christians don't know much about the nature of how their movement developed slightly post execution. Here is a partial posting at smirkingchimp.com I responded to...

"I have never seen such vitriolic, baseless, fear mongering as I have observed among Christians in this election season."

- a Christian posting at The Chimp

    My response...

"Early Christians, slighty post-lion, would be familiar with it though. The Ebionites, Marcionites and Gnostics; to mention a few, battled amongst themselves and those whom we would consider more orthodox these days. The rhetoric was quite steamy. Paul and Peter were often used against each other and, in life, differed dramatically. Mary was presumably forming another folk group in disgust... chuckle..."

    Sounds interesting. We might even find out what group Mary formed. Could it be... DaVinci? Ah, what started as a joke now reveals more history and uses popular culture to bring history a little closer to our students.

    Perhaps we should examine this time period more and see how it's all connected? But before we take our time machine and head back to that time, let's observe a small smidgen of 2008, featuring headlines from magazines, posts on blogs, newspapers and coming our of our radios, our TVs, like...

Is Barack Obama a Muslim, a Socialist, or the Antichrist?

     I admit, this last election there was a lot of rather nasty framing of Sen. Obama, Gov. Palin, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain. With all the religious influences that have poured into our political rhetoric and debates, we're living through a rather unprecedented time in history, right?

     Hmmm... "True." Or... not?

     Let's hop into our time machine! Flip the switch; listen to the giant egg beaters open up a time portal... maybe we'll use them to make blueberry pancakes after. But it's your job (point at someone if using this to teach) to clean them up when we're done. "No?" Well, let's just go back inn time. Now... watch the ages melt before our eyes,,, backwards: oh, good, no one burned a building where our machine stands, or built a big rock wall that would crush us as we pass... and here is what we find arriving at our historical apex...

"We have seen a wide range of strategies used by various combatants in the literary battles for dominance in early Christianity: ...stereotyped but harsh attacks on the views of others, forged documents in the names of apostolic authorities heartily advocating one... or maligning another... falsification of literature...

(pg. 226)

    If you think the campaign against Barack, or what was said about Bill or Hillary, was the ultimate of outrage, imagine what christian groups who were not part of what would soon become part of the accepted; orthodox view, felt at the time. Here is what Ephiphanius; powerful, vitriolic opponent of all who didn't follow the orthodox line in the fourth century, charged the Phiobionites; a sect within the Gnostic Christian community, with...

"...after satiated with food and drink... married couples separate to engage in a liturgy of sexual intercourse... the couple then collects his semen in their hands and ingests it together while proclaiming, 'This is the body of Christ.' When possible, the couple also collects and consumes the woman's menstrual blood, saying 'this is the blood of Christ.' If the woman... becomes pregnant, the fetus is allowed to develop until it can be manually aborted. Then... it is dismembered, covered with honey and spices, and devoured by the community..."

(pg. 199)

   Dear God, Karl Rove's tactics, and the tactics of the John McCain's campaign, were peace loving and hippie-like in comparison.

   (Please note, I am definitely not suggesting a public school teacher include this exact quote in his or her course, any more than I would suggest bringing in hacked limbs as an example of sword warfare... unless you really don't wish to teach anymore.)

    While Mr. Ehrman, in Lost Christianities, states that charges like that were probably unfair, he did admit that they were related to Gnostic understanding of the cosmos. Just like, in my opinion, one could claim that orthodox Catholic communion has a relation to cannibalism: transubstantiation be damned.

    He also states...

"Lying behind such slurs is the notion that those who side with God will lead moral, upright lives and be unwilling to do anything to defile themselves or others.

pg 198

    That notion would amaze those abused by priests, or the victims of various scandals that have haunted protestants. No matter how valid any faith or sect may be, there is little doubt that claiming to be on the correct side, the "only" one God approves of, isn't always a sure of sign of purity.

    Things haven't changed all that much, have they?

   (Please note: I am not claiming that non-proto-orthodox groups were innocent lambs in this discourse.)

    Back to just post crucifixion...

   The disciples didn't stop bickering amongst themselves after Christ was executed. Mr. Ehrman noted, previously in the text, that Peter and Paul gathered their own followers: formed their own churches, and attacked each other for what they considered not only heresy, but being demonic. Followers splintered into various churches and faiths, most of them unfamiliar to us now, but that dynamic is crucial here. Splintering will happen even after heretical groups are, sometimes literally, torched out of our history. Burn libraries, gut people and spread their parts to different parts of the globe and other people will rise up; the original Martin Luther, Mormons, Unitarians, Universalists. Many will also claim to be theologically pure, what Jesus really wanted: the only ones on God's side... or Allah if you wish. That aspect to our timeline heads not only to the Inquisition, the Crusades: but the Axis vs, the Allies where Gott Mit Uns was proudly stamped on belt buckles and Hitler proclaiming God was on his side... or a new "Crusade" led by our soon to be previous president, as he so unfortunately first named our adventure in preemptive warfare.

    See a connection? Well to quote our soon to be president, "Yes, we can." All traceable to those disciples and their arguments amongst themselves.

    At the end of each year: two papers. One speculating "what if," and another examining overall observations. These would be graded far less on accurate observations or predictions than honest attempts to address the questions asked, though the student's inaccurate observations and problematic suggestions should be commented on.

    Some questions that might be asked of students each year...

A. How did the sides in this conflict attempt to resolve that conflict?
B. What further conflicts may have occurred due to these issues, these conflicts and all the attempts to resolve?
C. What influence may this conflict have had on other conflicts; both past and present?
D. How did this conflict cross the "lines" between social, theological, political issues and institutions?
E. What other conflicts may different countries, regions and humanity as a whole face in the future? Extra credit: possible solutions.
F. What might you have suggested would have been a better way to resolve these issues? Extra credit: has this "solution" been used before? More extra credit: how did it work? More: how might today's world look today if that solution had been used? (Note, a sincere attempt should mean more than accuracy here, though they should be informed of possible flaws in their solutions.)

    The object here is to get students to not only learn history, but to learn from history; and use the past develop skills that might help generations to be able to learn how come up with creative solutions to future conflicts. The most important goal: get students to think... not just regurgitate. We already have too many self made pundits declaring "the" reason why Roman Empire. (I'm always suspicious when anyone claims "one" anything.) We need to grow in-depth analysis abilities in our students before they are even capable of coming close to being able to do that kind of analysis. Scholars still don't agree on the most important reasons why the Empire fell, yet we have hordes of adult ignoramuses who claim they know... due to their preconceived, highly partisan, notions.

    As a community we can no longer have such vast ignorance regarding human history, or how very crucial factors like religion has influenced it. We are raising children who will have to solve tomorrow's conundrums, and these problems include religion as well as social/political elements.

    Every time a Karl Rove starts a campaign of slime, an Iraq is invaded in an act of supposed preemption, gays get bashed, Islamic jihadists fly into towers, or someone walks into a school and starts pulling a trigger, we can see and hear an echo of what was. It's about time our children study the reasons, the sources: the inter-connectivness inherent in conflicts and resolutions. Being able to recite dates and names is meaningless make work that seeps out of students heads as fast as we put it in. When was the last time you needed the exact dates of when the Civil War started? But to be able to understand the reasons, the whys, and how the past still affects us now and in the future... that is a way to both lessen conflict and increase our knowledge of whom we are, and who we can be.

    The future waits. It will be here no matter what we do and it will arrive with us... or without us. We just need students smart enough, thoughtful enough, to help us towards the best possible future; and to make sure we are here to greet it.

 


                                                            -30-

   Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC is reporting that two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state...

Other Democrats known to want the State Department post are Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Bill Richardson. A possible compromise choice would be former Sen. Tom Daschle.

No way!  I don't believe it. 

Number one, she fought President Elect Barack Obama's vision of diplomacy and his plans of talking to our enemies during the campaign. 

Number two, she is a Senator.  The Senate, Harry Reid and President Elect Obama will need every Senator they can get their hands on if they want to get any really tough bills passed - especially health care.  Aren't they currently working hard to win in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia.

The best man for the job would be Sen Tom Daschle because he wouldn't take up any current Democrat's position like Hillary, Kerry or Richardson would.  However, the best man because of his experience would be, Governor Bill Richardson.

I pray this offer wasn't part of the deal for her and Bill's cooperation during his campaign against Senator John McCain.  If it was, it sure proves what I've said about Hillary and Bill all along.  They are out for number one, not the Party or the American people.

www.projectilepolitics.blogspot.com


Since election day, there have been numerous articles about the black vote's impact on Proposition 8. According to exit polls, 70% of African Americans voted for Prop 8. Somehow the blame for this hateful piece of legislation was not directed to the Mormon Church, which lobbied vigorously for the Proposition, but to Black Californians, who constitute less than ten percent of the electorate.

It certainly is an interesting issue. Why do African Americans, potentially the most oppressed group in history, oppose extending civil liberties to another minority group: homosexuals? Below is one explanation from Slate.

They think sexual orientation is different from race. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of a nation in which individuals would be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Whites, on balance, have come to believe that sexual orientation, like color, is immutable. Blacks, on balance, haven't. They see homosexuality as a matter of character. "I was born black. I can't change that," one California man explained after voting for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it."

These examples prompted a slew of criticism about the Black community's impact on Prop 8. Gay activist Dan Savage said that African Americans are a bigger threat to homosexuals than racists are to African Americans. Even though it appears that blacks had a disproportionate impact on the result, those criticisms are misguided and highlight some disturbing sentiments. Unsure who to blame, we accuse another marginalized minority thereby precipitating a race to the bottom.

The appropriate question is Why do African Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage? In the African American web journal The Root, Kai Wright writes that this is primarily the fault of the gay rights movement. In an attempt to streamline their message, gay rights activists have sidelined the black community. Wright acknowledges the conundrum facing African Americans and Prop 8, saying that their impact on the proposition "ought to shame black folks everywhere." But Wright continues to say that the gay rights movement has been self-serving in the past, using black experience only when it was convenient.

Many black folks wince when they hear gay rights compared to the black civil rights movement. And when it comes from white gays whose only interest in black people is appropriating our history, I do too.

When it comes down to it, guaranteeing civil liberties to a wider cross-section of Americans will benefit all minorities and strengthen the country. We are only as good as what we accept, and we wont be much of anything so long as we deny the right for men and women to love who they want. So let's focus on the fact that more than 50% of California's population - white, black, gay, straight - voted for Proposition 8. Let's stop the blame game.

Dec. 2nd is the date for the runoff election and as Sean at 538 laid it out today it is all about turnout.

The race saw incumbent Chamblis get 49.8% to Martin's 47% and 3% for a Libertarian 3rd party leaving this up to a runoff since no one got over 50%.

Most importantly each candidate significantly underperformed their ticket's Presidential nominee. McCain won GA by 205,000 votes vs. W's 600K+ in 2004:

• Chambliss - (-182,000)
• Martin - (- 86,000)

Clearly Chambliss was not as popular as one would think with the state's white voters who did not vote for him, possibly due to the despicable ads he ran against Max Cleland, the triple amputee Viet Nam vet, labelliing him soft on terrorism.

John McCain was here in Atlanta today at a small rally for the devoted for Saxby Chambliss, who has been running negative ads on Jim Martin for the last week. Of course McCain denounced this ad in 2002but now once again is putting his moral compass aside for politics:

"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield - it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible," McCain said at the time.

Other than that the Chambliss team is counting on every Republican headliner from Romney to Giuliani and maybe Mooselini visiting and their state organization to get out their vote in what will likely be a turnout of 30-35% of registered voters vs. the 75% we saw for the general election.

Saxby is even still defending the above ad today to Andrea Mitchell

 

:

The ad above is running already.The DSCC is back with a big 5 day ad buy as well starting today.

There was almost ZERO GOTV work here in Atlanta as McCain had no staff or office here other than the local party offices so we have a real advantage now. Celebrtities coming won't help Chambliss much and a new poll shows that in spades.