Expect the ugly to continue

After Obama's win in Wisconsin tonight, the "inside information" (via MSNBC) from Hillary Clinton's campaign:

"If you look at his negatives, they have nowhere to go but up."

Like this is good news...

Israel Readies Missiles in North

By AP/STEVE WEIZMAN

(JERUSALEM) — Israel has deployed U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles near the northern city of Haifa in case of an attack by Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas in response to the killing of the group's top commander, security officials said Monday.

Thanks George.

RIP WSJ

The demise of the paper formerly known as the Wall Street Journal in the Rupert Murdoch Era is official.

The WSJ was never an exciting read, but they provided invaluable business reporting. The news department did so with the full knowledge that the editorial page was manned by major loons. Dow Jones did a remarkable job of maintaining the massive wall between news and editorial--I'd hazard a guess that the news group didn't even tell editorial where the Christmas party was going to be.

Alack and alas, now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over the WSJ, this once useful if dull paper has become just another mouthpiece in the Faux News arsenal. Just check out this FRONT PAGE headline from a recent edition:

Democrats' Attacks on Business Heat Up

Yeah, that is exactly "Fair and Balanced."

RIP WSJ

Thank God for the Constitution!

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would be proud (or at least Ben Franklin!)

From the 5th, a bedrock conservative circuit.

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Texas Sex-Toy Ban

FORT WORTH, Texas — A federal appeals court has overturned a statute outlawing sex toy sales in Texas, one of the last states — all in the South — to retain such a ban.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Texas law making it illegal to sell or promote obscene devices, punishable by as many as two years in jail, violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Companies that own Dreamer's and Le Rouge Boutique, which sell the devices in its Austin stores, and the retail distributor Adam & Eve sued in federal court in Austin in 2004 over the constitutionality of the law. They appealed after a federal judge dismissed the suit and said the Constitution did not protect their right to publicly promote such devices.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court cited Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 opinion that struck down bans on consensual sex between same-sex couples.

"Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct," the appeals judges wrote. "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

Things Hillary's campiagn is doing that piss me off

General caveat - do I think that Hillary Clinton would be an awful president? No. She might even be good. But her campaign is based on sound Republican thinking - divide and conquer, squeeze every possible advantage out of the system, and do whatever it takes to win. There are some who like that style of campaigning, believing that it's what it will take to beat the GOP. Of course, that's the same logic as why we torture and destroy the Constitution and all that, and I just can't take it anymore.

1) I'll try to use small words as much as possible here: Florida and Michigan don't count. They can't. At some point, can't we all just agree that when there's rules, we, y'know, follow them? If the Sunshine and Mitten states want to have another election in March or April, they can play kingmakers then, but as for what's already happened, I'm having none of it. The Democratic leadership in both states knew the rules and consequences and made their choices anyway. Obviously, they thought one of two things would happen - either one candidate would run away with the nomination, they'd get seated out of "generosity", and in 2012 they'd have their slot in the process reserved, or it would be a fight, and someone would use the whole "disenfranchisement" argument, they'd get seated, etc. NO. I'm tired of this crap.

2) Everywhere Obama wins isn't insignificant or irrelevant. He's winning all over the country by large margins. Here is the data (from Kos):
Idaho +62
DC +51
Alaska +50
Kansas +48
Washington +37
Georgia +36
Nebraska +36
Colorado +35
Minnesota +35
Illinois +32
South Carolina +32
Virginia +29
North Dakota +24
Maryland +23
Louisiana +21
Maine +19
Utah +18
Alabama +14
Delaware +10
Iowa +9
Connecticut +4
Missouri +1

So, in the irrelevant states, he's won by an irrelevant average of 28.5%. Mark Penn can bite me. Oh, and one more tip, Mark - the next time you're on TV, comb your frickin' hair. You look like a slob.

Wow, am I a slacker

I apologize for not writing as much as I should here. That will change soon. As an interim, I was struck by these consecutive headlines on CNN.com:

* CNNMoney: Bernanke, Paulson: No '08 recession
* CNNMoney: Home price plunge sets record

Ben and Henry can say anything they like, but when houses (the biggest asset we'll ever lay our hands on for most of us) drop in value by almost 6% in 3 months, people get nervous...

From the "well duh" file

War strains U.S. military in tackling new crises
Admiral: Risk to capabilities remains significant, 15-month tours too long (full story)

I'm glad the Pentagon is on top of this one. I NEVER would have guessed that an endless, unpopular occupation would have an adverse impact on the military, or that repeated 15-month tours of duty were too long.

Good work there, fellas.

We've lost our Mittens...

Hair Dye Futures Plummet After Romney Withdraws

(AP) Stocks of several makers of men's hair coloring products plummeted in the wake of Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the presidential race. "We had hoped for a return to those halcyon never-gray Reagan days," said one company representative, "but what good does McCain do us?"

The American Society of Vacuous Empty Suits issued a statement expressing their regret over Romney's decision. "One of our own came so close," said the Society's release, "but despite this setback, we remain committed to our platform of being shallow and insignificant."

In a related development, Michael Dukakis is expected to deliver the traveling trophy for "Biggest Tool to Run for President from Massachusetts" to Gov. Romney later today.

The S.S. Mittens

Ah, the S.S. Mittens sinks to a watery grave, darker than even Willard's hair coloring. As Alex Koppelman reported in Salon this morning

we now have an estimate of exactly how much it's cost Romney to win each delegate he's earned so far, and the results aren't pretty for anyone still hoping to get a piece of the Romney estate. The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman reports a calculation done by Alex Vogel, a Republican strategist, showing that Romney has spent $1.16 million per delegate at this point in the race. At that rate, it would cost Romney $1.33 billion to become the Republican presidential nominee. And remember, a lot of the Romney campaign's money is coming from Romney himself -- in the fourth quarter of 2007, the campaign announced over $27 million in total receipts; $18 million of that was Romney's personal money.

Great moments in political oratory

From Mittens Romney:

"All of us on this stage are Republican. But the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built - who will be able to strengthen that house, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton Hillary wants to build."

Wow, that's inspiring.

Off to do some judging

Yippie, 3:45 AM alarm! Off to do the election judge thing again. You kids play nice. I've got an uneasy feeling about today's results, but we will have to let it play out. If your state votes today, make sure you get to the polls, and if you can, help others to get there too.

One person's guess

On Daily Kos, a diarist named poblano has been making predictions as to how Super Tuesday will go. Here's the most recent breakdown (the work put into this diary is impressive):


Who knows how it will actually go, but wouldn't that be fascinating? I'll be safely ensconced in a polling place all day, judging all who come before me (or working for the county), but I can't wait to come home and see all those results coming in. This is the first time in my life that neither party has had either an incumbent President or VP running, and it should be a fun show.

Obamania/Hulkamania!

From CNN.com's Ticker: "Florida resident Terry Bollea –(Hulk Hogan’ to millions of wrestling fans) announced his own presidential pick: Democrat Barack Obama.

During an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Bollea was asked who he would like to see in the Oval Office. "If I had to step out, and say who I really believe in — that catches my ear, that makes sense, that really can make a change — I would say Obama," he replied."

At least Rudy's gone!

Rudy Giuliani, pictured below, plans to withdraw today.

Hello, I must be going

A couple of quick hits before I'm gone again (unfortunately, my brother's wife died from cancer at the far too young age of 48 earlier this week so I'm off for a few days.)

First--Damn you Schmidlap. A White House I thought already reclaimed is back in serious play again. You predicted a President McCain if HRC bears the Democratic standard.

I would have loved for any Dem to run against Romney. What a ridiculous man. besides his lack of core principles and disaffection for the truth, he is just a boneheaded empty suit. Any decent campaign could fill even this dreadfully long season with ads of his lies about pops marching with King and "varmint hunting." Almost topping those though was that splendid video of the well-coiffed bonehead with "who let the dogs out" and "bling bling," That made Dukakis in the tank and windsurfing Kerry look quite reasonable by comparison.

Or Huckabee, that would have been fun mocking the "earth is 6000 years old" crowd.

Or Rudy, with his mob connections and alley cat morals.

But McCain? That is a different story entirely, especially against HRC.

SO--here is what I would like to see happen.

1) Romney sweeps Super Tuesday and wins the nomination;
2) Obama MUST win
3) If McCain wins, he is dumb enough to pick Huckabee for veep (a long shot, sure, but there are rumors that McC and Hucklebuffoon have cut a deal for Mr. Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a dinosaur to stay in long enough to split the votes of the "my religion is wackier than you" crowd.

Next--from my Mexican sojourn last weekend, it looks like the uneasy truce in northern Baja between the drug gangs and the authorities (we don't care if you kill each other, but we'll get ugly if you mess with the tourists) is collapsing. I saw a heavy armed police presence in Rosarito, my little beach spot 20 miles south of Tijuana, and the usual college party crowd was nowhere to be seen. Just what a struggling economy heavily dependent on tourism needs.

And how do any Californians deal with all those campaign ads for your various referendum propositions?

Clinton's Florida stunt was nauseating.

Pats 27
Giants 6

Edwards drops out

So my early vote for Edwards wasn't as useful as I'd hoped. Oh well. Obama will win Illinois easily anyway.

Re: Hillary in Florida

You conniving, win-at-all-costs harridan. What are you, a Republican? I have no choice but to support whoever's opposing the GOP this year, but yegads, she annoys me.

What are you going to do with your $600?

I'm not an economist, nor do I even pretend to understand how money works. On the other hand, I do try to observe how politics works, and I'm struck by how this process, rushed though it may be, is almost an example of our government functioning well. Everybody in Congress and the White House actually wants to accomplish something (or at least make it look like they're accomplishing something), so they're compromising, each side giving the other something they're asking for, neither side getting everything they want, and soon, there will be a bill. Weird. I didn't realize that our government could still, ya know, function. A little.

Although I am curious as to how, on the one hand, the members of the GOP can spend hundreds of billions on this, but when asked to spend $10 billion to help lower-income families keep their kids healthy (which would relieve a bigger burden on those parents than $300/kid), they go ape.

See you all next week

Off to a conference in (not very) sunny San Diego.

And now, in this corner...

Congratulations, Art Maurer of Crete (the hideously ugly suburb, not the beautiful Greek island). You are this week's winner!

This dimwit gives us

when I wrote this letter, it had been 2,313 days since the last terrorist attack in the United States--on Sept. 11, 2001. How many other countries can claim the same record for protecting its citizens? More than 1 million people jammed Times Square for the New Year's Eve celebration. None of them seemed concerned that a suicide bomber might be taking advantage of so many human targets in so little space. There must be a reason they were safe, and I, for one, don't want it changed.

Oh my God. Please tell me one thing Der Chimpenfuhrer has done to "make us safe" and

This one's for Schmidlap

From GOP caucus winner/freak Mike Huckabee

I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

That's rich.

From our favorite Bush apologist

Bush apologist Mark Silva is following Der Chimpenfuhrer to the UAE and gives us this:

where my room was running somebody 1595 USD a night, and the amenities include a PDA to control all of the entertainment The NEC flat screen, I am estimating 60 inches. And a balcony with a view of the arches at the gate to the grounds, sort of L'Arc de Triomphe Vegas-style, lighted last evening in purple. Fine Australian wine yet only Moet et Chandon, no Dom, sits in the minibar.

That's right, Mark. SOMEONE was paying what most Americans would LOVE to see as a paycheck every two weeks for your room. And who was that "someone?" Taxpayers, do we fund your junkets? Your employer, which just raised its price to 75 cents a day? Or perhaps the UAE, that may want favorable coverage for perhaps, another ports deal?

This is good news...right?

(WASHINGTON)—The Democratic-led Congress is unlikely to block U.S. plans to sell $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns from some members that the systems could be used against Israel. The Bush administration on Monday notified Congress of its intent to sell the bomb-delivery systems as part of a multibillion-dollar arms package to bolster the defense of U.S. allies in the Gulf.

Nothing like giving one of the world's largest sponsors of terrorism a whole bunch of bombs.

That's just perfect

The Chimp continues his tour of the Middle East with a stop in Dubai, which is apparently throwing him a holiday for his visit. Of course they are - Dubai is a country run by people exactly like Bush and his ilk. They're way too rich and are ruled by their adolescent passions to play and be wasteful rather than in any way contribute anything. It's a giant mega-rich frat party. Surrounded by hardcore Islamic regimes, Dubai is a playpen. Not enough beachfront property? Hell, let's dig up the ocean floor and build our own, palm tree-shaped islands! We live in a desert? Let's become an international golf destination, where people with way too much money can hit golf balls off the tops of hotels (I wonder where they land). My only hope is that the giggling murderer will realize that he's found his kind and will stay there and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

A HUGE shout-out and God bless...

Forgive me for getting personal, but basically since Christmas my lovely wife


has been in Indiana taking care of her mother. It's a beautiful thing you're doing (despite the fact that I am living like a Cro-Magnon man)

Love you dear.

You don't

Pete, the simple answer is that you can't talk to people like that, at least not about any issues dealing with science. Science is inherently a rational process (assuming the scientists act, as a whole, rationally, which eventually the community of scientists does), and people who make "arguments" from the perfect literality of the Bible are not being rational. They're ruled by their faith, which is their choice, but it provides no avenue for discussion. Entirely too many people in that community believe that if any aspect of the Bible is demonstrably untrue, the entire text is faulty and irrelevant, and once one builds that rigid a foundation to base one's entire life on, one cannot be willing to explore any variations. These are people who diffuse cogent, well-thought out, complex arguments about inconsistencies in the Bible with a simple "If you truly believed, you wouldn't see that as a problem." What do you do with that? Obviously, you don't truly believe, so nothing you say can be relevant.

To believe as many of these people do, you have to accept God as a being which, given infinite power and knowledge, would choose to (a) create humanity as a curious, thoughtful, questioning species capable of understanding complex issues through the human creation of science and (b) produce a staggering amount of data which such a species would be inclined to accept, but which would really be a trick, designed to make us prove our faith. I'm not sure why so many are so devoted to a God which, in that model, is a complete jackass. "Hey guys, I'm going to give you the skills to use science to, say, cure diseases and travel to other planets, but if you try to use those same skills to explore anything about any of these fossils or quasars or black holes or anything like that, you'll burn in Hell, you blasphemous bastards." I mean, does that make any sense?

Of course, religion as a whole confuses me, so I may not be the best source for answers here.

How can you talk to these people?

In another group, I have encountered the first of their kind for me, personally. Oh, I knew they existed, and I've seen and read their absurdities in the press. But even after 40+ years of involvement in organized religion, I have never personally encountered a young earth creationist.

He is a decent fellow, college-educated and a retired commissioned officer in the U.S. Army, and yet--the earth is 6,000 years old and Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon. Now this issue becomes more important with a GOP caucus-winner who thinks Jesus rode dinosaurs, but on a personal level, how do you deal with these people?

I am just amazed that some people could walk into a natural history museum in 2008 and look up at the dinosaurs and say, "Timmy, ignore what the exhibit signs said about all those millions of years. We know that the Lord God made them on the third day of creation, about 2:00 on the afternoon. Praise the Lord."

I grew up in the Methodist church, and my Sunday School teacher was also my 1st grade teacher. She recognized early on that I was an odd child, as I would ask in Sunday School (6 years old) how big a boat Noah would have needed for two of everything, and what if one of the two died on the boat? I still hear dear Mrs. Morse telling me, "it wasn't a real boat. It is an ancient story about a time when floods in the river valleys were very common and dangerous in that part of the world, and how God loves us."

Pretty damn good explanation.

I still see no conflict whatsoever between science, history and faith. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Today, I think he would expand his list to include geologists, physicists and archeologists as well as Caesar. Even Paul (who had his own issues) recognized that the Old Testament stories were allegorical. Science and history cannot challenge faith (if I happen to believe that "John's" words in 3:16, usually seen behind goalposts are true, that cannot be rationally challenged. Middle eastern mythology CAN however, be challenged by science and history, and it gets CREAMED.)

I won't even bother discussing how ridiculous the "science" of a young earth is. But even from a theological standpoint, there are just way too many conflicts to confound even the most since literalist.

There is a difference between Pauline theology (Paul knew none of the "Gospel stories," was unfamiliar with any claims of virgin birth, and in many ways portrayed Jesus as an object acted upon by God) and Gospel Christianity. From there you can even drill down and find differences between the Synoptic Gospels (M, M and L) and the Johanine version.

Another problem for Biblical literalists is that they treat as revealed texts things which either 1) weren't texts or 2) weren't viewed by the authors as revelations. The Old Testament was reduced to writing centuries after the origin of these tales, particularly the historical narratives of the Pentateuch, and the anonymous writers did not claim to be expressing revealed truth (as compared to the Quaran, for example.).

The creation story in Genesis is profoundly important because it allegorically disposes of polytheistic faiths. It is significant that the one god creates earth, sky, water, flora and fauna, rather than a multitude of deities identified with the various aspects of life in other faiths. By clinging to literacy, they miss the point.

In NT terms, Jesus of course wrote nothing, and nothing was written about him contemporaneously (the "gospels" were recorded between 30 and 70 years after his death.) [note there is also the problem of the non-canonical gospels, most notably Peter and Thomas, and the Gospel of James, which was a fictional effort to discredit non-Roman claims to primacy). The epistles were generally correspondence filled with theological interpretations, social mores and practical problems (most of what Paul wrote about the strictures of Mosaic law came from one basic question--was Christianity a sub-sect of Judaism? Jesus preached only to the Jews, but Paul carried the message beyond. There were several aspects of Judaism which were unpalatable to Hellenistic Gentiles. While quite willing to absorb other faiths, they, for some reason were not fond of ritual sacrifices, stoning, and for the men, one unpleasant practice on adults w/o anesthesia.) Not even Paul claimed that he was writing revealed truth.

In other words, they don't need to claim literal truth to proclaim their faith. Doing so, in my view, shows irrational thought, a lack of intellectual honesty and intellectual laziness. I repeat the question at the beginning?

How can one deal with these people?

Wait, I think this is where I came in...

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates - President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."

The report stated that "Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines peace in Lebanon, sends arms to the Taliban, seeks to intimidate its neighbors with alarming rhetoric, defies the United Nations and destabilizes the entire region by refusing to be open about its nuclear program."

Haven't we heard this before? The not-so-veiled threat of "before it's too llate," the association with feared terrorists (Hussein-Osama, Iran-Taliban) no matter how ill-supported or illogical the connection is (I know, I've seen the news reprts about Iranian weapons being found in Afghanistan, according to "U.S. officials" and I know that there were some talks, but these two DESPISE each other, just like bin Laden and Hussein.)

And in terms of "defying the United Nations? George, need I remind you of the U.N. ambassador you forced down that organization's throat against the will of Congress and remarks such as

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States

and

The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Yeah, there's a deep and abiding respect for the United Nations.

The only comforting thing is that he can't INVADE Iran. He's broken the military too badly to open up another front. The flip side of that is that it leaves open even a more dangerous option.

There are a lot of jokes in the picture below, but I am too sickened and frightened to make them.

Which one is the better Mitt Romney?

OR

Rudy on Freedom

His campaign is essentially dead in the water (not as dead as Fred Thompson's, but pretty close), and here's yet another good reason why. The best mayor ever to see his city hit by a major terrorist attack and somehow try to turn that into a strength, in 1994:

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Your Bush administration at work

Baghdad Embassy Is Called A Fire Risk
'Serious' Problems Were Ignored, Says State Dept. Official

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 12, 2008

The firefighting system in the massive $736 million embassy complex in Baghdad has potential safety problems that top U.S. officials dismissed in their rush to declare construction largely completed by the end of last year, according to internal State Department documents, e-mails and interviews.

Some officials assert that in the push to complete the long-delayed project, potentially life-threatening problems have been left untouched. "This is serious enough to get someone killed," said a State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation. "The fire systems are the tip of the iceberg. That is the most visible. But no one has ever inspected the electrical system, the power plant" and other parts of the embassy complex, which will house more than 1,000 people and is vulnerable to mortar attacks.

Nice work, fellas. Note in particular that last sentence, you know, the mortar attacks...

A good ID-ea?

The Supremes heard oral argument in a case involving Indiana's voter ID law (requiring a photo ID at the polling place.) The measure is obviously a political one, as there have been exactly zero reported cases of "voter impersonation" in the state of Indiana.

Note that this isn't about REGISTERING to vote, where your eligibility is determined through the presentation of various documents and information. This is AT THE POLLING PLACE where you have already established your eligibility and they already have your name on the list. To vote fraudulently, you would have to impersonate a registered voter. Here, the election judge compares your signature when you get your ballot to the one on file.

Voting has been characterized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right, and as such, any restriction is reviewed under the "strict scrutiny" standard. The state must show a "compelling interest" to prevail. Does it have one? I certainly can't find it.

Note: Here are the ID requirements for REGISTERING to vote in Indiana:

Box 10: Identification Documentation If you are registering to vote in Indiana for the first time, and you are sending this application by mail, you must provide identification documentation. Identification may include a current and valid photo id, current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the name and address of the voter. You may include a copy of your identification with this application. Do not mail an ORIGINAL copy of your document! If you do not provide identification with this application or to the county voter registration office before election day, you will be asked for it the first time you vote.

Pot, I have the kettle for you on Line 1...

Der Chimpenfuhrer called upon Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian lands. Wow, what a great idea there, ending the occupation of Arab lands in the Middle East! George, you should give it a try!

Why does anyone want John Kerry's endorsement?

Nothing like associating yourself with a winner..ahem.

The senator, pictured below, endorsed Obama today.

The Wisdom of Mitt Romney

Doing his best parsing on his marching with Martin Luther King lie:

"I'm an English literature major," he added, after the questions didn't stop. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there."

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls....

24 die in fresh Iraq violence

BAGHDAD: Blasts and clashes throughout the country and a fire at an oil refinery killed more than 24 people yesterday. Two suicide bombers struck in a Sunni district of Baghdad, killing 14 people including the leader of a US-backed neighbourhood security patrol.

And naturally, "The US military blamed Al Qaeda for the attacks, saying the attacks provided `perhaps the clearest proof of the nature of this enemy that will destroy the very people and neighbourhoods of whom it claims to protect'".

This one's just funny

ST. CHARLES, Mo. - What the ...?

A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music. City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights. City Councilman Richard Veit said he was prompted to propose the bill after complaints about bad bar behavior. He says it will give police some rules to enforce when things get too rowdy.

Early Results

In New Hampshire, there are these two small towns that have the quaint custom of conducting their voting at midnight, so that their small vote totals have some national media attention. Well, here's some attention to the results from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location (combined):

GOP
McCain 10 (43.4%)
Huckabee 5 (21.7%)
Paul 4 (17.4%)
Romney 3 (13.0%)
Giuliani 1 (4.3%)

Dem
Obama 16 (69.6%)
Clinton 3 (13.0%)
Edwards 3 (13.0%)
Richardson 1 (4.3%)

FWIW...

Rocket Man

(crossposted to the Scoreheads group)

So, Roger Clemens filed suit against his alleged steroid injector.Frankly, I'm amazed.The case was filed in Texas state court, and I admit to knowing NOTHING about Texas civil procedure. However, I'm assuming they have a rule similar to the federal one where, prior to discovery, in a motion to dismiss, the court assumes that everything the plaintiff alleges is true. If those allegations state a claim, the case proceeds, and goes into discovery.THAT is where things get interesting.

Discovery involves production of documents, interrogatories (written questions) and depositions (interviews with a court reporter present), both under oath. While there are limits of course, the scope of questions that can be asked in discovery is far more broad than what could be asked/introduced at trial. I am somewhat stunned that Clemens is willing to go under oath for such a far-reaching inquiry, when many stones can be turned over (He may also try to "out-lawyer" him, given that Clemens has millions and a trainer--doesn't.)

Substantively, under Supreme Court precedent, Clemens as a public figure has to prove "actual malice." For ordinary folks like us, we can sue just for falsity, even if the defendant had thoroughly researched the matter and made a mistake. For public figures, to promote open discussion under the 1st Amendment, they have to show actual knowledge of the falsity or a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

It will be interesting!

It's the end of the (Clinton) world as we know it...

SO--

Did either/or Iowa or what happens tomorrow end the "Clinton era?"

When the wingnuts turn on themselves

It's awfully fun to watch...

So, tonight the GOP is having another debate in New Hampshire, this time on the right wing propaganda network known as Fox News. For this debate, despite polling ahead of some of his competitors (including Hollywood Fred), Ron Paul has been put on the sidelines, and his supporters are fighting mad. Check out these posts on a story at FoxNews's website about the debate:

"I have been an avid supporter and fan of Fox News. If Fox News is to be Fair and Balanced then why have I heard that Ron Paul has been excluded from the NH roundtable discussion. I am interested in hearing his repsonses in comparison to the other candidates.
You report, We Decide!!"

"I will not be watching since this will be a farce. I will no longer be watching any fox news programs as fox has showed they can not be trusted with honest news. Ron Paul should be in the forum!"

"Fox,

You don’t know how dissapointed many, many of your fans are for your exclusion of Paul and Hunter from Sunday’s debate.
You have left us looking for your replacement in the “fair and balanced” arena.

Shad Hutnyak
Spring Creek, Nevada"

"FOX NEWS CHANNEL IS NOW OFF MY WATCHING LIST..UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED. HOPE THEIR RATINGS GO IN THE TANK."

Ahhh, blessed Schadenfreude.

Always a bridesmaid...

I heard an interesting rumor tonight, via . He posited that Edwards is trying to cast this as a two-person race (Obama-Edwards), and then said something surprising. The rumor is that Edwards might consider a veep run, round 2, with Obama.

When you think about it, it makes some sense. Edwards is still a young guy politically speaking, and could easily run on his own after being vice-president. However, if he doesn't, and doesn't get the nomination, his political career is practically over (approaching Harold Stassen territory then.)

Intriguing...thoughts?

Back from Nawlins

Great city to visit - bring an appetite, money, and your walking shoes. Oh, and some willingness to ignore the idiots (like the woman working at the World War II museum - great museum, btw - who was ranting about how Bill Clinton sold the national soul to the Chinese after he fooled around with Monica).

Thoughts:

1) I cannot say I'm saddened by Obama's performance Thursday night and the resulting Obamania surge in New Hampshire. As I said, I like Edwards a bit more, but I do really like Obama, and he's not Hillary.

2) I find it absurd that Hillary is touting her "35 years" of experience. She hasn't been in politics anywhere near that long - that dates back to her graduating law school. Essentially all that says is that she's older than Obama, who was 11 years old 35 years ago. Big whoop.

3) Schmidlap pointed out that Hillary had a big lead in the InTrade trading a few days ago. The worm has now turned, with Hillary at 38.0 to win (down from 75 in October and 69 on Jan 1) and Obama at 61.0 to win (up from about 21 on Jan 1). I have no idea what any of that means.

4) There has been a back-and-forth on the whole "hope" thing that Obama has been doing, with Hillary's supporters essentially treating it as wishful thinking. Obama, I think, has defended the idea pretty well, and it's what seems to be catching people's attention - working for something better, and people seem to be inspired by it. If he can continue to attract young voters the way he did in Iowa, that would be huge not just for his campaign, but for politics, where the Democrats haven't seen a real influx of new young voters since Kennedy.

I don't heart Huckabee

I have previously BEGGED the GOP to nominate a freak like Mike Huckabee. Besides being a freak, however, Huckabee is just a miserable bastard. Apparently being a Baptist minister doesn't stop him from lying about his record or protecting his cretinous son who hung a dog.

Then the hypocritical bastard calls this press conference to say he won't run this "attack ad" (which he did run) and shows the ad that he "won't run" to the assembled media knowing they will cover it completely.

One attack was that Romney had no executions in Mass as governor. Hello, Gov. Fruitcake? Massachusetts has no death penalty!! Romney actually introduced a failed measure to restore it. And a minister saying it's wrong not to have killed more people??

He is scum.

Last night

Well, well, well...

The aura of inevitability and invincibility around HRC is gone, gone, gone.

What will Fox News do with Rudy crappin' out and perhaps no Hillary to run against?

Can you imagine anything that would shine a brighter light on the grotesque creature that is the modern-day GOP than a black man running against a fundie freak?

Smoking preference?

So, it's the first business day of our new statewide smoking ban. At work, they chased the smokers out into the office parking lot, and all the restaurants, bars, and basically every public place (with a few excepted) are now non-smoking.

I'm conflicted. Of course, as a non-smoker, I love it in fact (never liked smoking anything, even the the college experiments with various smoking "herbs"). I also recognize the police power, we accept liquor licensing and restrictions on various things that are otherwise legal in public places.

There is that libertarian streak in me that would prefer the government not do this, and the market would not (no sports bar would voluntarily go N/S)

SO--I will just enjoy being conflicted....?

The last full year of Bushdom

Doesn't it just seem like it's time for him to be gone?

Happy New Year, one and all.

I apologize for my absence. Besides making merry, I lost about a week with this year's version of the flu. It's a big one, it's a bad one. I don't know anything about flu shots, but if it's not too late--get one.

The rumor mill on Mike Bloomberg is heating up, and I hear that Chuck Hagel can't wait to be his veep. I'd almost bet that whoever "wins" the GOP nomination, sad sack lot that they are, will be hurt more than the Dems.

He can outspend either nominee without putting a big dent in the family fortune, and can get on the ballot in every state. he also just might prompt a real debate on the electoral college.

Happy New Year

I'm off to New Orleans for a few days (I'll be back on the 5th), so I'll miss Iowa (sigh), and I won't be here to celebrate when the Illini upset USC tomorrow. Everyone have a safe and enjoyable holiday, and I'll see you in '08.

If I lived in Iowa...

who would I caucus for on Thursday?

Let me start by saying that I really like the caucus process. I attended the precinct and county caucuses in Washington in 2004, and it's a more interesting form of democracy than voting. It requires more significant participation, and your actions are public, and challengable, so you have to be better able to defend your position, and be willing to think through other options if your first candidate doesn't get the requisite percentage of support (sort of like Instant Runoff Voting). The drawback is that it requires voters to be able to commit to being at the caucus location for 2-3 hours on election night, it requires voters to be willing to step out from behind the curtain and make their support for a particular candidate public, and it requires a certain confidence in yourself to be able to speak in a public setting and advocate for your candidate, popular or not, which is very difficult for many people.

That being said, if I were there Thursday night, what would I do?

Here's who I would not caucus for -

Mike Gravel - He is an outsider (being out of government for a long time), is strong on getting out of Iraq, but is not nearly ready to be president.

Dennis Kucinich - Every time I take one of these "Who matches best with you" political questionnaires, I find that I match up best with Kucinich. He's the most liberal of the candidates running, and I appreciate that. So why wouldn't I support him? The best way I can put it is from a friend of mine, who said "Kucinich, when he is given a chance to speak on something that isn't his passion comes off terrific - the moment it is something he cares deeply about, I want to back away slowly." I think Kucinich's passion would prevent him from working well with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%, and we already have a president like that. Our government never works well when one branch digs its heels in that far.

Joe Biden - Joe Biden is a plagiarist. No matter what he says, or whether or not I agree with him, that's my lasting view of the man.

Chris Dodd - I love Dodd's passion for and support of the Constitution. I want to see him as a leading voice to get rid of the MCA and to restore the Bill of Rights. But I think that's best done in the Senate, which needs his leadership. I am not looking for an entrenched political figure in this election, because I can't stand the way things are done, and that's a big mark against Dodd. I think he's too close to too much of the "establishment" to make some of the radical changes we desperately need.

Bill Richardson - I really want to like Richardson, but every time I see him speak, he (1) puts me to sleep and (2) makes good points, but makes them awkwardly and unclearly.

Hillary Clinton - I've written about Hillary before. Most of her political opinions are reasonable, and I don't think she'd be a horrible president. I do think that she says what she thinks people want to hear (who else changes from being a Cubs fan to being a Yankees fan?), and I think that she is too much in the hold of Democratic lobbyists, etc, as an arm of the DLC. A 2nd Clinton presidency would be a heck of a lot better than any of the GOP candidates, but it wouldn't break the ties to the corporate world that our political process we desperately need.

We're now down to Barack Obama and John Edwards. I like both of them, for different reasons.

I've seen Obama in person twice, and he has impressed me each time with his intelligence, his thoughtfulness, and his ability to talk knowledgeably about issues important to all sorts of people. I do believe that he really wants to raise the level of discourse in politics, and he connects strongly with the part of me that likes politics and wants government to be a place where great ideas are talked about in great conversations. He was right about Iraq in 2002, and his record on opposing Bush's foreign policy is as strong as anyone running (save Kucinich). He's a relative newcomer to the DC system, which I see as a strength. What I worry about is that he may be too much of an idealist. Obama wants to reach out to Republicans and business and lobbyists and bring them into a real, adult, vital conversation about issues that are truly important to our country, and while I love that in principle, I'm afraid that he would be the only one at the table interested in and willing to actually engage in that conversation.

I liked Edwards a lot in 2004 - I supported Dean, but was somewhat excited to vote Democratic not because of Kerry, but because of Edwards. I think Edwards speaks well to the core ideals of liberalism - helping the sick and the young and the weak, and using our shared strength to help those who need help. He has been honest about his wrong vote on Iraq 5 years ago, and his stance since then has been consistent and clear. Edwards talks a lot about fighting against the corporate influence which has done such harm to our country, and he has taken an important first step by accepting matching public funds, which restricts the kinds of fundraising he can do. There are some in the netroots who think this is a horrible mistake, since he'll have less money than the Republican candidate, but the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC all have money that will be used in the general election, so I'm not as worried about that. I don't know if he can really advance progress on some serious issues without the lobbyists causing all sorts of havoc and buying the hell out of other people involved in the process, but I think it's worth a try.

Throughout this process, Edwards and Obama have been 1/1A for me, and I've gone back and forth between them. I would gladly support either of them in the general election, but, all things considered, if I was going to be caucusing on Thursday, I'd support ...

John Edwards.

I couldn't have said it better myself

I was getting all set to write a post about the Democratic race. It was going to be a different post than the GOP ones, because while I have my preferences, which I'll get to, there are a whole passel of candidates that would be a staggering improvement over anything the GOP has to offer. Even Hillary, who annoys the crap out of me (and who I've stated that I wouldn't vote for in the past...although who knows what would happen in that voting booth in November) is still light years further into reality than anyone with an (R) next to their name. Then I came across this post by AnnArborBlue (we'll forgive AAB's collegiate allegiances this time) on Daily Kos:

Why You Should Vote for Whoever You Want
by AnnArborBlue
Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:41:16 PM PST

Because none of the Democratic candidates suck. No. really. Despite what you've heard from various people around this place lately, none of the "Democrats" is really a Republican, none of them are Bush-lite, and none of them killed your mother and then hid her body. That evil, centrist Hillary Clinton has a Progressive Punch Score of 91%, good for 16th in the whole senate. And that noted hater of labor, Barack Obama, has excellent ratings from labor organizations. Joe Biden, despite an unfortunate tendency to open mouth and insert foot, has been the best critic of the Republican field. Dennis Kucinich, for all of his quirks, is the most uncompromisingly liberal voice in the race. Chris Dodd has been the loudest voice in the whole field on civil liberties issues. And John Edwards, well, read pretty much any diary on this site to find out why people like John Edwards.

AAB then goes on to address what, to me, has been one of the most frustrating part about reading some of the blogs about candidates:

I'll be frank, if you are incapable of recognizing that every candidate on the Democratic side shares the same core principles, and that every candidate on the Republican side opposes them (or at least pretends to), then you're a part of the problem. If you can't separate "I like candidate X" from "I must hate candidate Y", then you're a part of the problem. If you truly believe that someone is a bad Democrat for supporting a different candidate in the primaries, then you're a part of the problem. And frankly, the rest of us find your self-righteousness, really, really dull. We've spent 7 years now dealing with a leader who has total conviction and zealous certainty in everything he believes, and who demonizes anyone who thinks differently. And it's sucked a lot.

If you think "Candidate x is the best choice for America" means "candidate X is the only choice for America, and anyone who disagrees with me must be destroyed (or just annoyed for 6 hours on the internet)", then it's time for you to grow up. Because there's going to be a nominee, and the chances are it won't be your candidate. That's something you're going to have to get past, or, God Jed, I don't even want to know you.

I totally understand thinking that one candidate or another is really your favorite, and you truly believe that they are the best choice to lead this country to a better place. But thinking that means that every other (or really any other) Democratic candidate would lead us further into the hell that the Chimp and the Shooter are creating is self-defeating. I don't know who's going to get the nomination. I don't have the same excitement about Hillary that I do about Obama or Edwards, but how can you realistically compare Hillary to Rudy, or Mitt, or the Huckster, and not see the differences?

Can't we all just get along?

Holiday Greetings

I will do a couple year-end posts by 12/31 (including the promised one about the Democratic primary), but for now, I'll just wish everyone whose out there on the roads safe travels and Happy Holidays (one has to be careful when one fights the war on Christmas).

The Huckabee Monster--It's Alive!

We see something very interesting happening on the Right with the emergence of Mike Huckabee. The Grover Norquist crowd, the tax-cutting corporatists, are scared to death of the Rev. Huckabee, and it is fascinating to watch. For example, Peggy Noonan writes in the paper once known as the Wall Street Journal that

there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far. The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man's future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party. I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment.

Let's consider the words uttered above by Reagan's former speechwriter.

Establishment Republicans are terrified that a fundamentalist might actually get their party's nomination. Since Reagan's days, they have courted the evangelical with smoke and mirrors, with empty promises and bombastic rhetoric. Corporate Republicans have told the red staters that they stand with them, while they outsource their jobs, ignore their schools and infrastructure, promote corporate superfarms over their small holdings, and send large numbers of their sons to die in the desert.

Of course the country club Republicans don't care about abortion. If it becomes illegal, and one of theirs needs such services, Skull and Bones brothers or foreign clinics are able to lend a hand. Vouchers or school prayer? Not a concern at Andover or Lake Forest Academy. Immigration? Why, who tends the lawns in their gated communities.

So for a quarter-century, corporate Republicans have promised to save the babies and to help Jesus stop boys from kissing, while doing nothing but cut taxes and gut the government. Now, after energizing and mobilizing this bizarre base, they seemed shocked when one of them strives for the reins of power and actually believes in the things you shallowly used as talking points.

But Peggy, and others of your ilk, why are you surprised? In Frankenstein-like fashion, you stitched this unholy monster together and breathed life into it. You wanted it, you nurtured it, you needed it, and yes, like Dr. Frankenstein, you are ultimately responsible for it. It is yours, it is you.

Couldn't happen to a nicer party.

Senior al Qaeda terrorist, or...

The Washington Post reports today on Abu Zubaida, the `al Qaeda operative' subjected to torture in the case of the missing CIA tapes. According to the WP,

FBI agents and analysts say he is largely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

Isn't that special? He's your local crazy innkeeper.

Sent

It won't matter, but I thought I'd drop a few lines about the FISA bill and Harry Reid's desire to do what the Liar in Chief wants, instead of supporting the Constitution and protecting Americans.

Senator Durbin (and Obama),

Harry Reid is betraying America. Support Chris Dodd's filibuster, and help prevent the telecom companies from getting amnesty for shredding the Constitution.

Senator Reid,

Why are you betraying America? The telecom companies do not deserve amnesty if they violated the Constitution. George Bush is in the pocket of business and hates Americans, why do you?

Senator Dodd,

Thank you for the filibuster.

How to tell your ideological spectrum is a little out of whack

There's a story online about how some GOP folk want another debate in Iowa, because the one this week with the Des Moines Register left a bad taste in their mouths - they were forced to talk about education and domestic issues, and didn't get enough time talking about fear and hate with the war in Iraq and the war on brown people with immigration.

In the comments to the story, someone going by the moniker "Mr. Law" wrote:
With FoxNews' blatant pro-liberal bias (as in open support for Rudy Giuliani), it's not surprising Governor Romney didn't want to have yet another FoxNews debate which catered to, and was probably organized in cooperation with, Rudolph Giuliani's campaign. That said, after Governor Romney's masterful performance at the "last" Republican debate prior to the Iowa caucus, I can see how the Huckster would want a do-over. http://www.huckabeefacts.com/

Mr. Law thinks that Fox has a blatant pro-liberal bias because they support Giuliani (which they do). Well, Mr. Law, I've got some questions for you. If your idea of a liberal is Rudy Giuliani, what's your idea of a moderate? Pat Buchanan? A conservative? Mussolini? Where does Hillary (a moderate in most ways) fit? Socialism? I can't even imagine where you'd put Kucinich.

Let me suggest that when America's Mare is the left end of your ideological spectrum, you might need to do some adjusting. There are therapists all over who can help you with that problem.

Karma's a Bitch

I've been saving this one. Back in 2005, pitcher Andy Pettite decided to get preachy on Pat Robertson's website:

“Every time I took the mound, in any of those games and every game, I just ask the Lord to give me the strength to go out there, protect me and just to help me to compete. I don’t want to ever do anything to jeopardize my testimony for Him, and I ask him to be with me in that...if you’re praying to the Lord, like you need to be, spending time with Him, you’re going to stay in the game a lot longer and you’re going be a lot stronger than other people that aren’t...

Well, he was asking someone for strength, and getting help from someone to stay in the game, but as today's Mitchell Report shows, it wasn't the Lord--it was someone with a hypodermic. Karma is indeed a bitch.

Please, please, please, can we run against Mike Huckabee???

Unfortunately for the Huckster, a rise in the polls means a rise in press attention, and it doesn't take long to find out that 1) he really is a miserable bastard of a human being and 2) he's a great big freak.

I would LOVE to see him as the GOP nominee. In a presidential debate not geared to the mouthbreathers, he can't talk like this

we stalked antelope all morning long and never got really close to one to get a shot. And finally, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, there was one across a ridge-I'm not making this up-the trajectory was upward, it is across, up on a hill. And it looked pretty decent, but it was about 250 yards away. Now, that's just, on my best day, within my range, maybe. But with a stiff wind, snow-and one of the rules of the One-Shot Antelope Hunt is that you cannot use any artificial devices; you can't lean on, you know, a car or the hood of a truck or anything other your own body. And so that kind of complicates the process and makes it a little more challenging. But it was one of those moments where I finally decided: "You know, we only get one shot. If you miss, your hunt is over. If you hit, and you take the animal, then your hunt your is over as well." And I decided that one way or the other, this hunt is about to be over, because I can't stand any more of this cold. And somehow, by the
grace of God, when I squeezed the trigger, my Weatherby .300 Mag, which has got to be the greatest gun, I think, ever made in the form of a rifle-for my sake in hunting, I've never squeezed the trigger and not gotten something-did its work, and somehow the angels took that bullet and went right to the antelope, and my hunt was over in a wonderful way...

Please????

Education and Elections

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense. That is my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet. - Sam, The West Wing

So, I was channel surfing today, and ran across the GOP debate (sadly, on Fox). The topic that came up was education (getting sadly little attention in this election).

Some thoughts came to my mind whilst watching the crazy (Of course, no one mentions the option of taking the money they'd throw into "choice" and vouchers and actually improving inner city schools):

There was a suggestion (by grandpa Fred) that we get rid of qualifications for teachers and bring people from various jobs into the classroom. Not that there aren't people all over the country who have valuable experience that should be shared with students, but this was one of the many points that was made that shows an utter ignorance of education. These candidates talk about removing standards for teachers, increasing home schooling, "returning" oversight of education to parents, and how education is not a federal issue, but a state issue (this last one I don't understand at all). As a teacher (although not at the K-12 level they were talking about), I can say with some level of expertise that these people are full of it.

Education is not an enterprise that should taken lightly, and too many do so. Recall the old, and frightful, adage "Those who can't do, teach." This suggests the idea that just about anybody (even, or perhaps especially, the incompetent) can walk into a classroom and be an effective teacher. That anyone can develop a curriculum which prepares students for all of the challenges they will face educationally and professionally. That teaching, unlike so many other professions in this country, is not based on skill and training and passion and experience, but rather something anyone can do.

Anyone who has tried to teach knows that is patently absurd. Not that there aren't bad teachers, or teachers who don't care, or teachers who are more concerned about their paycheck than whether their students learn a darned thing - of course, there are those people in every profession. But turning education over to people without training, without an understanding of learning, without true depth of expertise in specific disciplines as well as in the practice of teaching, to pretend that heck, anyone can do this, so let's get government out of it, is insulting, dangerous, and destructive.

Oh, and Alan Keyes is still a fucking nutball.

Now, if you changed "lion of" to "lyin' bastard of", we could develop an understanding

A letter to the editor in the Daily Herald:

A tribute to Hyde, a lion of a man

In this high political season, we will do well to remember a lion of a man -- unashamed of his deep faith, unequivocal in his convictions and unparalleled in leadership guided by both.

Rest in peace, Congressman Henry Hyde. You've not only been a dear friend to the seniors of Hanover Township, but also to our great nation.

The Lord has called home a true soldier.

Michael E. Kelly
Republican Committeeman
Hanover Township
Bartlett

Yes, I think we should, as always, honor those who are as willing to overlook their own faults in order to point out the same faults in others. They say that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but Henry Hyde wasn't worried about the cold getting in, so he threw everything he could get his hands on through the windows. He was always special that way.

Dumbassery

Last night the Atlanta Falcons played their first game since Michael Vick got sentenced to 23 months in federal court for his part in running a dogfighting operation and cruelly and deliberately torturing and murdering animals. Michael Vick confessed to these crimes, and thus is not just a convicted felon, but an admitted violent criminal.

I'm sure there are people out there who were close to Vick throughout his life, and that crimes, no matter how heinous, do not always remove the bonds of love or friendship between people. He will one day be released from prison, and may have many years yet on this planet to share with those who choose.

None of that, however, excuses the ignorance I saw during the game last night. In amongst the myriad fans wearing jerseys with Vick's name and number on them was his teammate, Roddy White, who chose to send this message to the world after scoring a TD:



Yep, "Free Mike Vick." Once again, Vick wasn't convicted on circumstantial evidence, and he's not a political prisoner, and this isn't some weird racial bias - he stood up in court and said "I did it." He provided the money, ran the operation, trained dogs to be killers for his entertainment and profit, and killed those who didn't please him.

Of course, if you share this sentiment, you can go here, and check out their countdown clock until Vick gets out of prison, and gets handed another NFL job where he'll make truckloads of cash, all his sins forgotten.

There are bigger criminals in the world, but this is just dumb.

Happy Anniversary, Mr. President

According to PollingReport.com's tracking of presidential approval polls, it was exactly one year ago this week that a poll had you at a 40% overall job rating, in the LA Times/Bloomberg poll of 12/8-11, 2006. If we go back to the first week of September, 2005 (right after Katrina), there is only one poll which had you at either 50% or at a positive approval-disapproval, the 12/12-13, 2005 Diageo/Hotline poll, which had you at 50% (whoever they are). In fact, in the 140 polls that have been taken in 2007, your average approval rating is 33%, and your average disapproval rating is 61.4%. Statistically, if we were to assume that these polls were part of some sort of normal distribution, there would be a roughly 0.000000015% chance that you'd get a 50% approval rating on the next poll, so you've got that going for you.

This is a big week for you. Celebrate!

Fox jumps in on the values debate

h/t Crooks and Liars

And now, in this corner...

Annmarie Brewer of Sun prairie, Wisconsin, who presumably has a large steel plate in her skull, penned this gem:

I just got through watching Mitt Romney's speech and found myself in tears simply by his profound acknowledgment of God as part of our historical and democratic roots. I wasn't decided on Romney, and I'm certainly not a religious person, but with today being my birthday, this was the BEST birthday present I could ever receive. It feels like a weight has been lifted off of our collective shoulders to acknowledge belief in our Judea-Christian heritage as the foundation for our great country, and not feel stifled, repressed or guilty for believing in it and exclaiming it.

It's a quiet, dignified belief in goodness, life and freedom, an essential structure that keeps us forever hopeful--unlike the maniacal, pressured or forced-upon commercialized or politically inspired mandates that have been coming from our country's leaders of late. I just had to tell you that, and also that I'm quite surprised to find myself finally at a decision on who I will vote for at the Republican primary. It'll be Mitt Romney.

So many things are wrong with this. The most glaring is her statement about the "Judea (sp?)-Christian" foundation of the country. Have you ever heard references to "Judeo-Christian" made with real emphasis on the first part? Beyond that, it is just plain wrong.

As Doc pointed out below, Mitty's speech was both absurd and frightening. So, Annmarie, get comfortable in Sun Prairie and

A blast from the past

This isn't my normal fare, but it amused me. The Decatur Herald & Review is apparently publishing letters to the editor from 1982.

Old-style Christmas family traditions seem to be gone

What happened to the tradition of Christmas tree trimming and decorating?

When we were kids at home, we looked forward to the trimming of the tree and other decorations. Now the merchant has all the fun. The trees are all decorated, lights put on, strings of popcorn wrapped around the tree.

Mom made her favorite fudge and divinity, and we helped with the popcorn balls. Now, kids are off to the movies or down to an arcade playing those machines. Dad is propped up in front of the television watching his favorite football team.

I guess, those times are gone, but not forgotten.

Louis Woods

Decatur

Playing those machines? Who the hell goes to the arcade anymore? When did people stop decorating trees - they seem to be in every window down here...

And what the heck does "Mom made her favorite fudge and divinity" even mean?

Maybe I missed something, but I'm not really free to comment.

Conservative Family Values at Their Best

Longtime Thinker reader jimbow8 sent me a link to a conversation that, once again, reinforces the hypocrisy of the right, although in a different way than usual. It's a post on a message board (the Conservatism community on LiveJournal), and it's about this case of a high school teacher who once again is in trouble for having an illegal sexual relationship with a minor. The conservative take on the story isn't that adults should be punished for abusing children this way, it's that the teacher is HAWT, and "If the kid is able to look back on this as the greatest triumph of his life, which is without a reasonable doubt the case, (and we all know how "reasonable doubt" is supposed to factor into matters of guilt vs. inocence (sic)), then who's the victim?"

Vhat?

First of all, as I say every time the Olympics come around, if something you do at 14 is the greatest triumph of your life, I feel very sorry for you.

Secondly, and I'm not sure how to say this in a way that these morons would understand, but the laws about sexual relationships with minors don't exist to prevent them from banging ugly people (one can almost envision these morons picturing childhood as an idyllic meadow surrounded by signs that say "No Fat Chicks"). Fourteen year olds simply are not capable of understanding the emotional and physical consequences of sex. Fourteen year olds are young, folks. I spend a lot of time with 18-21 year olds, and I'm startled regularly by how immature they can be (and they're considered legally old enough to make these kinds of decisions).

Thirdly, there's no way this kind of discussion happens if the genders are reversed - I don't care if the teacher is the pure embodiment of male sexuality, he'd be strung up by his toenails and beaten about the face and head by Bill O'Rielly's loofah. But these kind of people say things like "Males don't really have the capacity to regret sex with attractive partners unless it causes pregnancy, STDs, or social consequences like those of being caught "cheating"." In their mind, men clearly have no emotional response other than "I'd hit that" when it comes to attractive women, which is somewhere between ignorant and moronic.

It may be an amusing conceit that at 14, we all wanted to have that hot "older" woman come and teach us the ways of manhood. But that's all it is, and, once again, it's nice to know that all these folks seem to care about is making sure children are born - protecting them after birth is irrelevant.

Just to clarify

Mitt, if you're going to be President, at some point you have to take the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That's the same Constitution that includes the following:

Article. VI. - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

and this pesky thing, included in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Ratified 12/15/1791

I don't know what he's missing, but it's profoundly wrong.

Umm, I'm not sure I see the connection there, Mittster.

Mitt Romney, during his "Don't worry that I'm a Mormon, but I'll really never talk about Mormonism" speech:

Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Can someone explain to me how religion is a prerequisite for freedom, or vice-versa? I've known for a while that the wingnuts don't think I have any basis for a moral code, since I'm not a religious person, but apparently I also can't be free now either. Huh.

Bite me, Mitt.

Don't know much about history...

I assume you've seen this from The View, but world-famous historian Sherri Shepherd, following a mention of Greek philosophy from THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C. gave us:

The Greeks, they had Christians 'cause they threw them to the lions. [Whoopi explains the Greeks came first.] I think this might predate that, I don't think anything predated Christians...Jesus came first before them.

Those who do not understand the past are condemned to daytime TV.

Video link here.

What straw will break the camel's back?

Sorry for my absence, between Thanksgiving, work and the flu bug!

How many more scandals can St. Rudy of 9/11 stand?

Just to make sure we're all on the same page

Either the Liar in Chief

1) knew about the latest NIE and Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons program months ago, in which case he's been lying about it since then, or

2) he was told that there was new data, but never thought to ask what we'd learned about this supposed grave threat, or

3) he was deliberately kept out of the loop.

Wow, them's three really good scenarios. Of course, there is the John Bolton approach - "I just don't believe the intelligence agencies. You know, they screwed up the Iraq WMD data..." (Well, we could ignore that they were told what conclusion they were supposed to reach on Iraq, right?) And there's the Norman Podhoretz approach (Rudy's leading national security advisor) - "The intelligence agencies are deliberately lying to make Bush look bad. We have to attack Iran today." (Do you need any more reasons to keep Rudy out of the White House?)

The mainstream media much be catching on, a little - CNN.com has an article titled "Analysis: Bush won't back down on Iran." Really? Bush doesn't back down on which color he wants to be when he plays Hungry Hungry Hippo with Uncle Shooter, much less on an issue dealing with a country he wants to invade and might not get to. That always makes him cranky.

NPR Debate

I'm listening to the Democrats debate on NPR, which is a staggering change from a CNN or network debate. The time for the candidates seems much more balanced, the moderators actually ask intelligent questions, and the candidates are actually getting into substantive answers because, in the 2 hour debate, they're only exploring three issues (Iran, China, and immigration). It's weird.

Of course, we could contrast that with the Giggling Murderer, who spent today telling Congress that it should do exactly what he says and explained that while the NIE says Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, it doesn't matter, because they still could start one up at any time, so we should treat them like they've got the finger on the button and are waiting to nuke your house right this very second. Sweet.

The GOP Primary, Part II

Will get a bunch of votes, but not enough: Mike Huckabee

Huckabee draws two kinds of voters - 1) Christians who believe that religion should be the primary factor in decision-making for politicians and 2) people who want a candidate who seems honest and not corrupt. The former group couldn't get him the nomination, the second could, but it's not likely. Huckabee has plenty of views that diverge radically from mine (not the least of which is his embracing of creationism and hence a rejection of science, which, religious matters aside, is terribly dangerous for the future of our country - we'll be getting out of 8 years of anti-science, we certainly don't need more), but political and religious views aside, he's far less worrisome to me than either Giuliani or Romney. Huckabee has more reasonable views on immigration and torture, and appears to be a decent person who wouldn't sell the country out for greed and hate. On the other hand, the US is not a Christian nation, and I don't want religion to be a driving force in our government (are there any examples where that works out well). Now, I'm not voting in the GOP primary anyway, so my opinion doesn't matter, but while Huckabee is attracting a significant amount of interest in the polls, there is a core of racist, vulgar, hateful GOP voters who don't like Huckabee much. He's too (in the words of a prominent righty blogger) "moralistic." In the end, that's going to throw votes to one of the two other major candidates, either of whom will stand up and tout their desires to kill the brown people in order to get votes.

That whistling sound you hear is a former New York mayor's chances plummeting to Bolivia: Rudy Giuliani

Of all the candidates running this year, Rudy scares me the most. He's got the same arrogance that the Chimp does, and combines that with an attitude that says "Look out world - if you thought Bush was a single-minded hateful fucker, you ain't seen nothin' yet!" Man, that's desirable in a President. Giuliani is corrupt, brash, and willing to lie through his teeth about his record (more liberal than the Republican base would like because he had to be a mayor of a city like New York) to get elected. A former federal prosecutor who looks at the rest of the world like criminals who, thankfully, aren't protected by something as trivial as the Constitution. Rudy's poll numbers are beginning to look quite ugly because, while the GOP voters seem quite willing to brush aside any number of "youthful indiscretions," they're not as comfortable with a man using the police and the city budget to allow him to cheat on his wife, regardless of what the pundits say.

Will somehow sneak out of the fray with the nomination: Mitt Romney

Can you believe that millions of people are willing to cast votes for a guy named Mitt? Me neither. But it's going to happen, and not because Mitt is a particularly good candidate, but because he's rich, "looks presidential," and because of the flaws of the other candidates. There's been a lot of talk about Mitt being a Mormon, but that's not going to get play in the end, as voters watch Rudy self-immolate and don't find enough in Huckabee's candidacy to vote for. Romney will say anything to anyone in order to get votes, and enough of the people who consistently vote against their own self-interest to reelect Republicans who will ruin their lives will ignore the contradictions and vote Mitt.

Coming soon, the Democrats.

Headlines

On CNN.com:

"Bush to Congress: Fund the wars now"


Ummm, no.

2,000!

Well, we've arrived at the two-thousandth post here at The Thinker (well, technically that includes some drafts that may or not be published, but by the time anyone goes back and reads all 1989 actually published posts, we'll be well ahead anyway, so I don't care). At least six or eight of them have had substantive content, and thanks to those of you who've stuck with us through the rest of the tripe that we've posted.

On that note, and since the Iowa caucus is only one month away, I'll dip my toe into the acidic froth that is the primary season. Try to ignore the screams.

This has been a particularly long and complex primary season, in part because this is the first presidential election since 1952 that neither a sitting president nor vice-president is running, giving two completely open primaries, and in part because I think it started back in 1952, before some of the candidates were even born. I'll deal with the Democrats in another post, but here let me skewer, err, discuss the GOP.

For some reason, there are still nine people running for the GOP nomination. Well, technically there's 9, because Alan Keyes is once again pretending to run. Since we established in 2004 that Keyes represents the lowest percentage of voters that will vote entirely on party identification, rather than on any qualifications of any sort, we'll just ignore him and discuss people who have a chance to finish above the Keyes line.

Part I - people who won't get the nomination

Not a freakin' chance in hell: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter

No one even knows who these guys are. Tancredo is the biggest isolationist this side of Pat Buchanan, and wants to nuke Mecca, which will sell well with some rednecks, but no one outside that core GOP base cares at all about him. Duncan Hunter is from California. That's about all I've managed to learn about him, except that we need to fight everyone around the world who doesn't love us all the time.

There's a buzz, but still no chance: Ron Paul

Every good Republican primary should have a token Libertarian, if only to remind us of the dangers of the Grover Norquists of the world. Paul is against the Iraq war, which is a plus, but he's also against a useful government, which is not. He's probably getting more play from independents than the GOP base, who still loves the Chimp and how much we're kicking the world's ass.

Should have stayed out of the race: Fred Thompson

The oldest phenom ever, Thompson combines the hip, with-it attitude of Bob Dole with the drawing power of Spinal Tap after Nigel Tufnel left (temporarily). His polling numbers are falling, and with the writer's strike, he won't even have Law and Order to go back to.

Shouldn't have sold his soul: John McCain

Does anyone remember the McCain of 2000, playing the rational counterpart to the Chimp, before Karl Rove's underhanded campaigning techniques and the GOP machine run by the Bush Emprie and their Nazi dollars destroyed him? That McCain probably would be the front-runner with ease now, what with his unquestionable bravery in Vietnam and his centrism that appealed to many independents (and some Democrats). Of course, that McCain is gone, replaced by a man so desperate for the presidency that he gave up any pretense of independence and tried to suck up to the most extreme interest groups on the right (Bob Jones University, anybody?). Not surprisingly, voters have seen through this, although McCain does still earn points (from me, anyway) for his opposition to torture (given his obvious knowledge of the subject, it's funny to watch some of the other candidates act like he's just weak and foolish and that they're really the tough guys) and his somewhat balanced stand on immigration (which also pisses off the base, since it's not loaded with racism).

Part II: The actual candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (coming soon)

Letting the pictures tell the story