En Tequila Es Verdad

Middle Class Also Too Big To Fail

2009-12-05T04:06:00.000-08:00

I just wish more people would listen to Elizabeth Warren talking sense.

Your Daily Dose of Health Care Reform Stupidity

2009-12-05T03:12:00.000-08:00

Oh, my darlings, this is utterly priceless:

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) no doubt thought they were being clever. They crafted an amendment that would force members of Congress to get their coverage through a public insurance plan, if the public option were included as part of health care reform. If it's good enough for American consumers, it should be good enough for their elected representatives, right?

They had no idea how much Democrats agreed with the sentiment.

As we talked about this morning, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) not only loved the idea, he wanted to join the right-wing senators as a co-sponsor on their amendment. When they refused -- this was supposed to be a conservative stunt, not a real idea -- Brown used procedural tactics to make himself a co-sponsor of the Coburn/Vitter measure, whether they like it or not.

Then, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said she, too, wanted to join. Soon after, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) endorsed the Coburn/Vitter amendment and also asked to be a co-sponsor. "If we have a public option in this plan, as I hope that we will, I think there's nothing wrong in insisting that members of Congress be included in that public option proposal," Dodd said, calling the idea "wonderful."

These guys are taking away all of Coburn's and Vitter's fun.

The taking-their-ball-home-and-refusing-to-play clock has officially started, my darlings.

Now, mind you, Coburn's the same fucktard who thinks America's the best place in the whole wide world to get sick, despite evidence to the contrary. It's no wonder he got pwnd so easily.

Meanwhile, Cornyn's completely confused about Medicare. The Cons' inability to grasp simple concepts never ceases to amaze.

Cons screamed and howled over cuts to Medicare Advantage subsidies, despite the fact they were for them before they were against them. Their sound and fury was all for nought - the cuts stay in. Let the war of the robocalls begin!

I wonder when Dem and Con fiscal scolds will realize they have no legs to stand on, especially as they keep cutting their own legs from beneath them by howling over things such as cuts to wasteful Medicare spending?

Time to take the Smack-o-Matic to some tender Dem behinds. Such as Ben Nelson's. Ben, it seems, is throwing a tantrum over abortion amendments, and wants everybody to know he'd be happy to filibuster if he doesn't get his way. I have three words for Harry Reid: don't encourage him.

At least Casey's not quite so stupid.

So, what's happening on the public option front, you ask? Argh. Well, it seems the Senate's scrambling for compromises (as if we haven't compromised enough). Sherrod Brown's not interested in compromises and is one of the few liberal senators left holding his ground. Mary Landrieu - well, whatever she's saying is completely incoherent, so fuck if I know what's going through her sad little mind.

The mighty marvel team-up of Lieberman (I - which can only stand for Idiot) and Collins had some fun misrepresenting the public option, until Sen. Specter told them they might want to go back and actually, y'know, read the bill's public option section. It shouldn't take them all that long - after all, the whole bill has fewer words than a Harry Potter novel. If children can manage to slog through a book of that size, I think Senators should be grown-up enough to manage this.

Reading comprehension, on the other hand, could still remain problematical.

Here's a tale of two amendments. Sen. Barbara Mikulski's amendment, which "requires insurers to cover preventive care and screenings for women, at no cost to the patient," passed handily. Strangely enough, Con Sen. Lisa Murkowski's alternative amendment, which "would rely on private insurers to set the standards for preventive coverage," strangely didn't pass. Could it be the Senate's losing its stomach for insurance company giveaways?

In closing, I just want to note something: while Dems have brought a health care reform bill to the floor, all Cons have offered is Sen. Gregg's obstruction manual. That's right. Gregg wrote a whole big set of directions telling Cons exactly how to obstruct, obfuscate, and otherwise fuck everything up, and this is their solution to reform. Yes, this comes from the same Sen. Gregg who was against obstructionism before he was for it.

Harry Reid had a field day with that one:

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seized on the document: "The good news is that Senate Republicans finally, at long last, have put a detailed plan down on paper. The bad news is that it's not, as we'd hoped, a plan to make health care insurance more affordable; it's not one to make health insurance companies more accountable; and it's certainly not a plan to reverse rapidly rising health care costs and draw down our deficit.

"The Republican plan we've waited weeks and months to see ... [is] not even about health care at all. The first and only plan Senate Republicans could be bothered to write up is an instructional manual on how to bring the Senate to a screeching halt. We knew that was happening anyway, but they had the audacity to put it in writing."

Yes, they did, and it's one of those things we should bring up at every opportunity.

Such is the sausage-making process. Frequently not pretty, but at least some bits are amusing.

Shame on You, New York Senate

2009-12-05T02:03:00.000-08:00

More specifically, shame on the conniving Cons who promised their support and then pulled a Lucy:

New York's state Assembly had already approved same-sex marriage this year, and Gov. David Paterson (D) was anxious to sign the measure into law. All that was necessary was the state Senate to pass the bill, and rumor it had the necessary number of Republican votes had already been lined up.

Indeed, it was poised to be a historic day in Albany -- right up until the chamber voted.
The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and destroys the optimism of gay rights advocates.
The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure.
I'd heard as late as this morning that the votes really would be there, and that some GOP moderates would break ranks and support equality. It's unclear, at this point, whether a) Dems in the chamber are just bad at counting; b) some Republicans went back on their word, or c) a little of both.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Dems aren't that bad at counting. It appears they are that gullible, though. And there's eight of them that are that bigoted.

New Yorkers took to the streets in protest. Let's hope that next year, the Senate starts listening to the majority of New York residents who support same-sex marriage. I'm very, very tired of seeing people denied their civil rights and their common humanity because of other idiots' sexual hang-ups.

On a somewhat related note, Sweden's cutting off funding to Uganda for their anti-gay fuckery. I wish I could say the United States would join them in doing the right thing, but doing the right thing has been awfully difficult for this country lately.

Happy Hour Discurso

2009-12-05T01:06:00.000-08:00

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Every day in every way, Cons get more and more ridiculous. And every day, there's a new opportunity for them to demonstrate their dumbfuckery. Why, take today's jobs report, which is much better news than expected:

Waiting for the monthly job numbers to be released this morning, I saw the New York Times homepage run a headline that said the "economy shed 11,000 jobs in November." I assumed, in all sincerity, it was a typo.

After all, there were plenty of estimates on what to expect. The most optimistic number I saw was 130,000 job losses; the most pessimistic was 169,000 job losses. A total of 11,000 losses just didn't seem realistic.

And yet, that's what happened.
The United States economy shed a surprisingly few 11,000 jobs in November, and the unemployment rate fell to 10 percent, from 10.2 percent in October, the Labor Department said Friday. [...]
The pace of job loss has been declining since a peak in January, and some economists say they expect a turning point to come in the late spring or summer, with employers finally adding workers as a recovery takes hold.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised estimates from September and October, and both were better than previously thought.

[snip]

Once more, here's my homemade chart, showing job losses by month, starting in January 2008, a month after the recession began.

Notice how small that bar is on the far-right side of the chart? Does it seem hard to see? That's a good thing.

Cons are going to have a hard time spinning that one. True, it's not no losses, and it's not growth, but it's also roughly 100,000+ more people employed than otherwise expected. We can't throw a party just yet, but a modest round of drinks is certainly warranted. And we'd not be sipping it had the Cons had their way:

But given the developments, it's not too soon for the rest of us to acknowledge the Republicans' track record of uninterrupted failure.

The GOP said the stimulus package would fail to create jobs. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said the recovery efforts would fail to generate economic growth. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the stimulus "failed." We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the government should cancel unspent recovery funds. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than government spending. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

Every step of the way, facing an economic catastrophe, Republicans claimed to know the best way forward. And every step of the way, they were pointed in the wrong direction. The strength of the recovery remains to be seen, but the only reason we're even able to talk about the possibility of a recovery is that Republicans had no control over the levers of power when decisions were made at the height of the crisis. America has been through a lot this decade, but the country can take some solace in the fact that when the economy was on the brink of wholesale collapse, Republicans were in the minority.

And let's not forget that the track record of uninterrupted failure goes back quite a while. The GOP said Bush/Cheney economic policies would work wonders for the country, create millions of jobs, prevent a recession, and keep the budget balanced. The GOP also said Clinton/Gore economic policies would be a disaster.

In light of all that, Cons would be well-advised to shut the fuck up about the economy. Every flapping of their yaps only gives them that much more opportunity to demonstrate spectacular ignorance. Yet, it appears, Cons like John Boehner just can't help themselves. Here he is flatly contradicting both himself and reality:

Some Democrats in Congress have been considering a new $300 billion jobs bill. Lawmakers “are calling for extending aid to the unemployed, infrastructure spending, a hiring tax credit and increased small business loans.”

Last night on CNBC, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked the idea. “All they want to do is grow the size of government. Government doesn’t create jobs!”

[snip]

It’s odd that Boehner would claim that “government doesn’t create jobs” because in July, he released a statement praising the stimulus for creating jobs:
The stated intent of the so-called stimulus package was to create jobs, and certainly a $57 million slush-fund studying projects did nothing to achieve that goal. With Ohio’s unemployment rate the highest it’s been in 25 years, I’m pleased that federal officials stepped in to order Ohio to use all of its construction dollars for shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs.
Moreover, Recovery.gov estimates that the stimulus has saved or created just over 17,000 jobs in Boehner’s home state, and Ohio.gov notes that “an estimated 21,257 jobs will be created or retained through these [transportation] stimulus projects” alone.

That's stupid enough, but it appears Boehner's in the mood for toe jam, and so he opens wide for another taste. Here he is showing his confusion between past, present and future:

Every month, we get a new report on unemployment, and every month the various political players put their own spin on what they'd like the public to believe. When it comes to Republicans, the worse the results, the more aggressive the finger-pointing.

But with today's report offering better-than-expected news, GOP leaders seem to have been caught off guard. For example, John Boehner's economic arguments are consistently ridiculous, but today broke new ground.
"After yet another month of job losses, it's clear that one question President Obama is sure to get on his 'listening tour' is: 'Where are the jobs'?" says House Minority Leader John Boehner, in a statement.
While the Republican from Ohio says the decrease in the unemployment rate is encouraging, he says "anyone who views today's report as cause for celebration is out of touch with the American people, especially when Washington Democrats' policies -- whether it's a government takeover of health care, a national energy tax, or 'card check' -- are already costing jobs and will pile even more debt on our kids and grandkids."
Um, no. In order for a policy to be "already costing jobs," the policy has to exist first. Boehner wants to blame health care reform, cap and trade, and EFCA for job losses, but health care reform, cap and trade, and EFCA haven't passed yet.

I have no idea why people listen to this man, aside from the obvious entertainment value.

Speaking of entertainment, it appears Glenn Beck's having some difficulties on that front:

Last night, Fox News host Glenn Beck premiered his new live show based on his book The Christmas Sweater, which was simulcast to hundreds of movie theaters across the country. Sponsor Fathom Events called it a “once in a lifetime event,” during which “Glenn will tell you about the real life events that inspired him to write” the book, play clips from his 2008 national tour, and “share stories of the overwhelming response he received.” Despite heavy promotion on Beck’s radio and TV shows, and in-theater trailers, ticket sales were weak in major cities: Beck sold only 17 tickets in Boston, another 17 in New York, and just 30 in Washington, DC. Raw Story reports that, while sales were better in more conservative areas, even Seattle — which is near Beck’s hometown — couldn’t muster a strong crowd...

[snip]

Blogger Joseph Childers reports that the production value looked “cheap,” and “the bulk of the evening consists solely of Glenn Beck acting out every role in his hokey story, with only his limited repertoire of accents and pantomime filling out the ‘cast’.”

And who wouldn't want to pay $20 for that, right?

Methinks Beck's spent too much time fleecing his sheep. There's very little fleece left for him to shear:

By some estimates, Beck takes in about $18 million a year, but he keeps creating new reasons to get his minions to give him more of their money. (He couldn't even hire actors for this Christmas show?)

Steve M's recent assessment continues to ring true: "So now we see what Glenn Beck really is: He's basically a televangelist. A huckster. A late-night pitchman selling seminars and book/DVD/audio combo packages that will allegedly help you get rich through flipping real estate. A human-potential-movement cult leader who promises life breakthroughs in exchange for participation in costly 'religious' or 'therapy' programs."

Overexposure is a terrible thing. In this case, a terribly funny thing.

And, finally, it appears our institutions of higher learning are in need of an edimicashun:

Heckuva seminar, Brownie!

Michael Brown, the much-ridiculed former FEMA director who became a symbol of the Bush administration's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, has landed a new gig: teaching a law-school class on the Patriot Act next spring.

What, are they jealous they couldn't get Gonzo?

Words fail. No wonder our political discourse is so fucked up. Maybe U of D can call upon Boehner to teach economics next. It would at least be more entertaining than Beck's Christmas special...

Captain on Deck - Muster Up, Me Hearties!

2009-12-05T00:30:00.000-08:00

(Postdated, etc. New content be below.)

Aye, our communication failures be fixed, and Captain Stephanie be ready to take the helm. But she be in need o' a crew. So rouse yerselves from yer turkey comas, muster yer best elitist bastardry, and get on deck by end o' day Friday.

If ye've never sailed before, here's how ye join the crew:

1. Pick a blog post o' yours that hits the stupid where it hurts.

2. Send us the link at elitistbastardscarnival@gmail.com.

That be it. What could be more easy? Ye can write about anything ye like - we take all manner o' intelligent and interesting discourse.

See ye aboard!

Invalid Arguments

2009-12-04T12:38:00.000-08:00

Deary, deary me. It seems that Cons, various deniers, and other such idiots have seized upon leaked emails to declare science dead:

The right's misuse of the old, stolen emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit continues in increasingly foolish ways.

The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger, for example, argues today that the CRU materials are evidence proving that "science is dying." He went on to describe the release of the stolen emails as "an epochal event."

And people wonder why the WSJ editorial page isn't taken seriously.

Well, it isn't taken seriously by people with two functioning neurons, anyway.

Listen up, people. A few snarky emails among scientists do not invalidate science, just like Newton's snarky personal letters do not invalidate calculus and laws of motion. Scientists in East Anglia may have been snarky, but the earth still warms. A few ill-tempered internet exchanges can't refute the mountains of evidence from multiple sources.

But I see how it is. We're dealing with people who can't be swayed by science, reason, or evidence. There's only one thing to do: speak to them in terms they might, possibly, be able to comprehend.

Alas, I am afraid that even this level of discourse is too sophisticated for these dipshits. One can but try.

Update: go here for a list of changes since Kyoto. It ain't pretty.

Happy Hour Discurso

2009-12-04T12:17:00.000-08:00

Today's opining on the public discourse.

At long last, it's time to catch up on the political stupidity. I'm sorry to have gone MIA, my darlings, but when there's a new Wheel of Time book out, everything else gets put on hold. Including sleeping. Thank you for letting me bugger off without warning.

Right, then. We've got a lot to catch up on. Where to start....

I'm a little unsure how effective the Smack-o-Matic 3000 is against an entire nation, but over half of America has earned it. We have become a nation of torture-loving freaks:

It's painful enough that U.S. use of torture is even open to debate. But looking at the results of the latest Pew Forum survey adds insult to injury.
Currently just over half of Americans say that the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can either often (19%) or sometimes (35%) be justified. This is the first time in over five years of Pew Research polling on this question that a majority has expressed these views. [...]
Both Democrats and independents have become more accepting of the idea that torture can be justified.
Yes, a year after Bush/Cheney left office, and a year after a presidential election in which both major party nominees rejected use of torture, the number of Americans who believe torture can be "justified" is going up, and now represent a majority.

The pro-torture trend -- a phrase that's slightly nauseating to even type -- spans self-identified Democrats, Republicans, and independents. GOP members are the biggest supporters of torture (67% believe it is either "often" or "sometimes" justified), but the other two groups aren't too far behind -- 47% of Dems and 53% of independents agree. All three groups have seen the numbers increase considerably in recent years to all-time highs.

My fellow Americans: what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you having a hard time distinguishing 24 from reality? Did eight years of Con rule destroy your moral compass? Have we become a nation of sadists? Did you forget that torture is immoral, illegal, and ineffective? Let me put this as clearly as I can:

Torture is never, ever justified. It is never, ever useful, and it is never, ever the right thing to do.

My fellow Americans make me sick sometimes.

In related news, I've noticed a growing contingent of Americans who seem to be pining for the good old days of Con rule, and I'm not talking about just Teabaggers, either. Otherwise sensible people are muttering more and more about voting with their butts. I have said before and I will say again: the solution is not fewer Democrats, but better Democrats. We'll never get them if the Dem base is too fucking lazy and petulant to get out there and make it so. What we'll get instead is Cons. Unless, of course, the Teabaggers come to our rescue:

Glenn Beck, who has waged a conspiratorial, hateful campaign against liberals and his other political enemies all year, has been galvanizing his supporters to run for office. Today, conservative activist Eric Forcade announced that he is running in the Republican primary to unseat longtime Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL). In explaing his reason for running, Forcade said he was inspired by the “values that have been popularized by Glenn Beck.” Beck’s 9/12 project and its closely related “tea parties” have inspired a number of other challengers to Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently “pure”...

They're fast becoming my only hope. I mean, we've seen the kinds of candidates these dumbshits try to run. Americans may be torture-loving freaks, and they may be disillusioned, but I don't think they're quite ready to hold their noses and vote for certifiably-insane Con candidates. Not in the general election, anyway. I hope there shall be many, many repeats of NY-23 next fall.

I wonder if that potential is what's making Cons make such spectacular asses of themselves:

Several far-right House Republicans have been demanding congressional hearings into ACORN. Dems have ignored the nonsense, which led eight GOP lawmakers to host a pseudo-hearing -- technically labeled a "forum" -- on the community group.

Dave Weigel was on hand for the event, and seems to have enjoyed the nuttiness.
With most of Washington's attention focused on the health care debate happening a few blocks away in the Senate, or President Obama's upcoming speech on troop escalation in Afghanistan, Smith and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the sponsors of the hearing, were able to attractive an impressive amount of media. Six cameras were staged around the room, and national reporters filled out the seats behind the witness stand alongside members of ACORN-investigating conservative organizations like the Capital Research Center and Big Government. Officially titled a "Joint Forum on ACORN," the hearing gave Republicans a chance to re-air allegations against the controversial activist group, which lost its long-standing federal funding in two lopsided September votes.
The eight Republican members of Congress who showed up for the hearing didn't disappoint. With one exception, they labeled ACORN a "criminal enterprise" with close and current ties to the highest levels of the Obama administration and the labor movement.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who presumably would be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee if Republicans take back the House, insisted the attorney general should "appoint a special prosecutor to investigate ACORN," in part because, as Smith sees it, "President Obama previously served as ACORN's lawyer." (He didn't.)

And there's much, much more where that came from. I think the Cons need to seek professional help. They seem to have a rather serious fixation, and that just can't be healthy.

Let's move on to financial matters for a bit, here. I think we all remember Cons screaming "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts!", interspersed with the occasional "spending freeze!", during the stimulus debate. And after the stimulus passed. And, well, forever. Well, guess what provides the least bang for the buck stimulus-wise?

That's right. Tax cuts! And spending freezes are just too stupid to consider.

Not that this will keep them from screaming "tax cuts etc!" They seem to be stuck in a rut, there. I know that when a record's skipping, you can just hit the record player to make it stop, but I'm not sure what kind of jolt it will take to shake Cons loose. Short, sharp shocks from reality haven't helped. The idiots still believe the stimulus has failed, all evidence to the contrary. And their jobs plan? You guessed it:

Arguably the single most farcical aspect of America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans talk about economic policy. We're talking about a group of people who've managed to be spectacularly wrong about practically every economic challenge in recent memory, but who are nevertheless convinced of their own self-righteous expertise. It's hard not to cringe.

But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of uninterrupted failure. Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he called "a no-cost jobs plan." Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single dime to the deficit, the Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst unemployment crisis in 30 years. One wonders how a political party capable of such innovative thinking ever lost its hold of power."
To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes. That's the plan.
[snip]

As for the "no-cost jobs plan," it's hard not to laugh at the stupidity. We tried it Cantor's way. We're still suffering the consequences. NBC reported on Cantor's plan, and explained, "The challenge for Cantor and Republicans is that these solutions -- low taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations -- existed during the Bush years, which saw three different economic downturns (in 2001, 2003, and 2008), and which produced the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades."

Different day, same stupid song, with Newt Gingrich chiming in on the chorus. And for church, they have a hymn: Jesus hates the estate tax.

ZOMFG, what enormous fucking fools.

In other news, Lou Dobbs has not only failed to win the hearts and minds of the Latino community he bashed so long, he's now lost the hearts and minds of the crowd that bashed Latinos with him.

And here is the AP's version of science writing: comparing the President to Mr. Spock.

The Associated Press has run a 1,070-word piece pondering the question, "Is Obama too much like Mr. Spock?" Seriously.
He shows a fascination with science, an all-too deliberate decision-making demeanor, an adherence to logic and some pretty, ahem, prominent ears.
They all add up to a quite logical conclusion, at least for "Star Trek" fans: Barack Obama is Washington's Mr. Spock, the chief science officer for the ship of state.
"I guess it's somewhat unusual for a politician to be so precise, logical, in his thought process," actor Leonard Nimoy, who has portrayed Spock for more than 40 years, told The Associated Press in an e-mail interview. "The comparison to Spock is, in my opinion, a compliment to him and to the character."
Until now.
Obama's Spock-like qualities have started to cause him political problems in real world Washington. Critics see him as too technocratic, too deliberative, too lacking in emotion.
BarbinMD replied, "Yes, you can file this one under you-can't-make-this-shit-up -- the science writer for the Associated Press actually interviewed Leonard Nimoy (and the producer of the latest 'Star Trek' movie) for an article about the President, where he ponders Obama's resemblance to a fictional T.V. character, wonders whether his Vulcan-like ways are causing him political problems in the real world, and tells us that geeks and nerds everywhere are sure that Obama is a trekkie."

I have a confession to make, my darlings. I didn't ditch Happy Hour for two days because of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time alone. No, part of it was the fact that, when I wasn't reading Jordan, I was left in utter despair by the state of our political discourse. And I don't know what I'm going to do when I've finished the book.

I think I need someone to show up here spreading the good news of Captain Morgan.

The Solution to Your Mortgage Woes: Walk Away

2009-12-03T04:29:00.000-08:00

Yup. That's right.

Sounds insane, but if the Treasury's latest bit of pressure on the banks doesn't work, and they won't modify your mortgage, you might want to consider just telling them to fuck off.

Seriously:

I've been saying this all along to people: The only real obstacles are in your head. There's no reason in the world to keep throwing good money after bad.

And he's right. Banks won't negotiate with borrowers until more people start to do this:
Go ahead. Break the chains. Stop paying on your mortgage if you owe more than the house is worth. And most important: Don't feel guilty about it. Don't think you're doing something morally wrong.

That's the incendiary core message of a new academic paper by Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law school professor, titled "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis."

White argues that far more of the estimated 15 million American homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.

Doing so, he suggests, could save some of them hundreds of thousands of dollars that they "have no reasonable prospect of recouping" in the years ahead. Plus the penalties are nowhere near as painful or long-lasting as they might assume.

Read up on the pros and cons, get some expert advice, and then make the decision that's in your best interests. You don't owe the fuckers who fucked our economy over a damned thing. They brought us to our knees: perhaps it's time to return the favor.

But it's really not about right or wrong, moral high ground or low, but leverage. We need some. And we'd have it, if only we'd use it.

Just do it wisely. Make sure you've got legal experts who can help you use the system to your advantage. And then extract all the advantage you possibly can. The taste of their own medicine may be bitter for the banks, but that's just too fucking bad, now, isn't it?

The Cantinera is Away

2009-12-03T01:26:00.000-08:00

Today, my darlings, has sucked leper donkey dick. Between training and the high call queues, I haven't had time to catch up on me political reading. And I do not feel like giving up the rest of the night to reading about babbling idiots when we all already know the Cons and a handful of inane Dems are complete babbling idiots. So take this as your opportunity to get your submission in for COTEB. Or you can go start an argument with Cujo. Meself, I've got a book needs reading.

I'll see you all back here tomorrow, my darlings.

Have Some LOLz

2009-12-03T01:11:00.000-08:00

Happy Hour and so forth will be late. In the meantime, have some LOLz - I think we could all use a good laugh.

This is Dana in the morning:

And this just made me giggle:

Comic book fans will understand:

This is made of awesome:

No kidding:

FAIL? Yes - if we're talking about the contents. WIN if we're talking about the added decoration:

Sparklepyres. Give me a fucking break.

I'm abandoning you all again for Robert Jordan's latest. Jordan fans of the world will understand. But hey, I'm taking a day off so that you guys will eventually get the political snark you've come to know and love. That counts for something, right?

Dick Babbles, Politico Plays Stenographer, and Ackerman Attacks

2009-12-02T05:04:00.000-08:00

So, Dick Cheney babbled to a couple of Politico "reporters," who dutifully wrote down his dictation, encased it in an article, and published it without a single attempt at actual journalism.

Spencer Ackerman said all that needs to be said:

Politico reporters transcribe, you decide:
Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.
Right, and why follow that one up? It’s not like a high-profile Senate report demonstrated over the weekend that the Bush administration allowed Osama bin Laden to escape the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, a crucial mistake that allowed al-Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan.

There's more. Lots more. With links. Many links. And no mercy at all.

Spencer. I love you, man.

Greg Sargent takes on Cheney's further blabbering about Obama's bow. And he reports that Cons aren't at all pleased with Dick's media popularity:

They won’t dare say this publicly. But Republicans in key messaging roles are privately voicing serious frustration with Dick Cheney’s ability to win media attention for his national security attacks on President Obama, claiming the attention is making it easier for the White House and Dems to mock GOP views as “cartoonish” and the stuff of “caricature.”

Damn skippy. But you know what, fellas? Truth sure as shit hurts.

I wonder if Cheney's one fan is now having second thoughts.

Your Daily Dose of Health Care Reform Stupidity

2009-12-02T02:41:00.000-08:00

Mah book is here! Mah book is finally here! So let's make this short and sweet, cuz I gotz readin to do.

With health care reform hitting the Senate floor, Steve Benen has a rundown on some of the idiots standing in its way.

Grassley admits he lived off the public tit, but still rails against Americans having health care.

Virginia Foxx, character assassin, denounces supposed liberal character assassins. Oh, puh-leeze.

Dick Lugar thinks we should delay health care reform until next year. They really don't know anything but the same ol' tunes, do they?

Let's talk about some of the amendments on offer. Ben Nelson's pulling a Stupak. John McCain's amendment amounts to nothing more than a big, wet kiss to the insurance industry. But here's an amendment you can root for: Patrick Leahy's trying to get the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption axed. Go, Patrick! Loves me some fighting Irish!

And, the most fun health care reform news o' the day: Coburn's had hisself an Alan Grayson moment:

Back in September, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) caused quite a stir. The freshman Democrat had the audacity to argue, on the House floor no less, that the conservative approach to health care is a joke: "Don't get sick. That's what the Republicans have in mind. And if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly."

The GOP and its allies were outraged. The media held Grayson up as an example of incivility in our politics. He made it sound, the argument went, as if Republican policies are literally life threatening. The remarks, conservatives said, crossed a line of decency -- no one should accuse their rivals of promoting lethal health care policies.

I can only assume, then, that Republican officials and their allies will rush out today to condemn Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma, who returned to the macabre as part of the debate over health care reform this afternoon.

"What I disagree is moving $2.5 trillion more under government control which will raise costs ultimately in the health care sector," Coburn said. "And if it doesn't raise costs and we're truly going to take this money from Medicare, what it's going to do to our seniors. I have a message for you: you're going to die sooner. And they're going to go, 'That isn't true. That isn't true."

Well, yes, "they" are going to say Coburn's nonsense isn't true, but only because Coburn's nonsense isn't true.

Alas, Steve's assumption (made tongue firmly in cheek, I'm sure), proved tragically wrong. Cons are scrambling for all sorts of reasons why Coburn's "die sooner" statement is nothing like Grayson's.

And so the parade of pathetic continues....

D.C. Does the Right Thing

2009-12-02T02:01:00.000-08:00

Wedding bells shall hopefully be ringing soon.

Thank you, D.C. City Council, for recognizing that same-sex couples should be able to ~~suffer~~ enjoy marriage along with the rest of us.

Happy Hour Discurso

2009-12-02T01:26:00.000-08:00

Today's opining on the public discourse.

As I write this, I'm waiting for UPS to deliver the latest installment of the Wheel of Time. So if I seem a little distracted, forgive me. It's hard to concentrate on pollyticks when you have an epic adventure waiting. I shall do me best.

(Is that a truck I hear? Argh. No.)

So, how nuts has the right gotten? Nuts enough that Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame has given up in disgust:

And late yesterday, Johnson, at one point one of the highest profile conservative bloggers in the country, announced that he's "parting ways" with the right.

He put together a list of developments that Johnson believes pushed him away, including support for bigotry, opposition to women's rights, hostility towards science, homophobia, embrace of "anti-government lunacy," and "support for conspiracy theories and hate speech."
And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
I won't be going over the cliff with them.

Bravo, Charles. Bravo. I know you're not set to become a flaming liberal yet, but I'm sure we can make room at the bar for you. The cantina's a good place to bemoan rightwing stupidity, so it appears you'll fit in just fine.

Now, if the (relatively) sensible conservatives would just band together and start a political party of their own, that would be lovely. Perhaps we could then get an opposition party in power that isn't completely batshit fucking insane. Be a nice change o' pace, wouldn't it?

Instead, we've got a political party that's in thrall to people like the Family Research Council, which is busy throwing a screaming hysterical fit over the idea that teh gayz might end up being treated like human beings:

Earlier this month, the far-right Family Research Council (FRC) sent a fundraising action alert fearmongering about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which has been introduced in both the House and Senate and President Obama says he is “pushing hard to pass.” “This law would punish anyone in the workplace who dares oppose homosexual behavior, cross-dressing and other unhealthy behaviors,” said the FRC alert.

[snip]

These claims are ridiculous. Despite what Price says, the legislation would not force anyone to be hired. It would only mean that it would be illegal “to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation,” as it is currently illegal to do in cases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally, as the Human Rights Campaign points out, current ENDA legislation “exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military.”

As per usual, much ado (and a shitload of lies) about not being allowed to be unbridled bigots. What a sad little world they live in.

Rick Warren, meanwhile, can't figure out why people might be upset that he's not speaking out against Uganda's death-to-gays law. You'll just love his defense:

In recent days, Pastor Rick Warren has come under fire for refusing to condemn an Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda that would make some homosexual acts punishable by death. “[I]t is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations,” said Warren. On his Twitter feed, Warren is now trying to change the subject, claiming that “no one” cared when 146,000 Christians died last year (so why should he now care about gay men and women in Africa?)

Yup. That is Rick Warren's moral fiber, my darlings. Classy, isn't he?

Meanwhile, elected Cons are busy proving to Johnson he made the right choice. Michele Bachmann, for instance, has voted against no fewer than five (5) foreclosure relief bills, while her district suffers the highest number of foreclosures in Minnesota.

And Rep. Thaddeus McCotter really must be seen to be believed:

Environmental groups have declared that McCotter is a “Caveman Congressman.” The satirical Caveman Energy Caucus website notes that lawmakers like McCotter have “chosen OLD energy when they voted no” on Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation. Ironically, as he explained his backwards denial of settled climate change science, McCotter cited the experience of his cavemen namesake to note that the melting of glaciers had a positive effect:
MCCOTTER: Remember, the people who talk about the melting of the glaciers and others, imagine if you were in a peninsula around 1,000 BC or so or earlier and your name was Tor and you’re out huntin’ mastadon. And you didn’t notice that the glaciers were melting and leaving the devastating flooding in its wake that became the Great Lakes in the state of Michigan.

Something tells me this idiot's a Young Earth Creationist. Probably his total lack of awareness of actual history and science:

McCotter is wrong on several fronts. First, the glacial melt which formed the Great Lakes occurred between a period of 15,000 and 10,000 BC, not 1,000 BC, as McCotter claims. But we do not have to look to the past to see shrinking glaciers. Global warming is currently melting 18,000 Himalayan glaciers — the largest concentration of glaciers outside the great polar ice sheets. The global trend of melting glaciers has only accelerated, with 2009 marked as the 18th consecutive year glaciers around the world have decreased in size.

What a dumbshit. He's a perfect example of what Johnson's talking about.

(Office sez UPS is running late. Grr, argh.)

Where were we? Oh, right. Political stupidity, abundance of. Hey, it's the holidays. Let's check in and see how that celebrated Con compassion's going, shall we?

Ooo, not too good:

This Corner poster (via Rumproast) thinks food stamps are making people lazy:
Today's NYT says that food-stamp usage grows by about 20,000 people per day:
MARTINSVILLE, Ohio — With food stamp use at record highs and climbing every month, a program once scorned as a failed welfare scheme now helps feed one in eight Americans and one in four children. ... While the numbers have soared during the recession, the path was cleared in better times when the Bush administration led a campaign to erase the program’s stigma, calling food stamps “nutritional aid” instead of welfare, and made it easier to apply
Seems like there ought to be a stigma attached to the use of welfare. A little bit of shame can go a long way toward encouraging people to find jobs. The federal government may think it's doing people a favor by providing them with access to food, but it's doing them a disservice if it also robs them of the motivation necessary to break free from dependency.
One wouldn't think you'd have to make an argument in favor of America being generous enough to make sure that 25% of the children in this country aren't going hungry. You would think the immorality of allowing kids to starve or be publicly shamed due to conditions over which they have absolutely no control would be obvious. But apparently it isn't.

Not for them. Oh, and those poor kiddies shouldn't expect any toys if their parents can't pony up their papers:

Several charities in the Houston area are checking the immigration status of needy families before giving out toys this holiday season. The charities claim that given the jump in demand this year — over 30,000 children have registered with the Salvation Army’s Angel Tree program, an increase of over 20 percent from last year — they want to be “good stewards” and get the donations to people who are in the country legally.

[snip]

Matt Yglesias writes, "Meanwhile grant that it’s 'the parents’ responsibility' that the family may be in the United States without legal permission. Suppose the parents had committed a crime that’s even more serious than moving across an international boundary without permission in order to do work in exchange for money (hard to imagine a more serious offense, I know). What if they’d, I dunno, broken into people’s homes and stolen jewelry and now they’re in jail. Is the Salvation Army going to say that their kids shouldn’t have toys to play with? What sense does that make?"

None. But anti-immigrant fucktards don't really care if their xenophobia and malice makes sense, now, do they?

While we're on the subject of charity, let's talk about the recipients of quite a considerable amount of government charity, and their reaction:

Bethany McLean is the business writers [sic] who had the temerity to question why Enron was speaking gibberish on analyst calls back before their ignominious fall from grace. She was dismissed by all the MOUs of course. How silly of her to wonder why nothing these people made any sense. They were making muneeeee! Today McLean has a fascinating article in the new Vanity Fair about the Bloodsucking Vampire Squid itself, Goldman Sachs.

My favorite thing is that despite everything, they seem to have convinced themselves that they didn't need to be bailed out by the government last fall --- that they were doing just fine. In fact, they seem to believe that they were innocent bystanders, good samaritans actually, who are getting a bad rap.

[snip]

One wonders if Goldman employees are packing heat these days because they are afraid of the peasants with pitchforks or their fellow bankers:
“I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.
These guys really are something aren't they? First they seem to actually believe that "populists" are coming to take over their bank and second that they could "defend" it with pistols. Good God, these people really do think they are John Galt, don't they?

These fucktards are all certifiably insane. Absolutely, beyond a doubt, totally fucking insane. I think all that money's fucked up their brains. Perhaps we could fix that by helping them go cold turkey.

Speaking of people who've let enormous amounts of cash turn their gray matter to so much useless goop, check out this piece on CNBC's total lack of judgment. Moral: if CNBC's profiling somebody as a hero of Wall Street, you can place a pretty safe bet on the fact that person will be indicted for fraud not long after.

Let's switch gears for a few moments and bash dumbshit Dems for a bit. Specifically, let's take the Smack-o-Matic to Conservadem Evah Bayh:

Glenn Greenwald had a pretty devastating piece yesterday on the junior senator from Indiana. He argued, "When the sad and destructive history of the U.S. over the last decade is written, the coddled, nepotistic, self-serving face of Evan Bayh should be prominently included. It embodies virtually every cause."

To help bolster the point, consider Bayh's recent efforts on cutting spending, "reforming" entitlements, and debt reduction. Brian Beutler touches on a point I've been trying to emphasize.
This spring, when Congress was hashing out its budget, [Bayh] voted for an amendment, sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), that would have slashed the estate tax for multimillionaires.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the measure would've blown a $250 billion hole in the budget. Keep that number in mind for one moment. Because the letter warned, "Deficits and debt matter for everyone. In 2008, the American taxpayer paid more than $250 billion to our creditors in interest payments alone." [Emphasis in the original.] Oh cruel irony.
To be fair, the Lincoln-Kyl amendment's price tag would've been spread out over 10 years. But still: How does one square a vote to diminish the estate tax with fiscal discipline?
One can't. It's why I cringe just a bit every time I see Bayh claim the high ground on fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, as he did over the weekend on Fox News.

How much would you like to bet there'll be an R after this fucktard's name next time he runs for office? He might as well cast aside the donkey costume - we can see the Con under there.

Perhaps he can be joined by the fucktarded Dems who believe extending the Bush tax cuts is a good idea.

In fun news, Sheriff Joe got pwnd by protesters. And Sarah Palin's misquote is truly hysterical:

Oopsie:
As the epigram to Chapter Three, "Drill, Baby, Drill," Palin assigns the following remarks to the Hall of Fame hoops coach:
Our land is everything to us... I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it--with their lives.
Only the quote wasn't by John Wooden. It was written by a Native American activist named John Wooden Legs in an essay entitled "Back on the War Ponies," which appeared in a left-wing anthology, We Are the People: Voices from the Other Side of American History, edited by Nathaniel May, Clint Willis, and James W. Loewen.

Go to the link for the full quote. I don't think that's quite what she was aiming for. Heh.

The fact that so many wingnuts think she'd make a great prez tells you all you need to know about the intellectual seriousness of the American right.

No wonder poor Charles jumped the ship.

(And no, me book's still not here. Grr, argh.)

Don't Know What We've Got Till It's Gone

2009-12-01T04:09:00.000-08:00

The Dem base has the blahs. Voters, including Dem voters, are getting some hare-brained, mentally-incompetent idea that Cons would do better on the economy, and plan on throwing Dems out if they can't instantly make the disaster left behind by the fucking Cons magically disappear. This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life, and I am a blogger who specializes in stupidity, for fuck's sake.

So listen up, ladies and gentlemen. Wake up and smell the reality. Stop your bitching, moaning and complaining. Look at where we are:

Polls show the Democratic base is unmotivated to turnout in 2010-- and it's no wonder given all the rhetoric that Obama hasn't done much with his 2008 victory. Those attacks from the rightwing are understandable from a partisan position, but many progressives seem to oddly be aping similar rhetoric-- wallowing in glass half-empty complaints of what Obama and Congress haven't delivered while failing to actually educate the public on the successes they have. We should be able to demand more while publicly praising what we do achieve -- basic political walking and chewing gum at the same time -- but a lot of progressives seem not to have mastered the skill.

Maybe it helps that I had such low expectations of Obama's administration to begin with-- but then I thought significant federal reforms would fail due to the filibuster. So the progress actually made is a pleasant surprise. And those successes are large and profound. This post will summarize those gains, and even in summary form will be quite long, reflecting the incredible victories involved. Yes, we all wish for more, but the best way to get there is to educate the public -- and especially the progressive base -- about what we got in the last year and how replacing moderates and conservatives with more real progressives could deliver even more in the future.

Quick Summary of 2009 Progressive Victories (more explanation below)

Three major health bills (SCHIP, tobacco regulation, and stimulus funds for Medicaid, COBRA subsidies, health information technology and the National Institutes of Health) enacted even before comprehensive reform

Stimulus contained myriad other individual policy victories, not only preventing a far worse depression but also:

Delivered key new funds for education

Expanded state energy conservation programs and new transit programs

Added new smart grid investments

Funded high-speed Internet broadband programs

Extended unemployment insurance for up to 99 weeks for the unemployed and modernizing state UI programs to cover more of the unemployed

Made large new investments in the safety net, from food stamps (SNAP) to affordable housing to child care

Clean cars victory to take gas mileage requirements to 35mpg

Protection of 2 million acres of land against oil and gas drilling and other development

Executive orders protecting labor rights, from project labor agreements to protecting rights of contractor employees on federal jobs

Stopping pay discrimination through Lilly Ledbetter and Equal Pay laws

Making it easier for airline and railway workers to unionize, while appointing NLRB and other labor officials who will strengthen freedom to form unions

Reversing Bush ban on funding overseas family planning clinics

Passing hate crimes protections for gays and lesbians

Protecting stem cell research research

Strengthening state authority and restricting federal preemption to protect state consumer, environmental and labor laws

Financial reforms to protect homeowners and credit card holders

Bailing out the auto industry and protecting unionized retirees and workers

Go to the link for further detail.

Now, you may dislike some of the items on that list. You may not think the list is long enough, or strong enough, or progressive. But seriously, people, are you really upset enough you'd rather return to the good ol' days of right-wing rule? What, exactly, was so good about the Bush years that you care for a repeat?

And are a few progressive disappointments really enough to make you forget just who, exactly, left the economy in shambles?

Get the fuck over your disappointment. Push for more progress, yes. Demand more, yes. But do not fuck yourselves out of all chance of progress by giving up and letting the Cons win.

Perhaps most importantly, do not make me take the Smack-o-Matic to your very own asses. Because trust me, I will. And I've added a special spike attachment for despondent Dems who can't be bothered to get off their arses and fight the good fight just because they didn't get every little thing they wanted.

Politics is rough, tough and full of disappointments, my darlings. Toughen up, get the fuck used to it, get out there, and get better Dems elected.

Heckuvajob, New Jersey

2009-12-01T02:23:00.000-08:00

So, between electing a motherfucking Con as governor and letting the Catholic Church tell you same sex marriage is bad while shuffling sexually abusing priests around so they can continue their predations isn't so bad, you've managed stop progress dead in its tracks. Heckuva job. You should feel real fucking proud, there.

Same sex marriage advocates are seeing the end of the line for their cause in an unlikely place: New Jersey. Marriage equality was once expected to be all but inevitable in the Garden state, but as Newark Star-Ledger political columnist Tim Moran reports today, all that changed with the election of Gov.-elect Chris Christie (R).

Christie promised on the campaign trail to veto the same-sex marriage law that Moran reports many expected the state legislature to pass this year. Christie's defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine (D), coupled with a stepped up opposition campaign by the Catholic Church, has led one-time supporters of marriage equality in New Jersey to change their tune.

This is what you get believing Cons can solve your problems. And guess what? New Jersey's economy shall remain in the toilet, and corruption shall still reign. All you've done by electing in the opposition is ensuring you've gotten yourselves fucked over even worse.

The stupidity in this country makes me seriously ashamed to be an American.

Happy Hour Discurso

2009-12-01T00:54:00.000-08:00

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Sunday morning, four Seattle area police officers were shot and killed while they were doing paperwork over coffee. The man who is believed to have shot them can thank Mike Huckabee for giving him the freedom to become a cop killer:

The suspect in the slaying of 4 police officers in Washington state, Maurice Clemmons of Lakewood reaped a dream benefit from former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. He was banged up for decades as a repeat violent offender, and Governor Huckabee commuted his sentence over the protests of prosecutors in the case.

At the age of 18, Clemmons was sentenced to 60 years for theft and burglary charges. He was serving 48 years for other violent crimes. During trials in which he was the defendant, he apparently exhibited some more eyebrow raising behavior, which included reaching for a guard's gun during transport, and threatening the judge.

Because the judge did not recuse himself from that trial and a series of other civil rights violations, several charges against Clemmons were dropped (State of Arkansas v Maurice Clemmons).

Even with all that history, Huckabee, citing Clemmons' youth at the time of the commission of the crimes and incarceration, commuted his sentence after he'd served 11 years on sentences totaling 95 years of jail time. He remained on parole and committed more violent crimes. He was arrested, the paperwork in the cases was bad and the prosecutors did not refile.

Now, I don't necessarily blame Huckabee for commuting this sentence. He should've taken into account the fact that this idiot was violent enough to try to kill people in the courtroom during his trial, of course, but when you've got someone who was a youthful offender and who apparently behaved himself well in prison, you consider clemency. It's a humane thing to do.

But if you grant clemency, and that idiot you granted it to goes on to kill four police officers, do not be a total shitheel and blame it on everybody but yourself:

Plan to write about the current Huckabee-related atrocity? If so, be sure to read Huckabee's incredible "buck-stops-elsewhere" statement carefully distancing himself from any personal culpability:
Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State. He was recommended for and received a commutation of his original sentence from 1990, this commutation made him parole eligible and he was then paroled by the parole board once they determined he met the conditions at that time. He was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him.
Not Huckabee's fault, you see. A series of failures by the government, not, mind you, a then-sitting governor named Michael Huckabee.

Keep in mind something. Huckabee not only commuted that sentence, but appointed the parole board members who subsequently paroled Clemmons.

No fucking defense, Huck. None. Suck it up and take it like a man.

Here's some more outrageous news about religious Cons who want everybody to believe they're something they're not. If you read PZ's blog, you know about the hideous anti-gay legislation working its way through Uganda's legislature. Guess who won't speak out against a bill that condemns homosexuals to death? That's right - Rick "I Have Teh Gays to Dinner" Warren:

Pastor Rick Warren — whom President Obama controversially chose to deliver the invocation at his inauguration — is now refusing to condemn Bahati’s bill, which has been endorsed by Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa. Ssempa has been welcomed by Warren’s family and made appearances at his church. Newsweek reports that although Warren has distanced himself from Ssempa’s views, he won’t come out against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:
The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.
On Meet the Press yesterday, Warren reiterated, “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” He has, however, said that abortion is a “holocaust” and pushed for the passage of California’s Prop. 8.

So, to reiterate: Pastor Warren's good with taking sides when he has the chance to keep gays from getting married, and isn't good with speaking out against gays getting put to death. I think we know what that means, don't we?

And the stupidity, of course, doesn't end there, although the above items are the worst of it.

Politico thinks Obama should be all worried and stuff about not being American exceptionalist enough. Greg Sargent and Steve Benen explain why this is absolute bullshit.

If that's not enough bullshit for you, have some entitlement reform bullshit. Nice to know some politicians, our fearless leader included, are so worried about the national debt that they're willing to investigate the possibility of cutting entitlement programs at a time of horrible economic collapse. More people are on food stamps than there have been since the 1930s, but the rich can afford their luxury items again, so apparently it's time to fuck everyone else. Again.

Speaking of the economy, Michele Bachmann's breathtakingly clueless.

And Rep. Bill Shuster is more shameless in his stimulus stupidity than most.

Teapartiers are recruiting. Do tell me if any approach you. Send video if you can. The entertainment value would be astronomical.

Got a Con on your Christmas list? At a loss as to what to give them? Here are some delightfully snarky gift basket ideas.

And for those of you who need a good laugh, consider this:

As you may have heard, Newsweek's Jon Meacham has a provocative item in the new issue, encouraging Dick Cheney to run for president because it would be "good for the Republicans and good for the country." There are more than few problems with the argument, but the part that stood out for me is the notion that we need a "referendum on competing visions" of government.
One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa. [...]
A campaign would ... give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.
I seem to recall a lengthy process -- I believe it was called "the presidential election of 2008" -- where Americans were given a choice between a continuation of Bush/Cheney policies and a more progressive, Democratic approach. I also seem to recall the outcome -- a one-sided victory for the Dem.

It's true that the defeated and humiliated Republican Party maintains that the president did not earn a mandate, but why would an Obama victory over Cheney change the GOP's mind? 365 electoral votes weren't enough?

For that matter, is the jury still out on the Bush presidency? Meacham sees the need for additional adjudication "in a direct way." I'm not sure what more evidence anyone would need that Bush failed in spectacular and historic ways, in practically every area of public policy. It will take many, many years to address the fiascos of the last eight years.

Meacham sees these catastrophes and thinks, "What we really need is the failed president's vice president to seek national office." There's no reason to think that's a good idea.

It turns out, in fact, that Meacham's Great White Hope has only one other believer:

In a Washington Post poll, a plurality of Republicans say Palin best reflects their “party’s core values,” and they would vote for her “if the presidential nomination battle were held today.” Two people who don’t fare as well in the Post poll are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:
Just 1 percent pick George W. Bush as the best reflection of the party’s principles, and only a single person in the poll cites former vice president Richard B. Cheney. About seven in 10 say Bush bears at least “some” of the blame for the party’s problems.
The Post surveyed 804 “Republicans and Republican-leaning nonpartisans” for its sample.

Greg Sargent crunched some numbers. That's .125% of Cons who love them some Dick. So, nice try, Meach, but I don't think we need to run Cheney against Obama to have our verdict.

One person for Dick. Excuse me. I've got to go laugh my ass off.

Your Daily Dose of Health Care Reform Stupidity

2009-11-30T02:38:00.000-08:00

Congress is back in session, and Cons are outdoing themselves on teh stoopid.

Rep. Mark Kirk's busy fearmongering over mammograms. Do these people know how to do anything other than lie and fearmonger?

You're right. They don't. Forget I asked.

Cons have a brilliant new idea: fuck health care, let's kill people, instead!

The policy debate in Washington is currently focused on two topics: a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan and health care legislation. Both a troop escalation and health care reform carry significant price tags — roughly $100 billion and $80-$100 billion a year respectively. (It should be noted that health care reform, unlike a troop surge, would cut the deficit.)

When it comes to these two debates, hawkish senators have laid out their priorities. They are more than willing to fund a risky troop surge that is increasingly opposed by both Americans and Afghans, yet remain stalwart opponents of health care reform that could save the lives of the 45,000 Americans who die every year because they lack access to health care.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) demonstrated this preference for war over health care and other essential domestic priorities during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday. He heartily endorsed “a new surge of forces” in Afghanistan while dismissing a war surtax proposed by Rep. David Obey (D-WI). Graham suggested that we “trim up” the health care bill to pay for the war, prompting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to remark that Graham and other senate hawks have a “poor set of priorities”:
GRAHAM: We’ll be evaluated by some pretty tough characters in the world by how we handle Afghanistan. … We’re gonna have the troops in Afghanistan to win the conflict. [...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does [Obey] have a point [about the war surtax]? If we’re going to fight a war, shouldn’t the American people pay for it?
GRAHAM: Well, I’d like to have an endeavor to see if we can cut current spending…to pay for the war. … Can we trim up the health care bill and other big ticket items to pay for a war that we can’t afford to lose? [...]
SANDERS: What Senator Graham is now saying as I understand it is, hey we can cut back on education, so middle class families can’t afford to send their families to college. We don’t have to rebuild our infrastructure. We don’t have to invest in sustainable energy, so we stop importing $350 billion a year in foreign oil. Let’s just spend more money in Afghanistan while Europe and the people of China and the people of Russia watch us do that work. I think that is a very poor set of national priorities.

I think Bernie's right. And I think anyone listening to Cons on anything at all is an idiot of the highest caliber.

Oh, and you know how Cons wanted transparency? Now that their amendments to the health care reform bill may come under public scrutiny, they're suddenly not wanting transparency at all:

"In light of some of the trust problems and transparency problems we have, while this appears to lead to greater transparency, we can also see ways that this can limit the ability for the minority to offer amendments," said Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), and, therefore, I object."

Why would that be, you ask? Probably because of antics like this:

But to touch things off, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will likely introduce Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) who will offer a women's preventive health care amendment, according to a Senate Democratic aide--the first amendment of the process.

By contrast, the first Republican amendment will come from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who will propose that the bill be recommitted to the Finance Committee, which would be instructed to strip it of its Medicare cuts. At a 60 vote threshold, the amendment won't pass, but if it did, it would likely be the end of health care reform this Congress.

In other words, we're dealing with two very different species of amendments.

Indeed we are. All they're doing is the usual, delay and attempt to kill. No wonder transparency would make it harder for the minority party to offer "amendments."

And, lest you think McCain's some sort of hero for wanting to prevent Dems from cutting wasteful spending from Medicare and Medicaid, remember that this is the same man who wanted to cut three times as much from Medicare last year.

Meanwhile, Con Rep. Simmons, who totally opposes the "government takeover of health care," wants his constituents to know they can count on Medicaid if they lose their jobs. Hypocrite much?

Everybody's girding their loins for battle. Judging from the Cons' opening shots, it's going to be a long, ridiculous ride.

Meanwhile, the public option's been so watered down that folks are seriously reconsidering whether it's worth fighting for. I think it is simply because I'm a spiteful bitch who'd like to force the not-so-fantastic-four to hold their noses and vote for the thing.

At least there's one thing for sure: as long as health care reform passes in relatively decent shape, folks will be paying lower premiums. If we have to start small and build, so be it.

Oh, Yes, She Did!

2009-11-30T01:23:00.000-08:00

My heart sister NP has an announcement:

I knew she could!

Raise a glass her way, my darlings. It's one hell of an accomplishment!

Awesomeness on the Intertoobz

2009-11-30T01:18:00.000-08:00

Yes, there are times when I escape the clutches of endless work and go spelunking the intertoobz strictly for fun. And, like a good cantinera, I sometimes bring choice selections back for patrons of the cantina. Like this delight, found via John Pieret, proving that Sarah Palin is actually Satan:

Given the interest so many people seem to have had in alleged prophecies about Barack Obama in the Bible, I am really astonished that the same individuals have been so slow to draw attention to the far clearer references in the Bible to another figure in modern politics. As any New Testament scholar can tell you, Palin is mentioned 141 times in the New Testament. Palin, you see, is the Greek word for "again." But the original meaning has not stopped people from making much of the alleged references to Barack Obama, and so presumably should not be allowed to stand in the way of finding (Sarah) Palin in there too.

Read on for the shocking truth!

Ed Brayton has some excellent entertainment news:

Matt Sigl sends a cease and desist letter to George Lucas, demanding that he stop making movies that destroy the legacy of his earlier work by sucking in the worst possible way.

It's about time someone took legal action.

Ed's also got a report on the stunning stupidity of the creationists who made a little film about their trip to the Galapagos in an ill-fated attempt to debunk Darwin. I'm not going to excerpt it. You must simply read it. But for entertainment of this caliber, you really must have a snack. Mrs. DoF has just the recipe. And before you stop at the fact it's called "puppy chow," just listen to Mr. DoF's description:

We also have something called “puppy-chow”, which she makes from Ghiradelli chocolate and natural peanut butter, simmered on a double-boiler before being rolled together with Crispix cereal.

You know you want to scroll down the comments in that post for the recipe. Go on and do it. Make yourself a nice batch, settle in, and enjoy the bounty.

Sunday Sensational Science

2009-11-29T05:58:00.000-08:00

Getting Acquainted with Agassiz
Parte the Second: The Ice Man Cometh

In Parte the First, I introduced you to Louis Agassiz, who dominated my hometown by way of the peak named after him. We explored the odd fascinating fact, and I promised you much, much more.

In this edition, we shall discuss his illustrious career, and some of the details that made me fall in love with the man. Grab your ice axe and follow me after the jump, where we'll go cover the earth in ice with Agassiz.

Agassiz was a protege of Alexander von Humboldt, whom you may know through such things as the Humboldt Current. If you're really current with your science history, you also know that von Humboldt provided the foundation for biogeography. No small intellect, there. This was the pattern of Louis's life: he surrounded himself with brilliant people.

He worked in Paris for Georges Cuvier, one of those men whose name comes up time and again when you're discussing such things as comparative anatomy and paleontology. Well his name should - he was instrumental in establishing those fields. You might think Louis Agassiz would be overshadowed by such giants, but no. By the ripe old age of twenty-nine, he'd already made a reputation for himself as a paleontologist. If he'd done nothing more with himself, his place in history would be secure just on the basis of that.

But then he discovered the ice ages.

We take it for granted now. Of course the earth was icy. We know that a good portion of it was covered in vast continental glaciers because we have films like Ice Age to tell us so. Back in the 1800s, they didn't have Ice Age. They didn't even have an Ice Age. They had some mountain glaciers, and they had erratic boulders.

Agassiz wasn't thinking erratic boulders when he moved down the street from Jean de Charpentier. He was after fish in Lake Neuchâtel. The only care he had for boulders was whether or not they contained fossil fish. But there he was, living right near Charpentier, whose traumatic experience with a faulty ice dam had led him to investigate such things as glaciers and erratics and eventually had him publishing "Notice sur la Cause Probable du Transport des Blocs Erratiques de la Suisse." (That's "Note on the Probable Cause of the Transport of the Erratic Boulders of Switzerland," more or less, for those who don't parlez français.) Charpentier shared his ideas that huge sheets of ice had moved those out-of-place boulders around with Agassiz.

Louis Agassiz, father of the ice age, thought Charpentier's theory of the ice was absolutely absurd. Whole districts covered in ice? Enormous glaciers chauffeuring boulders around? Really, Jean? Louis laughed as roundly as all of Charpentier's other critics, of which there was no shortage.

So Charpentier took him walkies, and showed him a few things in the Valley of the Upper Rhone. Best thing to do, really. Evidence that ice had altered the valley was undeniable, and that evidence was everywhere in the Swiss countryside. Charpentier and Agassiz saw grooved and polished rock where glaciers had scraped over with their sandpaper undersides. They found moraines in places where the ice had long ago melted away. Rounded boulders were set down where no flood could have carried them.

Agassiz found the same evidence in a variety of places, enough to cause a wild leap of imagination. When he put all the evidence together, he saw sheets of ice thousands of feet thick stretching from Ireland to Russia. The skeptic became a firm believer. When the Helvetic Society met in Neuchâtel that summer of 1837, president-elect Louis Agassiz surprised the gathered scientists by neglecting fishes for freezes. He laid out his evidence and chronology of the glaciers. Earth had, he announced, experienced an Epoque Glaciaire. He'd discovered the Ice Age.

The assorted scientists listened to him lay out his case, and then gave their verdict. Von Buch threw up his hands in disgust and dismay. Von Humboldt told him to go back to his fishes. "Your ice frightens me."

Agassiz didn't take von Humboldt's earnest advice. Ice didn't frighten him. Much the contrary. "Since I saw the glaciers I am quite of a snowy humor, and will have the whole surface of the earth covered with ice, and the whole prior creation dead by cold," he wrote to an English geologist. "In fact I am quite satisfied that ice must be taken in every complete explanation of the last changes which occurred at the surface of Europe." He chased the ice all over Europe, finding its traces in moraines on the plains of France. Swedish boulders had emigrated to Germany. If you knew what to look for, signs of the Ice Age were inescapable.

But it wasn't enough for Agassiz. He traipsed every glacier he could find: by the Matterhorn, under the Eiger and the Jungfrau; he ambled up the Aar Glacier and discovered a message in a bottle in a cabin on the ice. It told him that the monk who'd built the cabin in 1827 had returned after an absence of nine years, only to find the glacier had taken it upon itself to move his domicile two thousand feet down the mountain.

Agassiz and his colleagues measured the movement of the ice by driving a row of stakes straight across the glacier. The glacier curved them. Thus, Agassiz and company discovered that glacier ice flows like a very slow river, complete with more rapid flow in the center and around the outside of bends.

Von Humboldt's fear still didn't rub off on Agassiz. When he came across a meltwater stream pouring into a deep hole in the glacier ice, he decided to have it diverted so he could have a look inside. Sturdy men lowered him from a sturdy tripod; he didn't hit water for 20 fathoms. He shouted for them to bring him up: they mistook his meaning and sent him underwater instead, before they realized what he'd actually been requesting. Dripping and spluttering, he was hauled up past stalactites of ice so large that one falling would have killed him. Colder and wiser, he said of the experience, "Unless induced by some powerful scientific motive, I should not advise anyone to follow my example."

Indeed.

Mountain climbers conquer peaks to be the first to the top, to prove themselves against the wilderness, for the joy of the challenge. Agassiz conquered previously unsummited peaks just so that he could see the valley ice in its regional perspective. This was, after all, an age in which one couldn't scrounge up some funding for an afternoon's worth of helicopter ride, or pull up Google Earth. Induced by some powerful scientific motive, one did what one had to.

He headed down the mountains and scoured England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales for signs of ancient glaciers. Everywhere he looked, he found them. "The surface of Europe, adorned before by tropical vegetation and inhabited by troops of large elephants, enormous hippopotami, and gigantic carnivor, was suddenly buried under a vast mantle of ice, covering alike plains, lakes, seas, and plateaus," he wrote in his 1840 Etudes sur les Glaciers. (That's Studies on the Glaciers, for those of you who don't parlez français). Agassiz waxed poetic: "Upon the life and movement of a powerful creation fell the silence of death. Springs paused, rivers ceased to flow, the rays of the sun, rising upon this frozen shore (if, indeed, it was reached by them), were met only by the breath of the winter from the north and the thunders of the crevasses as they opened across the surface of this icy sea."

That poetic language didn't win over doubting scientists. Christian Leopold von Buch, celebrated geologist, paleontologist, and author of the first geological map of Germany, who'd won a reputation for his studies of volcanism, seems to have gone so far as to remove Agassiz's name from consideration for a professor's chair at the University of Berlin. Sir Roderick Murchison, who had described and named the Silurian system and was thus considered a Big Name, got downright feisty over the matter, warning he was prepared to "make fight." He at least made trouble, disparaging the very idea of glacial ice sheets before the Geological Society of London. And Agassiz's old friend mentor von Humboldt stood fast in his opposition. All that evidence Agassiz was trotting back with, he believe, was nothing but merely local stuff.

Everyone, it seemed, was a critic. Until the day Agassiz got a letter from a friend. "Lyell has adopted your theory in toto!!!" the letter said. "On my showing him a beautiful cluster of moraines, within two miles of his father's house, he instantly accepted it, as solving a host of difficulties that have all his life embarrassed him."

You might ask what warranted no less than three exclamation points, and whether such effusive punctuation was necessary. Geologists, however, know that no fewer were justifiable, and indeed, a case could be made for up to five. Charles Lyell was the geologist of the time, whose Principles of Geology rather set the foundation for a whole new view of geology and made sense of the previously insensible. Think of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking endorsing a new theory of physics, and you have an idea of what Lyell's effusive praise meant. Perhaps three exclamation points were a bit on the restrained side, then.

And Lyell wasn't the only giant of science who got swept up by Agassiz's glaciers. Charles Darwin hastened himself into the English countryside to see for himself if there were "marks left by extinct glaciers." A letter to a friend soon followed: "I assure you, an extinct volcano could hardly leave more evident traces of its activity and vast powers.... The valley about here and the site of the inn at which I am now sitting must once have been covered by at least eight hundred or a thousand feet in thickness of solid ice. Eleven years ago I spent a whole day in the valley where yesterday everything but the ice of glaciers was palpably clear to me, and then I say nothing but plain water and bare rock."

Agassiz had given scientists a new vision. In retrospect, it seemed, he'd been pointing out the obvious, but before him, few had had the eyes to see, and no one had made the case with quite as much passion and literary force, backed by such hard evidence. He did for continental glaciation what Darwin did for the origin of species, and it is, therefore, a tad bit ironic that Darwin's equally powerful case for evolution never swayed Agassiz. But that's a tale for another Sunday Sensational Science.

Eventually, as inexorably as glaciers moved monks' cabins down mountainsides, Agassiz's theory of the Ice Age won over his critics. In an 1862 address to the very Geological Society of London where Murchison had bashed Agassiz a scant couple of decades before, he now proclaimed his support. He sent a copy of his address to Agassiz with a thoughtful little note: "I have had the sincerest pleasure in avowing that I was wrong in opposing as I did your grand and original idea of my native mountains. Yes! I am now convinced that glaciers did descend from the mountains to the plains as they do now in Greenland."

Agassiz got Murchison's kind note in America, where he'd relocated in 1846, there to found Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology and proclaimed the ice ages to the masses. Imagine, if you will, this foreign scientist with his Swiss accent captivating American students with his stories of the ice. He painted Boston covered by the glacier that deposited Cape Cod. He covered Bridgeport with another glacier, which left Long Island behind. When the ice retreated from Concord, it left behind Thoreau's Walden Pond. Americans were enchanted by the ice.

Imagine, if you will, Agassiz paddling Lake Superior in a bark canoe, discovering features along its shores that wouldn't have been out of place in Neuchâtel. The Hudson Highlands might as well have been the highlands of the Rhine. America enchanted Agassiz as much as he'd enchanted America. "The erratic phenomena and the traces of glaciers... everywhere cover the surface of the country. Polished rocks, as distinct as possible; moraines continuous over large spaces; stratified drift, as on the borders of the glacier of Grindewald," he exulted. Describing the Connecticut Valley, he wrote, "The erratic phenomena are also very marked in this region; polished rocks everywhere, magnificent furrows on the sandstone and on the basalt, and parallel moraines defining themselves like ramparts upon the plain.... What a country is this! .... I have had the pleasure of converting already several of the most distinguished American geologists to my way of thinking."

If he spoke in the language of evangelical religion, one can perhaps forgive him. He was so passionate about the science of glaciers, so excited by their traces around him, and so swept up by geology as a whole that he'd teach geology to stagecoach drivers. He believed that anyone could understand the nature of the earth, if only they were given a chance and a little assistance. And he worked miracles. He got Americans to pay him for his lectures on geology. That American men and women wanted to hear scientific lectures wasn't the miracle: the fact they paid to hear them in French was. Agassiz could speak English fairly fluently, but not fluently enough to do his glaciers justice. Nothing for it but to deliver his lectures in his native language, and such was his power of presentation that Americans gladly shelled out for the privilege. Of course they would. It didn't matter what language he was speaking in: geology moved him to tears, and that force of emotion left no one unmoved.

It probably didn't hurt that he'd often conduct his conversations with his Saturday Club with lit cigars in each hand. You couldn't help but share his excitement.

Charles Darwin once told Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, "What a set of men you have in Cambridge. Both our universities put together cannot furnish the like. Why, there is Agassiz - he counts for three."

That he did.

Sources:

John McPhee, Annals of the Former World

Steven J. Gould, Time's Arrow Time's Cycle

As always, click on the illustrations for links to their sources. I found easter eggs aplenty this time round - if you have the time, go explore. And join me here Sunday after next, when we shall continue our odyssey with Agassiz in Parte the Third, wherein I explain how such a brilliant scientist, beloved even of Charles Darwin, could be a bleedin' creationist and still hang on to his science cred.

Companion to Rib Eating Cat

2009-11-29T03:24:00.000-08:00

Can't have barbecue ribs without the corn on the cob, right?

You Know the Routine

2009-11-29T01:10:00.000-08:00

It's Dana's weekend, which means she's buggered out to write and left you lot in charge of the cantina. She'll pop back in for Sunday Sensational Science (probably), and perhaps a post or two if things get unignorably outrageous in the world o' pollyticks.

Otherwise, you know where the alcohol is, and you know where the glasses are. Bottoms up, my darlings! I'll see you on Tuesday.

Our Captain Be Missing in Action

2009-11-28T04:24:00.000-08:00

(Postdated to leave no crew members behind. New content be below)

As ye know, our Captain Stephanie just went through surgery. I haven't heard if she be up for helmin' the ship, so we be awaiting word. Raise a tankard to her health, me hearties!

We'll stay in port an extra week, and if Captain Stephanie be ready t' take the helm then, it be hers. If not, yer admiral will step up t' the wheel. We be castin' off on the weekend o' December 5th. Get yer submissions in to elitistbastardscarnival@gmail.com no later than Friday the 4th.

Ye've got extra time, so I expect yer very best elitist bastardry!

At Least One of You Will Laugh

2009-11-28T03:20:00.000-08:00

Do I need to add anything? No? Didn't think so.