November 2006 Archives

The erudite, snide (in the best sense of the word) and let's face it verbose, trickster Michael Berube brings us this touching bit of Americana.

Just listen to this clip in which our fellow Americans express their opinions on the danger that "Barack Obama" poses to us all.

Berube, as usual, has the right take on this:

There is no hope, people, and that is why I urge you to join the We Are All Giant Nuclear Fireball Now Party. Only the WAAGNFNP has an adequate understanding of our historical moment -- and of the threat Obama poses.

Truly, I believe, there is no hope other than to join the party

It has come to this. Not putting one's hand on the judeo-christian myth book when being sworn into office "undermines American civilization".

From conservative nutjob Dennis Prager:

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Just imagine if these days an athiest was elected and tried to "affirm" as in the constitutionally required:

I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

… or even, object to the "So help me God" part.

They would try to run him/her out on a rail …

UPDATE 11/30/06: Prager is even more of a gasbag. Via ThinkProgress:

… the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book. The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony.

This story forwarded from my friend Mark in Wonder Valley:

Truthdig - Reports - Marie Cocco: The USDA’s Awkward Timing

It hasn’t the zesty political punch of that Reagan-era effort to turn ketchup into a vegetable. But really, could there be a more unfortunate time for the Agriculture Department to banish the word “hunger” from its description of people who are, well, hungry?

Just a week before most of America sits down for that excessive meal we call the Thanksgiving feast (second- and third-day snacking while watching football is optional) came a new definition for the millions among us who are more likely to turn up at a food pantry than at a well-set dining table. They are now to be known as people with “very low food security.’’ They were previously known as “food insecure, with hunger.’’ Those who had some, but not much, more to eat were known as “food insecure, without hunger.’’ Now they’re just suffering from “low food security.’’

From the respected Southern Poverty Law Center, documentation of active hate groups in the US.

Click on the link, then click on your state, and then remember where you live.

From the NYT Nuclear Deal With India Wins Senate Backing:

The Senate gave overwhelming approval late Thursday to President Bush’s deal for nuclear cooperation with India, a vote expressing that a goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials.

By a vote of 85 to 12, senators agreed to a program that would allow the United States to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.The agreement, negotiated by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India in March, calls for the United States to end a long moratorium on sales of nuclear fuel and reactor components. For its part, India would divide its reactor facilities into civilian and military nuclear programs, with civilian facilities open to international inspections.

Critics have been unwavering in arguing that the pact would rally nations like North Korea and Iran to press ahead with nuclear weapons programs despite international complaints and threats. Opponents of the measure also warned that the deal would allow India to build more bombs with its limited stockpile of radioactive material, and could spur a regional nuclear arms race with Pakistan and China.

Doesn't look like the Dems are going to put up much of a fight.

Appalling.

From today’s fascinating Pharyngula article, The eye as a contingent, diverse, complex product of evolutionary processes:

… the clumsy organization of the eye clearly indicates that it is the product of an evolutionary process rather than of any kind of intelligent design.

…

What we find in molecular biology is flexibility and modularity, attributes that lend themselves well to combinatorial changes that can easily increase complexity—a complexity that is a hallmark of unguided evolutionary change, not design.

Today On American Public Media's radio show Weekend America, I heard a segment about how opinions are expressed and suppressed in Twentynine Palms, CA, home of the country's largest Marine base, and not incidentally the town nearest to the home, where as often as possible I live, and where my heart resides.

If you listen to the segment you will hear how even though one of the many reasons put forward for the war is to bring freedom to the people of Iraq, in 29 it is not easy to make one’s views, if they are contrary to the war, known.

At the end of the piece newly elected mayor, Kevin Cole, says "you have a right to say what you want to say; that's what America's about ... That doesn't necessarily mean we want to hear what you have to say".

Lieberman: Call me a Democrat

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who won re-election as an independent, has a message for his Senate colleagues in the next Congress: Call me a Democrat.

The three-term Connecticut lawmaker defied party leaders when he launched his independent bid after losing to Democrat Ned Lamont in the August primary.

So he loses the Democratic primary, foils the attempt of the real Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, to win the election, and now Joe is going to be a Democrat again, retaining his seniority.

That stinks.

P.S. When I heard that Rumsfeld had "resigned" on Wednesday morning, I thought that it might be possible that Bush would appoint him Secretary of Defense, allowing the governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his place, thus keeping the Dems from having a majority in the Senate. Didn't happen, but it was not outside their diabolical ways.

I took this web quiz (h/t Pharyngula), and interestingly it pegged me correctly, as I was born in Detroit, although I moved to California when I about six. My parents grew up in Detroit so I guess the influence stuck. Over the years people still occasionally ask me if I come from the mid-west or Chicago …

I do not however "call carbonated drinks 'pop'". Perish the thought!

How about you?

From Think Progress:

The Natural Resources Council of Maine this week released "one of the most complete depictions ever done of the potential impacts on Maine's coastline from rising sea levels due to global warming."

Using the latest available science, NRC's analysis shows that coastal businesses, homes, wildlife habitat, transportation systems, and some of the state's most treasured places are highly vulnerable to sea-level rise.

One "treasured place" in extreme risk is the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport (noted by the yellow arrow below). The area in orange shows land that will be submerged by a sea level rise of 6 feet; the area in red will be underwater after a rise of just 3 feet.

A little enlightened self-interest Bushie?

From APOD:
(click on image for a bigger view)

What's that pale blue dot in this image taken from Saturn? Earth. The robotic Cassini spacecraft looked back toward its old home world earlier this month as it orbited Saturn. Using Saturn itself to block the bright Sun, Cassini imaged a faint dot on the right of the above photograph. That dot is expanded on the image inset, where a slight elongation in the direction of Earth's Moon is visible. Vast water oceans make Earth's reflection of sunlight somewhat blue. Earth is home to over six billion humans …

Actually I’m overjoyed, ecstatic, etc., etc., …

But I think that an article in the Onion puts the whole think into the right perspective:

WASHINGTON, DC—After months of aggressive campaigning and with nearly 99 percent of ballots counted, politicians were the big winners in Tuesday's midterm election, taking all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, retaining a majority with 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate, and pushing political candidates to victory in each of the 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs.

…

Despite fears that the dozens of campaign-finance violations, soft-money misappropriations, infidelity charges, hidden drunk-driving records, and protracted congressional cover-ups leaked just days before the election would hurt their chances, politicians were still elected over non-politicians in every single race.
…

Some voters, however, such as Arkansas native Patrick Bunter, who first voted for a politician—Harry Truman—in 1948, are calling this latest victory "politics as usual."

"Over the years, I grew disappointed with the job the politicians were doing, yet I kept on voting for them out of loyalty," Bunter said. "This time around, I swore I'd go with someone else, but frankly, looking at the ballot, I didn't see any other choice."

In the October issue of Harper's, an excerpt of George McGovern and William R. Polk's new book, Out Of Iraq was published as a blueprint for leaving Iraq now:

Staying in Iraq not an option. Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian "strategists'' and other "hawks'' but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq. We must acknowledge the Iraqis' right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so.

We suggest that phased withdrawal should begin on or before December 31, 2006, with the promise to make every effort to complete it by June 30, 2007. Withdrawal is not only a political imperative but a strategic requirement. As many retired American military officers now admit, Iraq has become, since the invasion, the primary recruiting and training ground for terrorists. The longer American troops remain in Iraq, the more recruits will flood the ranks of those who oppose America not only in Iraq but elsewhere.

Withdrawal will not be without financial costs, which are unavoidable and will have to be paid sooner or later. But the decision to withdraw at least does not call for additional expenditures. On the contrary, it will effect massive savings. Current U.S. expenditures run at approximately $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour, with costs rising steadily each year. Although its figures do not include all
expenditures, the Congressional Research Service listed direct costs at $77.3 billion in 2004, $87.3 billion in 2005, and $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006. Even if troop withdrawals begin this year, total costs (including those in Afghanistan) are thought likely to rise by $371 billion during the withdrawal period. Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of commerce, have estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost us at least $1 trillion.

Let us be clear: there will be some damage. This is inevitable no matter what we do. At the end of every insurgency we have studied, there was a certain amount of chaos as the participants sought to establish a new civic order. This predictable turmoil has given rise to the argument, still being put forward by die-hard hawks, that Americans must, in President Bush's phrase, "stay the course.'' The argument is false. When a driver is on the wrong road and headed for an abyss, it is a bad idea to "stay the course.'' A nation afflicted with a failing and costly policy is not well served by those calling for more of the same, and it is a poor idea to think that we can accomplish in the future what we are failing to accomplish in the present. We are as powerless to prevent the turmoil that will ensue when we withdraw as we have been to stop the insurgency. But we will have removed a major cause of the insurgency once we have withdrawn. Moreover, there are ways in which we can be helpful to the Iraqis--and protect our own interests--by ameliorating the underlying conditions and smoothing the edges of conflict. The first of these would be a "bridging'' effort between the occupation and complete independence.

This article is the most substantiative and honest assessment that I have read as to how we can extricate ourselves from the catastrophe that Bush an all the others who are responsible for this tragedy have trapped us in. It goes on to propose concrete and practical steps that would change our course and attempt to correct the damage that we have done, in ways that would ultimately cost less than that estimated $1 trillion that "staying the course" would cost.

On this Election Day, one wonders: where are the politicians who should be standing up and advocating such an honest and practical plan?

(Click on the picture for a larger version)

I guess the military would know ...

From the NYT’s Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 - A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting. The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an “Index of Civil Conflict.“� It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.

In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy’s fighting strength and the control of territory.

Of course Dick Cheney said on October 17th:

If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.

Who you gonna believe ? The facts or your lying eyes?