Accent

What's your accent?








I grew up about 100 miles from Boston, and both my parents grew up in MA. What a wicked awesome quiz!!

Sidenotes for historians

Atrios says:

When the history of this era is written, I hope it is remembered that the President of the United States created a deck of cards with "bad guys" on it. The media, rather than seeing this is a bizarre and infantile thing, thought it was wonderful.

I guess that is a little bizarre in retrospect. But is it more bizarre than Republican congressmen painting their fingers purple for a state-of-the-union speech? More than renaming a cafeteria food to "Freedom Fries"? Infantile is a good adjective. It should get more use in politics.

These remind me of another annecdote that I suspect is forgotten by many. Back when we first invaded Afghanistan, the president asked that all US children donate a dollar to help out Afghani children. It harkened back to the compassionate conservative theme of the 2000 election and was also supposed to help children learn responsibility. I was actually supportive of the initiative at the time. It was cute, harmless, and helpful.

And then the president launched a second war while pushing for a 2nd round of tax cuts, blowing away the surplus of the 1990's, and increasing deficits to record amounts. Congress fattened up on earmarks while while Republicans increased the size of government more than any president back to LBJ. All the while we borrowed money from the Chinese (as we continue to). I'm confident historians will record how Bush sold future generations into debt so he could have an elective war while suspending the estate tax. But when it comes to passing the bill onto future generations, I really hope they include the part where he started by asking for a dollar.

Vengeance, Ledyard football, and other junk

So I'm back early from Thanksgiving with the family so I can take care of my other pets, the mouse stem cells. It ain't easily having 20 million little mouths to feed. The holiday was wonderful, despite some sadness in the wedding planning department (a nice venue was not nice enough and got the axe). While home I managed to check out the local paper "The Day" which is a really great paper in a number of respects. (One downside is links are only good for 8 days at The Day, so if you want to check these stories out, browse at the above link soon. I'm not going to bother permalinking.)

Two stories jumped out from the front page, due to their common theme of revenge. In one, Shias have started burning Sunnis alive. Death squads are dousing people with kerosene and incinerating them. That's a bad way to go (debate later whether that's worse than being tortured and killed by power drills) . In another article, a former KGB agent and Russian dissenter has accused Putin from his deathbed. The man was looking into the suspicious death of another Russian critic when he came down with a rare case of radioactive polonium-210 poisoning. Hairless, weak, and suffering from multiple organ failure (ie another bad way to go) he dennounced the Russian president Vladimir Putin who had this to say:

A death of a man is always a tragedy and I deplore this. it's extremely regrettable that such a tragic event as death is being used for political provocation.

Another non-denial denial? Somebody's sending a pretty clear message. It's somebody with better access to rare chemical reagents than I have...and mine's pretty good. Barring some official at the KGB (or whatever it's successor is called) taking care of this without Putin's knowledge (ie plausible deniability), I worry about the convergence of motive and capability.

Recently Bill Maher came out against the 22nd ammendment (that prevents presidents from running 3x). When I see tryanny like this, I'm glad we have it.

In other news: on top of people killing each other in new nasty ways, Iraq's gone to hell and Lebanon may soon follow. Happy Thanksgiving from the big Lanky Black Cloud of Bad News!

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

In local hometown blogging, Mignault is still in charge of Ledyard football, and they're going to the playoffs this year. Unfortunately, their loss to Fitch this weekend cost them 2 starters to injury and has them playing the top seed in class M. I wish the 2 players a speedy and full recovery. Go Colonels!

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

And in personal blogging, I'd like to point out how much I hate travelling with a suitcase in Philly. Worse, I'd brought a pillow. Nothing says "easy target" like a guy carrying a pillow. I had to come back Saturday night for lab work. My train dropped me off at 9:20PM and I began the walk to UPenn. Now this isn't ordinarily a bad walk (not compared to the route from Penn to my house), but I've been avoiding the subway since a shooting incident, and I was going to walk the 6 blocks. So I'm walking down Market street, which has just enough traffic to make it "safe", and I pass this guy idly sitting on a rail under an overpass. A sketchy fucker hanging out alone under a dark overpass, but whatever, no biggie. Then, after I passed, the guy decided to get up, cross the street, and began following me some distance behind. Alarms go off. Ordinarily this would not be a big deal, he was a ways back, I was aware of him, and I was wearing sneakers. However, trailing a suitcase limits my mobility and makes me a target, so now I'm concerned. 2 blocks down Market, still following, still concerned. I'd planned to cut across Drexel and Penn to get to lab, which would have meant crossing to his side of the street, and treking through some secluded areas (which are usually safer due to campus police...unless you're followed in). Long story short, I felt stalked and vulnerable. After 5 years my urban survival skills are instinctive enough that I trust them. So I took a cab for 4 blocks. I'll be second-guessing that all night, but I'm pretty confident I made the right decision.

Then I get to lab, and this state-of-the-art 1990's reasearch building has had another water-damage incident (you could see missing ceiling tiles and splotches on the floor). A sign says the elevator's down (presumably from the water damage) so I had to carry the suitcase up 4 flights of stairs. I'm leaving the suitcase here tonight.

Richard Cohen - Twice reformed war cheerleader

I'm going to stick with my previous assessment of war cheerleaders.

Yesterday the WaPo columnist Richard Cohen chimed in.

It's a very moving tale of Cohen's four different personalities who were alternately wrong and right about Vietnam and Iraq. Aside from the megalomania of a columnist talking about four people, all them himself, my primary observation is this: Way to go shithead, you're 0 for 2. Hilzoy thinks the guy should resign. I think he should just be more straightforward with an "I was wrong". Ok, given his track record: "I was wrong twice, and probably will be again."

Back when I wrote this:

Converts, I'm happy to welcome you to reality (happier than you'll be when you finally see it), but I want you to remember something. The reason I'm not interested in your revelations is because inside, at the core of your being, you're still the same ditzy cheerleader you were last week, month, or year. People like you brought this clusterfuck to pass, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I don't expect you to have the grace to shut-up, but at least put away the megaphone. You're embarrassing.

Cohen's who I was talking about: the same ditzy cheerleader who fell for the same thing twice. He's still got a megaphone. Someday he'll use it to be wrong a third time.

Light posting

Light posting. On day 1 I claimed I blog for therapy, and I still think it might be true. I know most of my readers (both of you) will miss me if I lose the will entirely, but we can keep in touch via e-mail.

Of course we can probably count on me blogging through 2008. Politically, I still need the therapy. Up next another hawk comes clean.

Post Election Stuff

More commemmorative than anything else. After elections everyone tries to spin what it means into what they believe and want anyway.

Oh so close:
In such a close election everyone second guesses every little thing. There's a "for want of a nail post" looking at Conrad Burn's insult to firefighters. A "butterfly effect" post revolving around Macaca. The Demagogue sends an amusing list of liberal thank-yous for various Conservative mistakes, including the Rush Limbaugh's mockery of Michael J Fox's terminal disease, which in addition to being contemptable, bought McKaskill free air time. Somewhere there was a post on how Kerry's stupid troop comment didn't break the Democrats, despite the dangerous timing and immense stupidity. On the flip side, if it removes Kerry from the presidential campaign pool I think that will benefit Democrats in the end.

To all of these I will add the sordid case of Michael Scanlon, one of Tom Delay's aides who is pretty much responsible for not only Delay's political death, but also a lot of the corruption theme. Scanlon was engaged to a pretty young Republican staffer, Ms. Emily Miller(this one). Anyway, if you're into dirty things (ie criminal) it's a really bad idea to cheat on your partner (with a manicurist - what a delightfully irrelevant detail!) because your fiancee might rat you out to the Feds.. Later, while you play stoolie and jailbird, others will give you credit for the premature implosion of the party and everything you've ever worked for. But not exclusive credit, there's so much to share.

A simple truth:
Kevin Drum captures 90% of it here.

But I want to add one more thing so simple-minded that I'm almost embarrassed to mention it. Here it is: if you pursue popular policies, you win. If you pursue unpopular policies, you lose. Ideology is secondary.

In George Bush's first term, Republicans passed tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, campaign finance reform, Sarbanes-Oxley, a Medicare prescription drug plan, went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, and appointed a bunch of conservative judges. Liberals may not have liked all of this stuff, but all of it polled pretty well. They were popular policies.

In Bush's second term, Republicans pursued Social Security privatization, made a spectacle over Terri Schiavo, and fiddled while New Orleans drowned. In addition, they passed a bankruptcy bill and an energy bill that didn't win them any points with rank-and-file voters, fought over immigration legislation, refused to expand stem cell funding, and wouldn't even allow a vote on widely supported measures like a minimum wage increase. This did not exactly reflect the popular will.

Of course being a huge fuck-up and damaging the country doesn't help either.

The next Congress:
Here's my 2 cents on the next Congress. The Republicans not only went with the same A-holes who were in leadership when they lost (minus Hastert), they brought back Trent Lott from political exile. Lat's hope for their sake the electorate is as fond of 2nd chances as the leaders are.

Thankfully, the Dems avoided the lightning rod of Jack Murtha and picked a leader I'd never heard of (that's how I like Congress: quiet and undistinguished). That, coupled with the recent political diminishings of John Kerry and James Carville, brings hope of a Democratic Party that can tell it's head from it's ass.

And a follow-up...
Q: How glad are Republicans that they never invoked the nuclear option in the senate? (btw Lee predicted a Senate swing over a year ago - that's an impressive call 5 months after Bush's re-election)
A: Not as glad as they may be in 2008 if they get spanked again and (maybe if I say it, it won't happen) Hillary Clinton's Democratic Congress is putting people in power.

Offending the politically correct

The president of the University of Pennsylvania is catching flack for posing for a Halloween photo with a student dressed as a suicide bomber. In addition to the ruckus in The Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn's student paper), this has evidently made news elsewhere (including Israel).

Here's her apology.

OK fine, it's bad taste to wear a suicide bomber costume. Also, it's politically foolish for Gutmann to pose for a photo with one. Finally, I know people have high expectations that Ivy League Presidents be politically correct. But seriously people...last time I checked, Osama Bin Laden masks were a huge Halloween sale. So what makes it ok to be a guy responsible for thousands of deaths, but not a garden variety suicide bomber?

Here's another tip. The reason terrorism works is because we get our panties in a bunch over it (ie we get terrified). Are we really so afraid that a college student's costume stirs up this much trouble? Or is it just cultural sensitivity? Yes, I realize terrorists are a serious business, but if we had the stones to laugh at them we would steal half their thunder.

(I feel like I'm not getting something here. I must be a bad person or something.)

Funny business at NRO

Usually a title like that means they're trying something deceptive, but they've been a little off-kilter this week. It's to the point where Jonah Goldberg is actually amusing.

I think James Baker and Dick Cheney should take Bush out to the woods around Camp David. After 24 hours in a sweat lodge, he should be given only a loin cloth, a hunting knife and a canteen of water. Bush should then set out to track and kill a black bear, after which he should eat its still beating heart so he can absorb its spirit. He should then fly back to Washington in Marine 1. His torso still scratched from the bear's claws, his face bloodied and steaming in the November chill, he should immediately give a press conference at which he throws the bearskin on the front row of the press corps, completely enveloping Helen Thomas, declaring, "I'm not going anywhere."

I'd pay to watch him try. I'm convinced it would be safe enough since Bush is probably too inept to find a bear. But what I want to know, is how much of a Bush worshipper do you have to be actually believe Bush would win? Duh, smart money on the bear! Even if the bear is as lazy and stupid as Cheney's farm-raised quail, Bush's chances are roughly zero. That having been said, it is true that Cheney has put Bush up to some really stupid shit, but he doesn't need a sweat lodge to have irrational visions. He's practically spiritwalking already. Still Jonah's fantasy is impressive. That's how you get a job in conservative punditry- you gotta think outside the box, even at 6:49 AM.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." - Alice in Wonderland

Sooo, I have a fantasy too. Instead of Camp David, my version has Bush in Iraq. Instead of a loincloth and a knife, he gets standard infantry equipment. Instead of hunting bear, he's on a patrol outside the green zone. See: impossible thoughts are contagious.

Wow

I knew the Republicans had that coming, but I wasn't sure the country would deliver. That and the cynical side of me never underestimates Democrats potential to screw up. Still, after their performance yesterday, maybe I'll have to stop bashing on them...at least for a few months.

This new competency thing: it can only be good for the country. Everyone's going to have their own opinion on what this all means, and I'm sure I'll have more to say later, but I wanted to give a few thoughts off the top of my head.

First, I'm glad I got to vote in PA rather than NY. Not that my vote would put anyone over the top either way, but I was happy to make the choices I did.

Second, how much does it suck to be George Allen? Here's a guy with a presidential aspirations that can't even get elected to the Senate. And worse...it's because he screwed himself. And worse still, it's close enough to drag on and on through a lengthy recount, a continuing evaluation of whether or not he's truly a loser. He might be tempted to concede and save face, but he can't. The cosmic coincidence is that the Virginia seat determines control of the Senate. No matter the odds, the republicans have to try for it. So there will be no face-saving concession. Barring a miracle (or dirty play) Allen will be crowned a huge loser twice. Maybe more if it goes to litigation.

Third, how much does it rock to be Lieberman? Now I don't like Lieberman. I don't like his politcs, and I'm mad at myself that I've voted for him twice. But on the flip side, a one seat majority maximizes his personal power, and I recognize the political skill that put him there. I wouldn't blame him for a little vengeance. Still he's been around long enough that he's probably looking to stay. I think he's skilled enough that he won't go overboard burning bridges, I foresee a little retribution and a lot of horse-trading. Certainly both sides wil be looking to curry favor with him. (I still love the idea of Independent senators, even when I dislike the individuals.) My hometown in CT came out huge for Lieberman...but then they also went for Bush in 2004. Go figure.

Fourth, I love the idea of a wave (This map shows where it hit), but I have to say the design of Congress really sucks. The Founders' concept was that there should be massive changes and responsiveness in the House, and more stability in the Senate. Unfortunately, they didn't anticipate the bullshit gerrymandering of states into safe seats. So in this "huge wave of national discontentment", what do we get? A turnover of 29 (and maybe a little more) seats. Let's break that down: in a landslide victory we still only get about 7% turnover. Seriously, is that accountability? It's smaller than most corporate layoffs. I'm unhappy there's not real change. Ironically, we get more accounatbility in the Senate, since all those blue and red counties are averaged. If 5 of 33 senate seats flip that's a more respectable 15%. So most of the House is beholden only to their base (save a few unlucky moderates in swing districts who will be voted in and out routinely). whereas the Senate needs genuine bipartisan support (saved Lieberman's behind, didn't it?). What a wierd dynamic.

Fifth, GWB is putting on a good show of accountability. I wonder if somebody important in the party sat him down and explained how badly he's screwed the Republicans. More, I wonder who it is that has the authority to set him straight. He didn't want to let Rumsfeld go (and while it's fine to fire Rummy, I don't think any of the King's other men can put Humpty-Dumpty back together either) so I wonder what carrots or sticks were offered to convince him it had to be done. Has he finally embraced pragmatism? Is he afraid? Ashamed? I dunno. In the end Rumsfeld doesn't go because of any specific issues or mistakes in Iraq. He goes because Republicans lost elections here in the US. I guess that's what an accountability moment means.

Sixth, I wonder how GWB will work with the opposition. In many respects this could be good for him. He needs oversight and input into his bubble. Hopefully we'll have a better country for it. Accountability does wonders for reconciliation.

On the day he was sentenced to death, Saddm Hussien said this: "I call on all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, to forgive, reconcile and shake hands"

And today in the US, Bush said this: "The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner and work together to address the challenges facing our nation."

Cleaning house makes your house cleaner, go figure.

VOTE

Today, you're "The Decider"

Go on out and have yourself an accountability moment.

Gayness in the air

Ever since the Foley thing, everyone's been talking about the gay. This Haggard thing is even worse. Ordinarily I wouldn't kick someone when they're down, but I've decided to suspend all scruples today in pursuit of an object lesson. Haggard was the pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in the US and he's been doing meth and male prostitutes. Seriously dude, way to blow the lid off the notion that evangelicals are boring prudes! It's pretty uncool to do drugs though, lame to have to pay for sex, and legitimately sinful to break one's marriage vows. (the only upshot is at least he wasn't "coveting another's wife")

So the serious point I wanted to make was people always give Catholic priests shit for being gay. It's true there are a lot of gay priests, and without going into specifics let's just say that some clergy have other sexual issues. One proposed solution has been to allow Catholics to marry, which in some people's mind would fix that right up. Behold evidence it would not in the form of Haggard.

As a lesser point, I read James Wolcott's post on the Haggard thing, in which he's starts out talking about teabagging (this might be a good point to mention that this post may be NSFW), segues into his opinion that all republicans are gay (which simply can't be true), and concludes that he misses Will and Grace (which is practically coming out of the closet himself). Anyway in the course of Wolcott's irreverent diatribe, it crosses my mind that Haggard is married to the type of woman who marries an evangelical pastor. Now I know I'm making horrible assumptions, but I'm guessing between the 5 kids and the pastor-wife thing, maybe he can't get a decent BJ in his homelife, let alone a professional one. Now I rather imagine that Mr. Haggard is homosexual or fully bisexual, but part of me wonders whether ordinary sexual unfulfilledness played a role in his combination bender/bend-over. It sure seems like an act of desperation. I know I'm probably blaming the victim here, but I wonder whether his wife was just too prudish for him.

Speaking of the wife...I can't imagine how much it sucks for her to find out her husband has been doing hardcore drugs and cheating on her with a male prostitute, not to mention the family losing it's main source of income, and her husband being revealed as a hipocrite and a national embarassment. If you want to throw in the typical evangelical mindset, she probably thinks her spouse is destined for Hell too. The last thing she needs is random assholes on the internet making suppositions about their marriage and sex life. Hmmm. Ok, I feel a little bad now. But if there's even a chance that a healthier marriage could have prevented this, I think that would be a valuable lesson.

And then we have this discussion between Andrew Sullivan and NRO, in which NRO claims:

This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage.

Hmm. I don't see it myself. It's not like Haggard was looking to marry the man-whore. OTOH- it's closest evidence to date that there's any substance to that ridiculous argument. At least in this case it can be argued that a gay relationship (coupled of course with the Meth) casued marital issues. Nahh, I think that's still total BS.

And for those remaining "libertarian republicans" out there...get a load of this:

If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others.

NRO, that intellectual beacon of conservative thought, is now claiming that it's the government's responsibility to endorse or deny sexual behaviors. State's rights are dead and buried. Let me break this down: A married pastor hired a male prostitute to get high on meth with and screw. And NRO thinks the problem is the homosexuality?

Speaking of governments regulating sexuality, let's not forget to vote against Santorum tomorrow, right?

Momentous times

So this weekend I went to Punkin Chunkin! It was awesome seeing punkins hurled by catapults and shot out of cannons. Between defending my thesis and punkin chunkin this has been an awesome month!

Oh also, I got engaged. That was cool too.

So blogging has been light, mostly on account of it not being a priority. I'm a little sorry about that, especially since I've devoted so much time to politics and THE BIG DAY is coming up. I promise an update later on the Punkin Chunkin, kindly refer folks to the sidebar for politics, and probably won't blog at all about the engagement (hey, it's private). Best wishes to all!

-Lanky

PS: Go vote on Tuesday, even if it's to cast a write-in ballot for Oprah. Ordinarily I'd say "may the best man win", but on top of being a smidge sexist, it's also sadly unrepresentitive of actual politics. So, in my little cynical way, I'll offer this instead: "May the biggest asshole lose."