Radically Rational

This blog has moved

2010-09-03T16:08:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://radrational.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://radrational.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

This is huge ...

2009-03-11T14:00:00.002-07:00

From TG Daily:

Cambridge (MA) - MIT engineers have developed a type of high-speed tunnel for transporting electrical energy through lithium iron phosphate, a well-known battery material. The discovery may yield lithium ion batteries that fully discharge and recharge in seconds, rather than hours, making batteries lighter, more powerful, and finally suitable for the all-electric vehicle that can be recharged in the same amount of time it takes to refuel the tank today.

Places where my marriage is valued (or at least valid)

2008-10-10T10:47:00.001-07:00

Connecticut. Three down, 47 and a federal district to go.

"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

--MLK, 1968

Your Democratic congress at work

2008-07-09T16:50:00.002-07:00

So we have phenomenally unpopular lame duck president, and we have a legislature in which his party is in the minority. How much of a disgrace is it, then, that today's FISA bill headline from the AP starts with "Senate bows to Bush"?

So someone tell me, why are third parties are irrelevant in today's America?

I think Ann Coulter is secretly a liberal

2007-06-27T11:34:00.000-07:00

Either she's a liberal or she's really, really stupid.

I mean, seriously! Do you think she's ever actually swayed anyone to her side with her arguments who wasn't already solidly there? I think it's pretty obvious she doesn't believe half of what she says; she often seems to say things simply to gain publicity. But those same things are so out there they invariably galvanize the other side.

Conservatives don't want to be aligned too closely with her, and liberals use her as a fundraising and consciousness-raising tool. If she's not a total dumbfrak, she has to be a liberal.

Wow, how stupid are his followers ...

2006-11-03T15:04:00.000-07:00

Seriously, I mean, does Ted Haggard think there's anyone out there who actually believes this ... (from The New York Times)

"The Rev. Ted Haggard ... admitted today that he had purchased the illegal drug methamphetamine from a gay escort in Denver, but denied that he ever had sex with the man. ... Mr. Haggard said a Denver hotel referred him to Mr. Jones for the purpose of getting a massage. He said he met with Mr. Jones and bought the drug. "I was tempted, I bought it, but I did not use it," he said today. The station posted the video interview on its Web site.

He said he threw the drug out shortly after buying it. "I never kept it very long because it was wrong," he said.

I mean, really. Even if it were otherwise believable, it doesn't make logical sense. A Denver hotel referred him to a prostitute for a massage, so he bought drugs from the prostitute but didn't have sex with him. And he never took the drugs.

Next, he'll be blaming it on alcoholism or childhood sexual abuse. These repressed wingers never change.

John Kerry finally grows a set

2006-10-31T16:10:00.000-07:00

Seriously, why couldn't he have acted like this when he was running for president, instead of the gun-shy eunuch he was?

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq . It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq."

As a public service ...

2006-10-24T14:07:00.000-07:00

Holy crap, it's been a long time since I posted something! Sadly, I just didn't feel like i had anything new or interesting to contribute to discussions about the upcoming elections.

Fortunately, now I do. As a public service, allow me to present the following list of articles about Republican candidates in divers districts, states and such. I particularly love the JD Hayworth one. Happy reading!

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

FEMA

2006-04-27T08:19:00.000-07:00

So now we see the latest example of the conservative theory of governing. Since they think government can't do anything right, they create their own self-fulfilling prophecy by saddling it with incompetent leadership, slashing its budget to ribbons to give tax breaks to rich people and large corporations, and watching it wither away. The final step? Point to its uselessness and abolish it.

Along comes the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They give it Michael Brown, an incompetent boob who couldn't even run an Arabian horse organization properly. They cut its funding to the point where they can barely operate their offices, much less accomplish anything useful at the times when Americans most need their help.

So what happens now? They complain that it's a weak, ineffectual agency that needs to be abolished.

Nice.

How about fixing the problems you caused instead? Too much to hope for?

Straw men and false dichotomies

2006-02-01T08:32:00.000-07:00

So that's all I actually have to say about that speech last night.

The whole 'isolationist' thing is his biggest straw men yet, the latest in a long line. He can't conduct a real debate against real people making real points, so he has to make up an enemy that's easy to knock down. I mean, I haven't heard anyone say we should close off from the rest of the world. That would be stupid, to put it plainly.

But the choice isn't between closing off from the world and invading practically unarmed countries. The question isn't between exporting our jobs overseas and closing ourselves off from the world economy. The choice isn't between spying on normal American citizens and capitulating to terrorists. The choice isn't between doing everything Bush's way and dismantling our best institutions or hating America.

Ken Mehlman: Shameless shill or propagandist?

2006-01-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

Trick question. He's both, and more. Really, in today's RNC mail, he's excelled himself in ways I cannot describe, only quote.

Let's start with the first sentence. "The President's most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people."

Already, he's off to a flying start. What does the presidential oath of office have to say about protecting the American people? Abso-fraggin-lutely nothing direct. What it does say is that he swears to (say it with me now, anyone who's ever had a federal job of any sort), "protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (emphasis mine)."

And while protecting the American people might be implied by this and other oaths, affirmations, and powers delegated by the Constitution, it seems to me that his most solemn duty is right there spelled out very plainly.

"A critical element in this strategy is the terrorist surveillance program that the President authorized shortly after September 11th." And indeed, if they were only listening in on terrorists, that would indeed be a good thing.

"The terrorist surveillance program monitors al Qaeda terrorists and affiliates making phone calls into or from the United States - precisely the type of communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks. This is not 'domestic spying' on ordinary Americans arranging Little League practices or pot luck dinners. It's a tool that even FDR used in fighting World War II."

Hoo, boy. Where to begin? With the fact that they're monitoring domstic-to-domestic calls as well? With the fact that the 'communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks' was intercepted legally, well in advance, but not translated till several days afterward, rendering it useless (seems to me they need more translators, not more wire taps ... but then they fired all those gay ones ... but I digress)? With the Quakers in Florida, or the other war protesters, or the environmental groups? Sure, no Little Leaguers or pot luckers ... just peaceniks, civil libertarians and environmentalists. We all know PETA's just an al Qaeda front group.

Ah, hell.

(which means, if I may digress even further, "Continuous fire" in Minbari ... although any reference to a minbar is a sure way to get myself put on a watch list)

*cough*

Moving on. "After September 11th, we heard so often that our government failed to connect the dots. So, the President signed the Patriot Act, which had been passed overwhelmingly by Congress. He took appropriate action to connect the dots. He reformed the government bureaucracy, enabling it to fight a different kind of war."

Re-formed the government bureaucracy indeed. New redundant agencies. Homeland security funds allocated according to political exigencies rather than need. Politically-timed terror threat level manipulations. "Different kind of war ..." Goodness, we hear that a lot. How do you wage war on a concept? On a strategy? Have we rolled up al Qaeda yet? Have we diminished terrorism? Seems to me the 'different kind of war' we're involved in is a war on the American way of life, a war on civil liberties, a war on the American pocketbook. But war's always good for big business, whoever we're told to fight. And fear is good for war, whoever (or whatever) we're told to fear.

"Now, the Patriot Act is up for renewal. How do Democrats respond? They play politics, brag about "killing" the Patriot Act (video here), and accuse the President of breaking the law and violating civil rights. These are not the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard our national security."

Hrm. I'll leave that last point open to debate, except to point out that they are the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard the American way of life (which, by extension, I would assert, necessarily includes our national security).

Which part of the Constitution has to be gutted before Republicans and conservatives of good conscience wake up and realize these people aren't even acting like Americans, much less Republicans or conservatives? (oh, yeah, the second amendment; just you wait ...) How big does the budget deficit have to be to put a lie to the whole 'fiscal conservative' thing? How powerful does the executive branch have to be before they see the unconstitutional imbalance? How long till they start being Americans first and Republicans second?

And one last thing: If Bush keeps insisting that the UAMF gave him unilateral power to do what he sees fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' America, I'll keep comparing him to Hitler. It was, after all, Germany's Enabling Act that gave Hitler unilateral power to do what he saw fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' Germany from the Bolshevik threat.

I'm just sayin'. Act like an American, George, however much it hurts.

Ken Mehlman, RNCmail and the State of the Union

2006-01-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

In this week's RNCmail, your friend and mine, Ken Mehlman, exhorts the mindless Republican masses to party like it's 1482 on the night of the State of the Union to celebrate the triumph of Our Glorious Leader and Big Brother over the forces of tyrrany.

I, for one, see little about which to party. Our economy stinks; no one wants our treasury bills (which will have the long-term effect of raising interest rates and further collapsing our economy ... yay!); Iraq is a morass of mixed news, violence and uncertainty; the Democratic party is full of simpering "maybe" men (and women) rather than the righteous swords of justice it should be; the Bush administration asserts the justifiability and efficacy of torture (even though America was at the forefront of pushing for its banishment from the world just two or three generations ago); and they're tapping our phone calls and reading our mail (no, not just the terrorists -- dissident groups and peaceniks, too).

Details are at gop.com, if you feel like hosting a guerrilla house party. Not that I would encourage such a thing.

A headline from today's Google News

2006-01-12T09:55:00.000-07:00

Noted (almost) without comment:

Bush says US eavesdropping program "good for democracy" (Khaleej Times)

The irony clearly escapes him. Too stupid? Too clueless?

Jon Snow on the eavesdropping thing

2005-12-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

One of the highlights of my day is receiving the latest Snowmail. Jon Snow is a presenter for Channel 4 News in Britain, and he sends out a daily news update around midday (well, it's evening in Britain, but midday here). There's always a little commentary, but mostly it's a quick headline grab.

I love it for how quickly he sums up the news and throws a common-sense take into it. Essential for those days when I skip reading the newspaper and/or can't follow the news all day.

An item in today's Snowmail summed up Bush's defense of eavesdropping quite simply. It's good to take a step back and look at this rationally from an outsider's perspective (outside the US, at least), absent the rationalizations of the kneejerk defend-Bush crowd. And I quote:

Bush defends the listeners
=============================================
George Bush is in an ever deepening mire about tapping people's phones without permission.

It's a long and sordid tradition that US presidents tap themselves - remember Nixon?

But tapping others? An American's home is his castle as are the wires running in and out of it, people don't like it - can Bush recover?

Amazing to think that his second term is not even 12 months old and it has come to this.

'Nuff said.

Addendum

2005-12-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

Oh, and by the way.

I've been keeping two blogs going for a long time, basically simulposting almost everything between the two (though I think the posts, etc., relating to He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named all got stuck on livejournal so as not to clutter up the self-hosted one). But I think it makes more sense (particularly since there is at least one political blog list that pulls the RSS feed for the slywiz.com blog ... there's also one on livejournal, but I have to pick one or the other here) to split them out and maintain them separately.

So henceforth, the personal and band stuff will stay on my livejournal page (www.livejournal.com/~celtichris) and political and social commentary will go to the slywiz.com one (www.slywiz.com/celtichris/celtichris.html). And I'm not using my myspace blog for anything at all. I may occasionally cross-post between livejournal and slywiz.com. Occasionally.

But this should keep the people wot want to read my political rantings from having to deal with my day-to-day life, and keep my friends from having to slog through pages and pages of boring politics stuff (their loss, I say, but ... enh, I understand). But if, by chance, you're interested in both, bookmark both or, better yet, plug in the RSS feeds to your favorite reader and effortlessly follow them (Sage tells me there's one for the livejournal page, here).

personal: A festive weekend

2005-12-16T09:31:00.000-07:00

Wow, I really haven't been posting much lately. Fortunately, that's because I've been pretty busy. We start tonight with a birthday party for Mason and my brother-in-law, then head to a holiday cocktail party tomorrow night at the home of my step-sister and her husband (more about that below).

And as far as political commentary, Rachel is doing a much better job. I feel redundant. Not giving up; just casting about for something a little more unique to do with it. Until I figure it out, that part of this blog is most likely going to be limited to AFAmail and RNCmail when they're particularly outrageous (instead of predictably so, as they've largely been for the last couple of months ... though AFA taking credit for Ford pulling back on advertising in specialty publications [not just, or specifically, gay ones, it must be noted] was particularly amusing).

I've been, as I said, keeping very busy for the last couple months, mostly with the band. And I'm pleased to say that we are inches away from finishing principal recording for our CD. If Richard weren't leaving for two weeks to spend Christmas with family in Oregon, there's a good chance we could've had it finished by the end of the year. Ach, well. Of course, after the principal recording comes mixing, producing, adding in various other instruments and vocals as seasoning, etc., etc., etc., blah, woof, blah, woof, then we have to figure out what order to put the songs in, master it, come up with a title for the blasted thing, do the cover art and typeset the booklet and send the whole thing off to be manufactured ... If we're extremely lucky, we might be able to have this stuff done by the end of January. If we're lucky.

But the point is, we're getting there. And it's good. Another good thing is that we're actually starting to be offered paying gigs. Up first, tomorrow (saturday) evening we're playing at a cocktail party my step-sister is hosting. And she's paying us! We've been encouraged to invite anyone and everyone we want, so if you're in Phoenix and you know one of the three of us and/or my family, and would like to go, just drop me a line. We're playing from 7-9, but expect it to be an all-evening event.

There's another party on the calendar and then an interesting event at the Paper Heart on March 25, of which more details will soon show up on our event calendar. And we're looking into places for St. Patrick's Day. And possibly our highest profile gig yet, if I can bow and scrape sufficiently before the promoter ... can't be more specific right now, for fear of embarrassing myself if it doesn't pan out. And ... we're planning a tour of the West Coast next fall.

After laboring for more than a year pouring money, time and stress into this project and seemingly getting next to nothing out of it, it's nice to see the seeds we've planted starting to bear fruit. Soon, $11-an-hour coffeehouse gigs and just-for-tips (when nobody, simply nobody tips anymore unless they're a friend) art gallery shows will be a thing of the past.

But things are finally happening! We started podcasting last week, partly because we want to have a record of preparing our album, partly as a tool to promote the album ... but mostly because we're a strange and interesting group of people, and it gives us an opportunity to invite people into Richard's living room once a week. We recorded a new episode last night, so all that remains is for me to plop down at my computer and edit and fix it up. I know, podcasting is painfully trendy. But it's fun.

*phew* I think I've gone on long enough. Happy Christmas to all, as appropriate; Happy Holidays to all others.

politics: The Republicans -- Dishonest on Democrats

2005-11-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

Yesterday brought yet another (yawn) installment of RNC-mail from Ken 'I'm not gay! Stop it! I'm not!' Mehlman, this one entitled "Democrats: Dishonest on Iraq". There's a video, if you're really sure you want to watch it.

At this point, I should pipe up and say that even I thought there were chemical weapons in Iraq before the war. I still thought invading was a really bad idea. To make matters worse, I didn't have one of the largest and most sophisticated intelligence infrastructures in the world telling me they didn't, or at least that the evidence was inconclusive. And I didn't take that information, cleanse it of all qualifying phrases, or in some cases completely rewrite the summary conclusions and use that information to lie to Congress and the American people.

Holy Jesus, people, what kind of balls does it take to hold people you lied to equally accountable to yourselves simply because they believed you were acting in good faith? Are you, then, telling us that we should never actually believe anything Republican politicians say? Because that's the logical progression of this line of talking point. So there you all stand, shameless and naked. I hope you freeze to death, politically speaking.

politics/Air America: Buried in a New York Times article this weekend

2005-11-14T13:45:00.000-07:00

It should be no surprise to people who read this blog (particularly the version at slywiz.com that I'm a big fan of Rachel Maddow.

So I was very excited about an article this weekend in the New York Times about the emergence, particularly in liberal talk radio, of women as on air personalities. The bloom is off the rose somewhat for me with Randi, since she frequently dips credulously into dubious conspiracy theories and often yells unmercifully at liberal callers who don't toe her exact line on every point; and her frequent, albeit usually minor, factual errors often stick in my craw.

But Rachel is another beast entirely. Her early morning one-hour news show is peppered with humor (often courtesy of Unfiltered hang-over Kent Jones), insightful observation and a cutting wit (find the current day's show, as well as previous archived shows, in MP3 format at Air America Place, or better yet subscribe to the podcast at iTunes).

So yeah, getting around to the point finally. Halfway through the story was this quote: "The network is expected to announce imminently a move by Ms. Maddow into a more prominent morning drive-time role."

KXXT probably won't carry it, since they don't carry her show at all now and they just reshuffled the lineup to put prominent local talkers in morning drive time. But it's a great idea! It'd be better still for them to put her on in mid-afternoon or evening drive, but hey, one step at a time.

Listen. You'll be glad you did.

politics: So you don't have to

2005-11-03T08:43:00.000-07:00

I just keep getting those right-wing e-mails ... From the RNC, from Progress for America (of all the things they could've named themselves!), the American Family Association (because only right-wing Christian-approved groupings of relatives qualify as American Families), etc., etc., etc.

So what are they saying about Scalito?

Well, Progress for America wants your money to run their TV ad. As a bonus, too, you can download it for your video iPod! Snazzy!

What else do they say? "It is unprecedented for the Senate to oppose a nominee as qualified as Samuel Alito." So, in other words, advise and consent is dead. We own the country, they say, so get out of the way or you will rue the day you decided to oppose our iron fist. It's an unforgivable break with tradition, they say, to oppose their pet wingnut.

I remember a whole study we did in college of logical fallacies. One of the most common? 'Appeal to tradition.' In business, the appeal to tradition usually takes the form of 'Why change? This is how we've always done it.' This is usually followed by bankruptcy. Except in this case we're talking about moral bankruptcy.

How about the RNC?

Well, they want your money, too. But other than claiming that Scalito is a brilliant man out of whose ass the sun always shines, that under his influence America will turn into a land of milk and honey, where everyone joins hands and walks singing and smiling across the meadows, where your whites get whiter, your car never breaks down and money rains down from the heavens like a golden shower, offers up no substantive arguments for why their boy should get the job. But, as I've noted before, Kenny pretty much just expects that sending down his orders from on high should be enough to get the stormtroopers out in the streets smashing Democratic shop windows. And so on. And so on.

Of course, PFAW and MoveOn want my money, too. Frankly, I'm getting sick of all the money pitches, wherever they come from, but that's a side issue here.

personal: And they're off!

2005-11-01T11:09:00.000-07:00

Once a year, for a month, I become absolutely, and almost certifiably, insane. What's that you say? I always am?

Yeah, probably.

But what's up in the month of November is National Novel Writing Month. This is my third year participating, though last year I didn't quite make it to the finish line because I was (shock, horror) working full time finishing the last semester of my master's program. And I was working full time. And my schooling necessitated a once-a-week evening commute to Tucson and back (a two-hour drive each way). And I'm in a band that wanted to rehearse occasionally. And, well, you get the idea.

I suppose my larger point is that I've always considered myself to be a writer but, like so many others, I always have an excuse not to do it. And if you've ever thought about writing a book but haven't done it, you've had your excuses too. It never hits the top of the priority list.

Nanowrimo is about abandoning the excuses and just doing it. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't have to flow. It doesn't even have to make sense. It just has to be fiction and the goal is to hit the 50,000-word mark by midnight Nov. 30. Knowing my life in the last year or two, I'm pretty sure politics will enter in somewhere, but I'll be honest ... I'm about a page into it so far and I have absolutely no idea what I'm writing about. And that's OK.

Join me, won't you? And if you can't or don't, bear with me if I don't answer e-mails or disappear for days at a time. I'm writing my Great American Novel, even if it falls far short of the Platonic ideal of such a beast.

Oh, and I'll be having fun doing it.

politics: Hurrah!

2005-10-28T09:52:00.000-07:00

Happy Fitzmas, everybody!

politics: Someone wanna buy BushCo an Iain Banks book?

2005-10-05T23:49:00.000-07:00

From 'A Few Notes on the Culture', an essay about Iain M. Banks's fictional galactic society, in The State of the Art:

... In all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more; an equation based on human nature which seems often to baffle the military and political mind.

politics: Brazen and stupid

2005-10-03T11:10:00.000-07:00

I'm back! *phew* It's been awhile. Much has happened in the mean time, both in my personal life and in the life of the nation as a whole, that I've left uncommented on. Had a lovely trip to Northern California, saw some good music, drank some good wine. Now I'm back, wide awake and refreshed. And ready to take on Ken Mehlman's e-mail from this morning.

He headlines it, "Harriet Miers Needs Your Help." To me, I know I'm biased, but that's reason enough to oppose her, sight unseen.

But the fact that BushCorp nominated this woman in the first place demonstrates, sharply and with great shouting, that they care more about loyalty than about the good of the country. And it demonstrates BushCorp's total tone-deafness to the American public and current events.

Do they not see the collapse of credibility of their public officials? Do they not see the plunging poll numbers, indications that their long honeymoon is, at long last, drawing to a close?

And if they do, what excuse do they have for throwing a lawyer with absolutely no experience as a judge up on the parapet, a candidate for one of the most important judicial posts in the country?

So anyway. Back to Kenny-boy.

"Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench."

Excuse, please? How is she qualified? How do we know she's a fair-minded individual? Gimme something to go on here. Seriously. As for 'legislating from the bench ...', Ken, please get some new jargon. This stuff's getting old and tired. And get your guys all on board: Arnie wants legislation from the bench in California to protect him from the representative will of the people of California embodied in the state legislature.

Oh, and this part made me laugh: "President Bush selected Ms. Miers after embarking on a thorough and deliberate thought process." Can anyone seriously imagine Skippy thinking anything through thoroughly and deliberately without guffawing uncontrollably?

Ah, yes, and there's this nugget: "They (the Democrats) have no interest in giving Ms. Miers a fair hearing or vote." Erm, so even if they did, what information is out there that would enable anyone not operating on pure and unadulteratedly blind faith to allow her a fair hearing?

I'm sure she's a nice woman and a perfectly competent lawyer. But I know lots of people like that who I wouldn't recommend for a Supreme Court post. And it seems obvious to me how little Kenny thinks of his rank-and-file minions that he can send out blather like this e-mail and not even worry about telling his own people why they should support this woman's nomination. He can assume that simply because he says it's so, that legions of cognition-deficient Republican worker drones will max out the phone lines of Capitol Hill professing their undying devotion to a woman whose name they didn't even know before yesterday.

And he's probably right.

Christian charity knows bounds

2005-09-07T18:33:00.000-07:00

Yes, ladies and gents, it's time for the latest installment of AFA-mail! Yes, it's true, the American Family Association squatted over my e-mailbox today and took a crap the size of Texas.

It starts out innocently enough, soliciting churches to house people displaced by the hurricane and federal negligence in the Gulf region. So far so good. After that, it turns kinda ugly.

"We in turn will contact a family needing shelter and have them get in contact with you directly. You can interview them to see if their needs and your facilities are compatible and to secure references such as their previous local church and pastor."

Excuse me, but WTF?

Yes, it's all very subtle. It's just a 'reference check'. "We suggest that you screen the family carefully. While 99% of these people will be very appreciative, there is always that 1% who can create problems."

In other words, pick the white fundamentalist Christian families first, then the black fundamentalist Christian families, then if you must, the Christian families of more mainstream denominations. But you can safely weed out anyone who doesn't go to church regularly, for whatever reason. They can feel free to die wherever they fall.

Remember, it's just a reference check, to weed out that "1% who can create problems."

yawn Oh, look, the gas boycott is here again

2005-08-31T13:49:00.000-07:00

Yes, here we are again. My inbox is filling up with those e-mails from friends, family, acquaintances, people I barely know ... almost every mailing list I'm on has forwarded one on to me: "Stick It Up Their @$$ Day" and other like appellations. For one day, we won't buy gasoline. Nations will tremble. Oil company executives will cower under their desks. The heavens will ring with the anguished cries of the Middle Eastern oil barons. And the price of gas will instantly halve.

As much of an idealist as I am, get fricking real, people.

I get gas about once every two weeks, once a week if I've done a lot of driving. Does this mean that I'm boycotting the oil companies the other 13 days?

Yeah, OK, maybe if everyone, absolutely everyone in America refrained from refueling (this includes the truckers who bring those frozen pizzas to your grocery stores so you don't have to get up off your ass and make some decent food yourself, and who bring you your mail every day), it might cause a hiccup that they would notice. But it would be nicely offset by the rise in gas sales the week leading up to and the week following it.

A finer example of slacktivism I can hardly envision. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, but makes you feel good about doing it.

You really want to stick it to the oil companies? You really want to complain about the obscene price gouging, the positively criminal level of profiteering?

Get off your ass. Walk. Wipe the cobwebs off that bike, pump up the tires and get riding. Carpool to work. Telecommute. Combine errands into one trip. Decide if you really have to run down to Circle K for a stick of butter. Ride the fricking bus, ferchrissake!

Get rid of that stupid SUV that you never actually use for its intended purpose (even though if you did use most of the newer ones for that intended purpose, they'd fail miserably) and buy a hybrid or a SmartCar. Find ways to save electricity. Etc., etc.

Basically, use less oil over the long term. One day isn't going to accomplish diddly. But a long-term drop in consumption will serve two purposes: It'll make the point that the stuff costs too much, and it'll slow consumption so that the day is delayed when we totally run out; plus, we'll all be in a slightly better position when it finally does.

Gawd, people are stupid.