Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks

Jonathan Bernstein has a great break down of the perception by GOP pols and pundits on the effectiveness of Purity Tests and nominating extreme ideological candidates for the upcoming mid-term elections.  

The larger lesson is that politicians, and political actors, tend to interpret political events based on their own biases and interests.  Polling on health care right now is ambiguous, but conservatives are absolutely convinced that the Democratic health care reform bill is massively unpopular, while liberals are equally convinced that it's quite popular.  So conservatives interpreted the 2008 election as a repudiation not of conservatism, but as a repudiation of Congressional and presidential deviations from conservatism (in fact, the 2008 election was more of a reaction to a deep recession than anything else -- of course, that just moves the argument to whether liberal or conservative parties were responsible for the recession).  It's not impossible for pols and activists to learn useful lessons, but the evidence is that they learn slowly and inefficiently.

Bottom line: yes, it is electorally bad for parties to nominate unelectable ideological candidates.  No, Republicans aren't going to stop doing it even if it costs them seats in the 2010 election cycle.

Obviously the general idea of shoving more moderate candidates out of the landscape is a nauseating prospect to this blogger.  

Those Condescending Elitists

Not that this should come as any surprise, but the Right has already begun their whine-fest from the Health Care Summit.  Apparently because that elitist a-hole Obama comes across so damned smarmy.   I love the give and take between Chait and Poheritz.   Pretty much epitomizes the two sides of this debate:

Earlier I noted of the health care summit that the Republicans in attendance seem to be divided between those who have no data at their disposal and those who have incorrect data. It is therefore difficult for President Obama, who obviously has a deep command of the issue, to engage with those Republicans without somewhat projecting condescension.

John Podhoretz shoots back:

Here’s how. By not being condescending. That’s how.

Never mind facts vs fiction; It's all in the delivery.  I wonder if the right will ever realize how this tactic looks from the outside.  It's plain to see that they're essentially cheerleading ignorance and opposing intelligent thought.

New Drinking Game: Terrorist, Radical or Protester

Sullivan linked to an internal debate among the Newsweek staff which was initially intended to be a banter about the difference between Joe Stack and the Undie-Bomber but evolved into a taxonomic discussion over the definition of the term "Terrorist."  It's certainly worth a read to see how the different positions are defended.

Sullivan and Greenwald keyed in on Managing Editor, Kathy Jones' take (Sullivan today questioned the potential irony factor):

Did the label terrorist ever successfully stick to McVeigh? Or the Unabomber? Or any of the IRS bombers in our violence list ?   Here is my handy guide:
 - Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist
 - Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists
 - All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

Personally, I'm not convinced it was irony but I also see the world through dark, slanted glasses and assume that we're loaded up with people who only understand terrorism as defined in a post-9/11 world.  I was much more interested in Digital Editor, Devin Gordon's spin:

Christian Girls Love Anal

That's science.  Want proof?


wwtdd.com posted a story about George Clooney buying an island for his little tramp, and then accompanied that post with set of pics of said tramp.


Now there's no way you're gonna tell me this girl doesn't take it in the corn knot.  I love how it's always the girl in leather boots and see-through top with the fun jugs pouring out - or taking a chunky load to the chops, for that matter - who felt strongly enough about her religion to blaze the crucifix in front of it all.

Praise Jesus for that. 

Amen.

Stay Classy, PETA

The 'net is abuzz with fear and chatter over the death of a Sea World trainer at the, uh, fins of Killer whale, Tillikum, yesterday.   A few different accounts have surfaced already from visitor eyewitnesses to the park itself, and it's probably just a matter of time before a cell phone cam vid finds it way to the public. 

Until then, the forum is open to any and all commentary on the incident so it should come as a shock to nobody at all that a rep from the People for the Ethical Treament of Animals came forward with their own celebration of the killing. 

Jaime Zalac said the organization had called on SeaWorld "to stop confining oceangoing mammals to an area that to them is like the size of a bathtub, and we have also been asking the park to stop forcing the animals to perform silly tricks over and over again. It's not surprising when these huge, smart animals lash out."

Hey, I've been to Sea World and watched a show at that same area.   Probably saw the same killer Killer Whale, too (see what I did there?)  That place is like an enormous fish day spa.   What's lost on these PETA meatheads is that these trainers aren't just carney freaks, they're marine freakin' biologists who love their subjects more than most people love their own kids.   That PETA would come out to cheer this as some sort of freakish payback for making them live in a bathtub is low even for them.  

Stay Classy, PETA

God's Will strikes again

via CBSNews:

Stephen Garcia, from all indications, didn't want to live without his ex-girlfriend, Katie Tagle, or share custody of their infant son, so in an apparent murder-suicide, the California father killed his child, then himself. Hours later he was still telling the world just how he felt, in a suicide note on Facebook, possibly posted by a friend.

Fantastic.   Hitchen's Test scores again. 

"Dissent is called Disloyal"

Here's a great piece by John Avlon highlighting the disconnect between Washington and it's constituents i/r/t  nasty partisanship:

Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that Washington is too partisan, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken one month ago.

That's not a subtle message. Ninety percent of Americans rarely agree on anything—60 percent is a landslide mandate in elections. But the professional partisans and pundits in Washington have been falling over themselves arguing that bipartisanship is a fool's game as of late. They insist that Americans must get more sophisticated when it comes to the ways of Washington and embrace the town's bitter and predictable partisanship as both wise and inevitable. 

This disconnect is the reason more and more Americans believe that government is broken—addicted to division and controlled by corrupt special interests. Ideological absolutism always comes dressed up as purity and principle. Conformity is characterized as courage. Dissent is called disloyal. Partisanship is confused with patriotism.

Thursday's bipartisan health-care summit is already being dismissed by cynics as the equivalent of a show trial. But both parties had better wake up to the clear message that Americans are sending Washington: This is not a game. This is our country, and we elected you to work together—to move America not left or right, but forward.

Just this morning I had to listen to a blowhard on the local news yapping his trap about how Scott Brown is a turncoat for breaking ranks on a bill that would create an assload of jobs.  Didn't see that one coming.  

Problem is these talking heads have convinced themselves that Brown was elected to solely serve the out-of-state parties that contributed 75% of his campaign funds.  Wrong again, teabaggers.  He was elected in defiance of a worthless shrew of a woman on the left and by a large majority of centered individuals - from Massachusetts.  So, save your purity test for someone else. 

Lost in Health Insurer Hatred

Yglesias has a great write up on excuse-making by two Dems, acting to protect Sallie Mae's interests from the SAFRA bill:

When you have a substantial inefficiency, you also have a whole bunch of people whose jobs depend on that inefficiency. That’s why it’s hard to treat coal the way we should and that’s why it’s hard to treat Sallie Mae the way we should. It’s also an important reason why “Medicare for All” isn’t really the political no-brainer that people sometimes claim it is—insurance companies employ tons of people, the vast majority of whom are not cackling and evil executives.

Now at the end of the day, I don’t think policy should be made on that basis. The best path, over the long-run, to ensuring good jobs for all Americans is to have sustainable prosperity built on economic growth. And that means accomplishing our public sector tasks in efficient ways—no needless subsidies to private student lenders, no teachers who stay on the job no matter how badly they do, no unnecessary health insurance company middlemen taking a slice of all our spending, no Medicare payments for useless or harmful treatments, etc. But all of this stuff is very challenging to do in part because of special interest money but also in part simply because behind every instance of waste stands someone whose livelihood depends on the waste.

(my bold for emphasis)

Hey, I'm one of those livelihoods!   Since a private payer pays my salary -- and, to some extent, since I'm not convinced that fully-government-controlled anything is the best direction -- I stand behind those evil corporations and lobbyists who strive to prevent Single-Payer Health Care.  Conversely, my job security is also one of the big reasons why I favor the recent incarnations of the health care reform bill:   They leave the private market - and all the employees who work for them - very much intact.  

This much is lost on both fringes.

ESPN Overreaction? Say it ain't so!

So the great Tony Kornheiser has been suspended for comments critical of fellow ESPN GILF/Cougar/Erin Andrews Wannabe, Hannah Storm, for wearing this atrocity of an outfit.

This is par for the course for ESPN, who are constantly censoring their best talent (see: Simmons) from being even remotely critical of ANY sportscasters or on-air talent, even those from other networks. While I enjoy much of what the network has to offer this do-as-we-say conglomerate approach to managing content is quite boorish. Interestingly Hannah Storm, who I'm guessing is a tad attention starved, should probably thank her lucky stars for this whole shake up.  Her google trends shot to the damn moon in the last 36 hours.   However, I'm pretty sure this is lost on the tight-assed execs in Bristol. 

At the end of the day, it's all just entertainment and public figures should be considered fair game. From anyone. Especially those calling a spade a spade. I mean look at the outfit! She's 47! If she walked into a college bar the place would go silent. In a bad way.

Some other erection-murdering outfits that remind me why the younger, hotter, cooler theory should be in place for all aspects of life, after the jump

Gonna get high with my mom

From Sullivan/HuffPo:

The Boomers Get Stoned

More seniors are toking up. It can sure help with back pain and other ailments of getting older. Joe Klein thinks that we "are in the process of a back-door legalization, sweeping from the libertarian west to the east." I watched Bill Maher's new stand-up the other night. I love the idea that marijuana use is one dividing line between free societies and Islamist ones:

"I want to live in a country where being stoned is a good thing, not a bad thing."

Maybe I misjudged you, Scott Brown

In his first vote as the answer to the Party of No's prayers, Scott Brown broke ranks and stopped a far-right-led filibuster on the $15B Jobs Bill.

"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," said Brown, whose election last month gave Republicans the 41st vote that could sustain filibusters. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect ... but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."

Certainly a tinge of self-preservation here, since Brown of all people knows he can't just fall into lockstep with the Tea Baggers and expect a sniff at re-election in this state.

Kudos to Brown and the other GOP senators who stood up for the people over partisan politics - something Washington's been completely devoid of for the last 13 months.

Hello, World

Thirty-three years on this tiny stone has left me more confused than ever. I plan to share the insights and influences that continue to shape this mangled noodle of mine.