Time to take charge, B, ctd.

The Deepwater Rig disaster gets the Big Picture treatment.   Crazy stuff.  

 
I enjoyed this comment, too. 

It is easy to cast blame for this horrible disaster - it's BP's fault, it's George Bush's fault, it's the fault of corporate greed, whatever. But you know who's really at fault here? Look in the mirror, sunshine. At the end of the day, each one of us has to accept some level of blame by continuing to fuel the market for oil.

Do you drive a car? Then you're partly to blame. Do you have any plastic products in your home whatsoever? Then you are as guilty as anyone.

We all drive cars or take public transit (which runs on oil). We all buy stuff made out of plastic. We all wear synthetic clothes and shoes, we all go to Wal-Mart for deals on cheap crap that came here from Bangkok on a ship that burns oil. We wash our hair with shampoo that comes in a plastic bottle (made from oil) and put on deodorant (which comes in a plastic container) each and every day. Heck, I'm typing this rant on a plastic keyboard that was made from oil, and you're probably reading it on a plastic computer with an LCD screen. They're made with oil too. That makes every single one of us - you too - collectively responsible for those birds and turtles and dragonflies dying.

Stop casting blame and start looking at how we're all screwing up the world we live in. Until we are willing to change the way we live, we will only keep doing this again and again. I'm not saying we all go back to wearing loin cloths and hunt our own food, but reduce our demand for oil by reducing, reusing and recycling.

Three Blind Mice

Three-parts gubernatorial candidate; one-part people's vote on the Massachusetts Sales Tax Rollback.   Apparently, that's the recipe for a bun cake of retarded political douchebaggery, according to this article from Boston.com.   This story (curiously?) came and went with little fanfare or discussion in this little blue state, considering the November mid-term races are heating up.

How is it that all three candidates have absolutely zero response for the prospect of a $2.4B revenue gap?  Maybe list out some sensible budget cuts?   Instead they simply bang away on the scare-tactic of "limiting local aid" which has been a proven winner to sway the pussified liberals here in the past. 

[T]he major candidates for governor, all of whom say they oppose the initiative to reduce the sales tax rate from 6.25 to 3 percent, a move that would cost the state up to $2.4 billion in annual revenue beginning Jan. 1.

What if voters approve it anyway? Well, the candidates say they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

"If that's the decision they make, we're all going to have to deal with it in state government one way or another," said Republican candidate Charles Baker, who supports rolling the rate back to 5 percent. "Of course everything would be on the table."

Baker's lack of a plan is shared by independent candidate Tim Cahill and incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick.

Cahill, who also supports rolling the sales tax back to 5 percent, said he will "enforce the will of the voters and will wait to see what they decide," but hasn't outlined what he would cut to make up for the sudden loss of revenue.

Patrick, who supports returning the sales tax rate to 5 percent after the state fully recovers from the recession, also has yet to detail how he would cope with the cut but warned through his campaign that a cut to 3 percent "would have a devastating impact on the essential services that everyone in the Commonwealth relies upon."

This should be eye-opening to any voters who believe the ridiculous notion that either party is serious about fiscal sanity.  They both want to spend.  One is no better than the other.   Time for residents in this state to wake up and choose someone who will lay it on the line and start talking about cuts. 

Time to take charge, B

Check out this great editorial from Boston.com, urging President Obama  to take the reigns on the Deepwater oil spill disaster.  

Money Quote:

It’s appalling that the federal government, under any administration, would allow drilling deep underwater without making adequate preparations for a massive oil leak. But that’s what happened. After the oil spill, Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new wells and said that he is stopping the type of waivers that BP was able to obtain. But, as The New York Times has reported, at least seven new permits for various type of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted since then. That is an insult to those harmed by the disaster unfolding on the Gulf Coast.

It's certainly turning into his giant debacle, with every passing BP failing attempt to plug the leak.   I'm glad he called out BP to pay for it all, but at some point he needs to grab every top mind in oceanography, physics, engineering etc to come up with solutions.   Pointing fingers just isn't enough. 

The Trouble with Taxes and Cuts

Bartlett and Bainbridge go at it over the federal defict and how it will inevitably impact defense spending or lead to a tax hike of some sort.   I think both make excellent points to one another, from two similar but different ideological positions .   Here are the two key points.

Bartlett:

Republicans primarily concerned about national security ought to be in the forefront of efforts to raise revenues to reduce deficits, free up domestic saving for domestic investment, and reduce the importation of foreign saving and the trade deficit. But so far they are not. They remain loyal to the Republican obsession with tax cuts and a refusal to raise taxes in any way for any reason. However, I think my national security-minded friends are soon going to discover that massive defense budget cuts will necessarily be a big part of the price that will be paid for not raising revenues.

Bainbridge:

Given a choice between spending $100 billion on defense [or] shoring up public sector union pension funds, what does Bartlett think his Democratic buddies would do? Given a choice between spending $100 billion on the troops and $100 billion on an unnecessary war of choice, what does Bartlett think the neoconservatives would do?

It's sort of like the old joke about an economist stranded on a desert island, whose punch line "assume a can opener." Bartlett's critique of his old friends would have a lot more traction if he could explain why we should assume a sudden outbreak of good government.

Until I see proof the beast has reformed, I say starve the [expletive deleted].

Can't realy argue with Bainbridge there.  New boss, same as old boss.   Personally I prefer any heavy spending be done domestically and not on American Imperialism ventures.  That aside, something needs to be done about the deficit.   Bainbridge does well to wrap up after a short back-and-forth with Bartlett and gets more to the heart of the matter:

To be clear, however, my point is not that deficit reduction and other sensible budgetary policies can be achieved only through cutting spending. (Just as Bartlett presumably thinks we need spending cuts as well as tax increases.)

On a bipartisan basis, our rulers have spent us into a position in which taxes probably will have to go up at least for a while. But agreeing to tax increases ought to be done only in return for a package of fundamental reforms. We need entitlement reforms (including raising the retirement age), budgetary reforms (bans on ear marks, a line item veto, and a balanced budget amendment), political reforms (real restrictions on gerrymandering), and the like. Letting the powers that be have higher taxes without those other reforms will not solve the problem. All it does is make for a bigger candy store to which we've given the keys to the children.

Put simply, absent real reforms, I don't want anybody in Washington or Sacramento getting their grubby hands on any more of my money because I don't trust them to spend it wisely. My guess is that a lot of Bartlett's new friends on the left, for example, would be quite content to raise taxes and massively cut defense. So the either/or he presents strikes me as a false choice.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we probably need to wait until things get bad enough that politicians on all sides will be forced to agree to fundamental reforms to avoid going the way of Greece.

Erica Blasberg 1984 - 2010, ctd.

Stephanie Wei shares some anecdotes and pictures from Ray Kim, Erica's close friend and former caddie.  It makes for a touching memorial.  

The Illusion of Rasmussen Polling

Kos breaks down how Rasmussen weaves in and out of polling desirable and non-desirable primaries and elections in order to frame his preferred narrative and keep his precious "most accurate pollster" grades up.

Nothing shady here at all (rolls eyes)

It's not as if Rasmussen doesn't poll primaries. In fact, it polled the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary two weeks ago. But again, it refused to do a pre-election poll, because doing so would no longer help set narratives, and that's all Rasmussen cares about.

Today, Rasmussen released a poll showing Dick Blumenthal suddenly in trouble in Connecticut. How convenient! And narrative setting. Too bad he couldn't poll actual elections.
And yes, by November, Rasmussen's polling will be nicely in line with the rest of the polling aggregate, as he adjusts his voter screens to match reality, not whatever GOP-heavy universe he currently lives in. By then, he'll be less worried about setting narratives, and more worried about getting races right so that he can brag about his electoral track record. That way, he uses that credibility in order to once again set bullshit narratives in the 2012 election cycle. It's quite the scam!

Because if it itsn't a scam, there's no reason he should've skipped polling the big Tuesday races.

Carrying luggage takes a wide stance, ctd.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Miss USA Causes Confusion, ctd.

Surprisingly, the right hasn't been irrationally hysterical at all about a Lebanese-born Muslim-American woman with ties to Hezbollah winning the Miss USA pageant.

Oh, wait.

Exposing Liberal Lies

In all fairness, the winner, Miss Michigan Rima Fakih, an Arab American and Muslim with roots in Lebanon, was drop-dead gorgeous. But, it is interesting to note that she has relatives who are members of the terrorist group Hezbollah. You may remember that it was Hezbollah which was responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks killings in 1983 which resulted in the death of 241 Americans.

Debbie Schlussel

It’s a sad day in America but a very predictable one, given the politically correct, Islamo-pandering climate in which we’re mired.  The Hezbollah-supporting Shi’ite Muslim, Miss Michigan Rima Fakih–whose bid for the pageant was financed by an Islamic terrorist and immigration fraud perpetrator–won the Miss USA contest. I was on top of this story before anyone, telling you about who Fakih is and her extremist and deadly ties.

Gateway Pundit

Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard was a top contestant for the Miss USA crown this year. But, after she came out in support of the Arizona immigration law she was forced to take a back seat to Miss Michigan. Miss Oklahoma was runner up in this year’s competition.
[...]
Apparently, although a great majority of Americans (62-73%) agree with her, the judges didn’t like her answer. She placed second.
Instead, Miss Michigan Rima Fakih, an Arab American whose family reportedly has strong ties to the Hezbollah terror organization, won the crown.

Daniel Pipes

 News that Rima Fakih, 24, of Dearborn, Michigan, won the Miss USA beauty pageant today prompts me to recall some prior instances of Muslim women winning beauty contests in Western countries.
[...]
They are all attractive, but this surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants makes me suspect an odd form of affirmative action.

McArdle on the Mass Health Care debacle

In the wake of Mass insurers posting huge losses for the 1st quarter, Megan sees it as an ominous sign of doom on the horizon for the rest of the country.  While her points are valid, she leaves out the question of price gouging on the part of the large conglomerate provider networks like Partners which go along with the ignorant election year power play that Deval pulled this spring. 

I'm not quite so pessimistic.  For one I don't foresee that level of ignorance from Team Obama.   Give it a gander and decide for yourself. 

A Brief History of the Party of No

Arun Gupta's op ed on the Republican and Tea Party obstructionist strategy is informative, riveting and terrifying.   It points out the irrational nature and bigotry of the right and the poor strategy of the Obama Administration and Democratic leadership of pandering too heavily to the right and open the door for a hard swing come November.  There's a lot to be concerned about if you're even remotely moderate-minded a person.   

The entire lengthy piece is well worth the read.  Some highlights:

I use “the right” instead of “Republican” or even “conservative” to describe the movement and its ideas. Until recent years, there was a breed of socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican that retained a foothold in the GOP. These Republicans provided critical support for civil rights and other progressive legislation. This segment, which tended to concentrate in the North, has largely shifted to the Democratic Party (with the result of pushing the Democrats further to the right). So while the right may now overlap significantly with the Republican Party, it wasn’t always so. More important, as shown by the Christian Right in years past and the Tea Party today, the right will try to purge those Republicans deemed not sufficiently orthodox, making the party more and more extreme.

 

The Tea Party is the latest chapter in the history of the Republicans as the “Party of No.” Its existence depends on continuous promotion from FOX News, organizing by Republican consultants, front groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, and the GOP itself. Much of the Tea Party’s funding comes from right-wing foundations through the front groups, and its politics are anti-government, anti-labor, pro-corporate and often socially conservative, which is the same agenda the right has been pushing for more than 30 years.

(emphasis mine) and

Wallace pioneered the race-based appeals that still excite the populist right today. But he was also a deft cultural warrior who, writes Carter, “knew that a substantial percentage of the American electorate despised the civil rights agitators and antiwar demonstrators as symptoms of a fundamental decline in the traditional cultural compass of God, family, and country, a decline reflected in rising crime rates, the legalization of abortion, the rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the increase in divorce rates, and the proliferation of ‘obscene’ literature and films.” Add gay marriage, Islamophobia and immigration, and you pretty much have the right’s culture war agenda of today.

and

There is one final step in how the right mobilizes grassroots support behind an obstructionist agenda. Few people mull over philosophical concepts when making political decisions. That’s why mobilizing group resentment and solidarity simultaneously is so effective. It gives people a way to see both enemies and allies in their daily lives. In the case of immigrants, the narrative is about “illegals” stealing jobs and social services from taxpayers. In the case of the Obama administration, the story is that taxes are being stolen from hard-working Americans to support parasites ranging from welfare recipients to Wall Street bankers.

 and finally

However irrational this position may be, the logical consequences are not: anything Obama and the Democrats do must be opposed because it is a life-and-death struggle. In opposing the health care plan, the right is not just trying to deny services to the undeserving, it is affirming and protecting free choice, family, the sanctity of life, the market, God, country, the Constitution – all arguments trotted out in the last year.

 

Like the Clinton years, no matter how much Obama tries to appease Republicans, he will remain under attack and be held responsible for bizarre crimes and conspiracies because the right has nothing to gain from compromise. In fact, Republican opposition has devolved from the philosophical to the tactical. The right-wing noise machine frames Obama and the Democrats as the source of all evil, making compromise virtually impossible. Republicans now assail Obama policies they used to champion from the market-friendly health care law and huge tax cuts in the stimulus bill to the bipartisan deficit commission and pay-as you-go budget rules.

 

At the same time, the Obama administration has stoked support for the Tea Party by providing aid and comfort to Wall Street rather than Main Street. The Republicans have exploited legitimate anxieties over high unemployment, a shrinking economy and onerous taxes by scapegoating the weak and marginal for policies that are structural and historical in nature.

 

The lesson for Obama and Democrats is not that they went too far to the “left,” it’s that they went too far to the right. Obama had the political capital and the leverage over the banking and auto industries to push for a “Green New Deal” that could have restructured the transportation and energy sectors and created millions of new jobs. Slashing the bloated military budget while fighting for some type of single-payer health care – instead of a plan that uses public money to subsidize the for-profit healthcare industry – budget deficits could have been constrained while reducing the financial burden of medical bills for most American households. Implementing such an agenda could have created a mass constituency that would fight for a progressive vision and against the right’s repressive politics.

 

The right has well-thought-out ideologies, a specific agenda, clearly defined enemies, and ruthlessly pursues power to achieve its goals. And it’s fighting a Democratic White House and Party that stand for nothing, which is why being the “Party of No” will continue to be a winning strategy for Republicans.

Excellent Sullivan Reader email...

A Sullivan reader emails...

Pascal notes, then asks:

When I consider the brief span of my life absorbed into the eternity which comes before and after--memoria hospitis unius diei praetereuntis--the small space I occupy and which I see swallowed up in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I know nothing and which know nothing of me, I take fright and am amazed to see myself here rather than there: there is no reason for me to be here rather than there, now rather than then. Who put me here? By whose command and act were this place and time allotted to me?

The answers that make sense to me now are: no one, and by no command. When I was young, I believed in God and I was terrified of death. When I was in my late teens, I realized: there is no God. It was a hot summer's night. I was laying in bed. And a deep sense of calm washed over me. There would be no me, and thus I need have no fear for that person who would not be. That freed my life from fear. I stopped asking 'who'--a human question if there ever was one. Pascal describes a feeling that I still feel. It's called the sublime. Existence is sublime. I am here in this time and place, and I have no fear.

Nail on the head, really.    Some people like to deal with the inevitability of death by believing (hoping?) that their loved ones are "happy somewhere, looking down on us."    Frankly the thought of that freaks me the hell out.  But if it helps you through your difficult times I take no issue. 

I do believe, however, that the finite nature of life and non-existence of death can breed a better moral society than one which should supposedly live in fear of an almighty judgment or an eternal life loaded with forgiveness.   For the judgment line, this would appear rather disingenuous; as if to say you only act just and morally because you're being watched.   Where's the integrity in that?    The forgiveness line opens the door for the lawless behavior of the Catholic hierarchy, who deem the sexual abuse and emotional handicapping of children as a "forgivable" offense.  

But if this is it?  A finite existence with no judgment or forgiveness to speak of?  One thinks that should gives us all the more reason to do what's right with the small space and time we've been afforded. 

Miss USA Causes Confusion

 The Miss USA Pageant was held last night and the winner was Miss Michigan Rima Fakih, the first Arab-Ameircan Muslim winner in the pageant's history.

This is sure to cause endless confusion in the GOP ranks today.   They are no doubt unsure whether to deport her, torture her or plug her in the chili ring.

American Pride on Cinco De Mayo

A lot has been made of the five California High School students who wore American Flag T-shirts on Cinco De Mayo and were sent home by their principal when they refused to turn them inside-out or change.  The right has been aflutter with claims that this is another example of the PC Left's trashing of patriotism. 

I found the whole issue revolting on a few different levels.  As a result I've avoided discussing it on here, but after reading Roger Ebert's self-defense from Tea Party attackers over the issue and engaging in some healthy discussion with a friend over email I guess it's time to share my thoughts. 

 ______________________________________________

Kids need to learn how to express themselves properly...  

and learn the repercussions of those expressions.   

By curbing their expression, the faculty did nothing but make these 

kids less prepared for the real world.  

______________________________________________

See, I find fault not in the ignorant redneck kids who wore the shirts... or their ignorant redneck parents who sent them to school this way... or with the latinos who may or may not have been offended by the "expression of speech"... or with the school officials who sent the kids home.

Rather I find fault with the American school system at large for putting in place a dress code at all.  That's the precursor of the entire issue here.  School tells kids what they can and can't wear; suggests that people wear things in celebration of (the American-made) Cinco De Mayo; kids wear something in defiance of said observance; people get upset.

Don't put policies in place to dictate dress code in a public school and the whole problem never happens.

(continued after jump)

Because I got high, ctd.

Radley Balko, who some might consider the centerpiece in the battle against excessive forces used in drug raids, weighs in on the Missouri raid.  

Money shot:

The militarization of America's police departments has taken place over a generation, due to a number of bad policy decisions from politicians and government officials, ranging from federal grants for drug fighting to a Pentagon giveaway program that makes military equipment available to local police departments for free or at steep discounts. Mostly, though, it's due to the ill-considered "war" imagery our politicians continue to invoke when they refer to drug prohibition. Repeat the mantra that we're at war with illicit drugs often enough, and the cops on the front lines of that war will naturally begin to think of themselves as soldiers. And that's particularly true when you outfit them in war equipment, weaponry, and armor. This is dangerous, because the objectives of cops and soldiers are very different. One is charged with annihilating a foreign enemy. The other is charged with keeping the peace.

Soon enough, our police officers begin to see drug suspects not as American citizens with constitutional rights, but as enemy combatants. Pets, bystanders, and innocents caught in the crossfire can be dismissed as regrettable but inevitable collateral damage, just as we do with collateral damage in actual wars. This is how we get images like those depicted in the video.

It's heartening that nearly a million people have now seen the Columbia video. But it needs some context. The officers in that video aren't rogue cops. They're no different than other SWAT teams across the country. The raid itself is no different from the tens of thousands of drug raids carried out each year in the U.S. If the video is going to effect any change, the Internet anger directed at the Columbia Police Department needs to be redirected to America's drug policy in general. Calling for the heads of the Columbia SWAT team isn't going to stop these raids. Calling for the heads of the politicians who defend these tactics and promote a "war on drugs" that's become all too literal—that just might.

Are you effing serious, Maxim?!?

Alright look.   I'm a fan of boobs.   The bigger the better.  The realer the better.   I can't believe I'm saying this but why the fuck is Katy Perry #1 on the 2010 Maxim Hot 100??   I love me some Katy Perry because - I don't want to mince words here: she has gigantic real funbags.  And I hear she kisses girls.  But this broad dresses and does makeup like a god damned mental patient.  I imagine having intercourse with her is illegal in most states.

Bad job yet again by the Maxim crew.   I couldn't be more annoyed by this year's list.   A few low-lights:

#55 -  KP's roommate from the sanitarium, Ke$ha.   Really?  So according to Maxim, This is hotter than this, this and this. C'mon.  I'd rather bang the 10,000BC version of Camilla Bella than whatever that is wallowing around on the beach.  But that's not saying much.  (I may have a thing for prehistoric women)

#20 is Olivia Wilde.  Meaning she managed to get 19 points less hot in a shade under a year.   Not sure how that's even possible. 

#s 10, 19 and 22 are 9, 17 and 19 spots too low, respectively.   Any list creator that puts Marisa Miller, Bar Rafaeli, and Mila Kunis outside the top 5 should either be castrated or have their clams sewn shut.   No need for sexual organs if you lack the taste to use them. 

#s ?? - No Jarah Mariano or Jamie Chung, proving once and for all that the Maxim editors are all Korean War vets.

That's all for now.  A bunch of tremendous pics of the birds mentioned above - minus Ke$ha, of course - after the jump.

Erica Blasberg 1984 - 2010

It was a sad day in the golf world yesterday as new broke that the LPGA had lost one of it's more photogenic and popular young stars.   Erica Blasberg died of unknown causes in her Las Vegas suburban home, at the young age of 25. 

Being a golfer and a huge golf fan I recall catching a glimpse of Erica on TV during an event in Mexico.  Having never heard of her, I looked her up and found it interesting that she was in her first or second year on tour and was relatively unknown. Thinking it might be interesting to follow an up-and-comer's progress, I made a point to occasionally check for her name on leaderboards.   I even followed her on Twitter.  She did pretty well for a few years and achieved exempt status through Q school.  Even took a lead into the final round of the 2008 SBS Open at Turtle Bay - a course I had the privilege of playing while on my honeymoon 6 months earlier.   She finished tied for 8th; her career best finish.  

Then this year began and Erica failed to make exempt status and was playing in little to no tournaments, one to be exact.   I also noticed that her twitter account was mysteriously shut down a few months ago amid some cryptic blog reports that she was getting heavy into the Vegas party scene.

I can only hope that her sudden death and the reports of her lifestyle are unrelated, but one can't help but fear the worst.   It's not often that a talented and attractive 25 year old leaves us suddenly without some level of foul play involved. 

My heart goes out to the friends of family of Erica and to the rest of the girls on the LPGA, who are no doubt deeply sorrowed by the news. 

Because I got high...

Sullivan posted a YouTube video, via Radley Balko, of a drug raid in Missouri, during which two family dogs were shot and killed in front of a seven year old child.   Turns out the target of the warrant only had a small amount of marijuana and the entire horrific event was for naught. 

In addition to Sully's post and follow up reader emails, Megan McArdle sums up the terrifying state of affairs with today's drug war aptly:

You shoot two dogs in front of a seven year old--who could have been killed by a stray round, and at the very least will carry this hideous recollection to the grave.  And why?  For misdemeanor pot possession?

No, say the police; they executed the warrant too late.  Had they come earlier, undoubtedly they would have found . . . dealer sized amounts of pot.

This response is nonsensical.  It's like hearing that they came too late to catch the family bootlegging cable.  Sure it's illegal, and maybe it's even wrong.  But "dealer-sized" pot possession isn't necessarily related to actual drug dealings--I have several friends right now who probably qualify, and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to do anything that merits a SWAT intervention, because those sorts of things can get you drummed right out of your Tuesday-night book club, not to mention how they'd take it at the Rotary. 

But frankly I don't care if the owner of the pot was a drug dealer.  For that matter, I do not care if he had a mountain of marijuana in his back yard in which he liked to roll around naked.  It still wouldn't constitute a good reason for armed men to burst through his door without knocking, much less light up the family pets in front of the kid.

This scares the shit out of me- which I suppose is the desired effect... but the ends cannot possibly justify the means.  This is precisely why we need more widespread reform for our drug laws.  Leave potheads the hell alone and go after the illegal oxy dealers or heroin pushers.  Legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana and even tax the shit out of it for all I care.  Make a nice tax profit and along the way you can stop killing family dogs because some dude wants to high while watching South Park. 

Vid after the jump.   Watch at your own risk.

I think I'm gonna be sick

It's been a glorious morning.   70 degrees and sunny.   It's Friday.  I'm looking forward to a cocktail - or four - tonight and a relaxing weekend with no major responsibilities, save for a bit of yard work and visiting the Moms in my life. 

Of course, Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin teamed up to ruin all of that for me.    I can't embed the video for some reason - I can only assume for the same reason that press and cameras aren't allowed at her speeches - so you'll have to watch it for yourself.   Just make sure you're not on a full stomach.  Spare yourself the cleanup. 

Seriously, is there anyone on the planet with less brains who is granted the kind of  massive audience of devoted and unquestioning mongoloids that this inbred fool is afforded?   Just look at her dumb face.  Look at it!   This idiot was one busted hip or blood clot to the brain  away from the oval office 18 months ago.   She honestly believes that the this is a "Christian Nation"  and that the founding fathers planned it to be this way.   And O'Reilly goes right along with her!   Why wasn't Hitchens on with these two to spare us from getting dumber just for watching?

This is not a Judeo-Christian nation.  This is a secular nation.   The Founding Fathers were mostly Deists, not Christians - which Bill mentions and Sarah nods in agreement to, curiously.   Deism meant they believed in a creator, but stood fast that said creator did not meddle in the affairs of man - and as such, did not meddle in a budding republic's government either.

The Pilgrims?  They were Christians.  But they were not the Founding Fathers.  They were brave puritans who set out in search of religious freedom, sure.  But the founders of America as we know it, they were not.

In God We Trust was adopted as our national motto during the 1950s.  And the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were not granted to us by God but rather by a creator.   There is a difference there and, while subtle, it is completely lost on this shrew. 

She really needs to be stopped.  Every time she's allowed to invade our senses with her vulgar diatribe about religious values and rugged anti-elitism a puppy gets skinned.   That's scientific fact.  Stop killing puppies, people.

Update:  Got video embedded... after the jump.  

Carrying luggage takes a wide stance

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What does this tell you?

Sullivan posts a nugget from Weigel/WaPo about Favorability of the term Libertarian:

Overall, 38 percent of Americans view "libertarian" favorably to 37 who view it unfavorably. Democrats (39-37) and independents (44-32) view the term most favorably, while Republicans view it negatively by a 13-point (31-44) margin.

I'd say this makes pretty clear how someone like me - who enjoys the finer points of Libertarianism - can be turned off by the current GOP and Tea Party Movement.  These groups are not free thinking or small-government-minded at all if they perceive a movement like Libertarianism as a negative thing.   More negative than those evil pinko socialist liberals do, to boot.

More on Epistemic Closure

William Saletan does a tremendous job rounding up the sad state of affairs in today's partisan climate.   Funny that many of the positions he cites are exactly what I hear trumpeted from my conservative friends (not that they'll even consider reading this list, of course).  Specifically, the points Saletan makes about how the right defines themselves by their enemies and round up and cast out any dissenting members of their own group as RINOs or Closet Liberals (see:  Frum, Bartlett, Manzi, Crist, etc etc etc)

The whole she-bang is worth the read.   My favorites: 

3. Never define yourself by an enemy. Conservatives duck internal disputes because their coalition is "a motley assortment of political tendencies united primarily by their opposition to liberalism," writes Douthat. The only thing they agree on is "trashing Obama." Megan McArdle makes a similar point: "The Republican Party is not putting forward bold new ideas; its energy lies in thwarting the Democrats' policy plans." Accordingly, conservatives reinforce their identity by denouncing dissenters as closet liberals. Bruce Bartlett, who was kicked out of a conservative think tank after criticizing George W. Bush, calls this "a closed loop in which any opinions or facts that conflict with the conservative worldview are either avoided, ignored or automatically dismissed on the grounds that they must be liberal or come from liberals." The net result of this reflexive antipathy is that conservatives don't define what they stand for. Liberals do. Whatever you're for, we're against.

5. Seek wisdom, not just victory. Some conservative bloggers, responding to Sanchez and his sympathizers on the right, dismiss conversation with the liberal enemy as a political trap. Creative policy ideas won't bring Republicans to power, argues Jonah Goldberg, and "political reality" dictates that "when liberals control all of the policy-making apparatus, being the party of no is a perfectly rational stance." Hogan, a blogger at Redstate, takes this argument further, reasoning that it's OK to "distill" complex facts to propaganda "when you are at war" with the left. Such ruthlessness might be the surest path to power. But what's the point of power if you haven't learned how to govern? "An open mind seeks wisdom, first and last," writes Millman. I can't put it better than that.

10. Overcome your urges. Hogan refuses to analyze opposing arguments in detail, arguing that he lacks "the desire" to do so. Perhaps he should brush up on the tradition he purports to represent. Real conservatives understand that desire is a lousy way to run a society. You don't feel like working? Work. You don't feel like supporting the kids you fathered? Support them. You don't feel like challenging your biases? Challenge them. We're all vain and lazy. In the electronic echo chamber, it's easier than ever to shut out what you don't want to hear. Nobody will make you open the door and venture out. You'll have to do that yourself.

Calling All Nerds

I've always been a bit of an astronomy/science geek and find myself on space.com and checking on news from SETI and the like. I've also come to regret not being as well-versed in American history as I'd otherwise prefer to be. These tidbits in mind, to say I've been in my damned glory the last few Sunday nights would be a major freakin' understatement.

Check out the Sunday night Geek-TV schedule:

8pm on Discovery: How the Universe Works

9pm on Discovery: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

9pm on History: America - The Story of Us

All three manage to balance telling us things we already know while threading in some new tidbits and angles.  They come with decent production value in the graphic interpretations and re-enactments of events.  And best of all, the great Mike Rowe narrates How The Universe Works.   That guy is the shit.   He could be narrating two hours of me sitting stoned on my couch eating Doritos and I'd be captivated.