Status update

The house is bought, and possession has been taken.

I am becoming familiar with Home Depot and Lowe's much more thoroughly than I ever expected to the first week.

Paint has been applied, shelves installed, a few blinds up, and I have applied proper first aid for the credit card burns I got at Nebraska Furniture Mart yesterday.

The next two weeks are going to be an interesting experience of caravaning my stuff across town. Posting may be even more sporadic than usual.

That is all.

Life's little ironies dept.

From this morning's CNN homepage... Check out the poll question, and the sponsor.

Credit where it's due dept.

I certainly don't agree very often with the Southern Baptist Convention, about anything, but it's hard to improve on this statement about torture (specifically including waterboarding) from Richard Land, of the SBC ethics & public policy conference:

"It violates everything we believe in as a country," Land said, reflecting on the words in the Declaration of Independence: that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

"There are some things you should never do to another human being, no matter how horrific the things they have done. If you do so, you demean yourself to their level," he said.

"Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules," Land concluded.

Given how much the GOP is in the pocket of the SBC (and vice versa), that's a risky statement to make. All the more reason to applaud it.

[h/t: Andrew]

"And they will know we are Christians by our love..."

So it turns out that those who attend church most often, are also the most comfortable with torture.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Note: There were problems with sample size, so this may not be particularly generalizable. The problem isn't bad enough that I'm prepared to flat-out call bullshit on this, but it may be a mistake to read too much into it.

But how does that "religion make you better person" thing work again? Granted, this is only one questionable data point, but still...

[h/t: Paddy]

Wish-I'd-Said-That Dept.

Mark Kleiman nails it once again.

Inequality, opportunity, and IQ

Email to Andrew Sullivan:

You wrote:

My point was that growing inequality will be very, very hard to prevent or restrain in the face of these factors.

Nice job of proving Doug's point. [Ed. note: Doug's post is here.]

Right now our educational system is, for the relatively affluent, mostly pretty good and in some places very good. For the poor, the average quality is lower, and in some places, the schools are a sad joke. And of course, a better basic education leads to the opportunities for better college education, etc.

When we're providing good-quality basic education across the board, and the reward structure in our society is less tilted toward "them that has, gets; them that hasn't gets left behind," maybe we can have the discussion about how much of the remaining inequality is unalterable.

But are you seriously suggesting that the current huge and widening inequality in our society is because the affluent are simply smarter than everyone else, without regard to anything else? My, how convenient. After all, if the problem is that the poor and unemployed are just stupid, well, what can you do?

Will there always be some inequality? Of course. But I'm not aware of any serious work on the issue suggesting that intelligence is "infinitely alterable." Stop knocking down straw men. Yes, we need to focus on education. Yes, we need better metrics than dollars spent per student and the perverse incentives of No Child Left Untested. Yes, absolutely. And we shouldn't expect better schools to bring about Utopia tomorrow. But if anything, a better focus on education, on bringing failing schools up to where they ought to be, would decrease inequality. Or at least make the face of success look a little less Anglo-Saxon.

I teach freshman-level courses at a public urban university, and my classes have too many smart students who can barely read, have never learned math, and have no idea what study habits are. They're going to school while also supporting themselves, and sometimes extended families, at low-wage jobs in crumbling neighborhoods. Oddly enough, they seem to have more problems than the students who come out of better school systems and are able to devote themselves to school full time. I've had more than one bright, promising student in my office explaining that they like being in school but can't afford it; or their child care fell through; or they have to care for an uninsured parent who fell ill.

When those students have the same opportunities and resources that you and I take for granted, we can talk about inequality due to differences in intelligence. Sure, there will always be some. But you cannot seriously believe that's what's causing the "growing inequality" of the last three decades.

Homebuying update

It appears the logjam has broken... I've spent most of the day coordinating phone calls, faxes, document scans, and emails between my local loan officer, the loan approval officer at the national office, my insurance agent, and my realtor. So yippee.

On the other hand, I haven't got much else done this afternoon, and I've got some things that really need to be done. It may be a late night.

Brit Hume, even more clueless than usual

It seems that Brit Hume doesn't think much of the Obamas' new dog, deriding it as "girly."

He, um, is aware that the President has two daughters, isn't he?

Someday there needs to be a cable-news smackdown, Brit Hume vs Keith Olbermann, to see who can do the most self-important harrumphing.

That may even be worth a pay-per-view.

I love my country, yes I do...

First it was the tebagging parties.

Now it's the 2M4M movement.

To quote a friend of mine, "Is there anything gayer than straight America?"

Power Tools Dept

In a revelation that should surprise no one, the "spontaneous" citizen's uprising calling itself the teabag movement is actually being coordinated by two corporate lobbying organizations with a long history of setting up fake astroturf campaigns.

So I hope the enraged wingnuts are enjoying being corporate tools.

On the other hand, as someone generally in favor of teabagging, I hope they have a great time.

[h/t: GottaLaff]

I'm not the only one wondering

I was wondering how come the CEO of GM is being forced out while the CEO's of BoA, Citi, and Goldman are all still in place.

David Sirota has some of the same questions.

GM Chief Resigning in Deal with U.S.

Okay. Fair enough.

I'm just curious, though.

How many executives at AIG, Goldman, or Citigroup, or Bank of America had to resign as a condition of receiving any assistance?


*crickets*


And they got a straight bailout, if I recall correctly, didn't they? It wasn't just access to loans? And wasn't it an order of magnitude more money?

Why, yes. I believe it was.

Can someone explain how this is anything other than rank classism, with financial companies given billions while manufacturing companies are forced to jump through hoops to receive much less assistance?

Anyone?

...Bueller?

Late edit: It was only 1 order of magnitude more money, not 2. My mistake.

Why You Shouldn't Use Foreign Terms You Don't Really Know

From an article on GM's woes....

General Motors has experience shedding divisions, and shut down the Oldsmobile brand in 2001. Plenty of Oldsmobiles are still on the road today, and continue to receive service through GM dealers and the independent aftermarket industry. Likewise, when Ford bid alvederzane to their German Merkur brand or when Chrysler furled the sails on Plymouth,...

Emphasis added.

Okay, trying to throw in some German when referring to a German brand is understandable. But next time, would it be possible to get it proofread by someone who actually knows German? I'm not sure I could spell Auf Wiedersehen correctly without looking it up, but I could certainly come closer than that...

(And I didn't look it up, and I may have misspelled it...but I still came closer than the supposed pro....)

Update Mar. 29: It's been fixed.

A Useful Rule of Thumb

From John A. over at AmericaBlog:

If you're emailing it to one person, what you're sending is probably good. If you're emailing it to 5 or more people, it's probably crap.

That about matches up with my experience.

Oh, Snap!

There's an outraged op-ed in the Times today from an offended trader at AIG financial products, angry at getting tarred with the same brush as the people who brought down the company.

And then there's Andrew Leonard's point:

DeSantis received a bonus payment on March 16 of $742,006.40. But he's going to donate all the after-tax proceeds to charity, and he can do that because "I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust."

If you are in a position to donate more than half a million to charity and your family finances are still secure enough during one of the worst recessions in American history that you can blithely quit your job, then you are sitting squarely within the most privileged sector of U.S. society. You are still living a life that is out of reach to the vast majority of Americans.

And I just don't think most people will care how betrayed you feel.

Exactly.

Personal Update

Work is coming along, though Spring Break is going to be mostly an exercise in catching up (and this is any different than usual how?). Made an offer on a house and we're moving forward, but the inspection inevitably found a few things, so now we're in the negotiations about who pays for what. So it's far from a done deal and could still fall through in any of several different ways. Something had to go overboard, and it was mostly blogging. Meh. Life happens. Oh, and I haven't had as much time to devote to the all-important webcomic reading either. I am SO going to have to get caught up over break....

Assisting Mark Kleiman

In a post about a topic I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on (yes, there are a few of them), Mark Kleiman wonders if there's a form of the term "bimbo" that applies to men.

The term I've heard used is "himbo."

Glad to be of service.

Still alive...

And kicking, more or less... Also house-hunting, which takes up an inordinate amount of time...

Shorter Kathleen Parker

Just because Obama won, doesn't mean the voters liked his ideas; they just didn't like McCain very much. If he's serious about bipartisanship, he should do whatever the Republicans want.* And it's foolish for the President to take on someone as powerful as Rush Limbaugh, because he can get the Republican base very riled up.

*Remember, that's what 'bipartisanship' means--Democrats doing what Republicans want.

=====

Yes, I know, it's insanely out of touch and irrational. But there it is. For Obama to act as if he's got political capital, just because he won, is no different than Bush's 2005 declaration of how much capital he had because he squeaked by into a victory that didn't have to be handed to him by the Supremes.

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny.

And yes, I know, no posts for a month. I'll try to do better.

Tolerance is not immunity to criticism

Noah Millman on religious tolerance:

[C]orporate bodies to exist at all must define their boundaries: this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is how we behave. And this requires an implicitly if not explicitly excluded “not that.” This being the case, if freedom of religion means, most fundamentally, the freedom to be a heretic, it equally means the freedom to declare that the other guy is a heretic. In a very real sense, a social environment that is hostile to religious intolerance must necessarily be hostile to religious freedom.

But this is only true if that intolerance calls upon the power of the state for its enforcement.

If someone says, "OUR magic sky-fairy only accepts white, heterosexual, blonde-haired blue-eyed worshippers who make at least $50K," fine. Go for it. Have fun. But when you run around telling certain "other" people that the magic sky-fairy thinks they're no different from pedophiles, that the magic sky-fairy says they're evil disgusting sub-humans, and the magic sky-fairy wants the gummint to make sure they aren't treated equally under the law--you're going to be criticized for it. Politicians who give you a platform are going to be criticized.

That's only "hostile to religious intolerance" in the sense that public statements and public actions are open to public criticism.

As far as I'm concerned, the Saddleback Church is completely within its rights to exclude gay members. I wish they wouldn't, but they certainly have the right to do so and there's no particular reason they should listen to me on the subject--after all, I don't claim to follow their magic sky-fairy or to be an authority on magic sky-fairies in general. Rick Warren is perfectly within his rights to say everything he's said. And I'm perfectly within my rights to point out the hateful bigotry in those statements. It's not the religion that's the problem here, it's the bigotry. Bigotry on behalf of a particular magic sky-fairy is still bigotry. If his magic sky-fairy tells him to be a bigot, that's his business, not mine. When he starts organizing and fundraising to take away my civil, secular, legal rights, it becomes my business.

A religious body is perfectly free to be intolerant. But when they express their intolerance through public discourse and the political proces, they become subject to public criticism. If your religion tells you to be intolerant toward certain things or certain people, fine. If you're too cowardly to face criticism from others who don't share your belief, keep them to yourself.

But religion doesn't give you the authority to run around criticizing everyone else while being immune to any such criticism yourself.

[h/t: Andrew Sullivan]

Speaking of people I like...

Christopher Hitchens' column over at Slate is a winner, as well.

As Barack Obama is gradually learning, his job is to be the president of all Americans at all times. If he likes, he can oppose the idea of marriage for Americans who are homosexual. That's a policy question on which people may and will disagree. However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.

This quite simply cannot stand. Is it possible that Obama did not know the ideological background of his latest pastor? The thought seems plausible when one recalls the way in which he tolerated the odious Jeremiah Wright. Or is it possible that he does know the background of racism and superstition and sectarianism but thinks (as with Wright) that it might be politically useful in attracting a certain constituency? Either of these choices is pretty awful to contemplate.

I've read several different explanations of how this is actually shrewd politics, a healing gesture, whatever. No, it isn't. Wrong messenger, wrong message. By an amazing coincidence, once again it's the gays being told to keep a lid on it, never mind the symbolism, we all have to put aside our personal issues and come together in unity and all that... but how come no one else has to do much adjusting?

Is this really just a cynical move? Do something to get the gays in an uproar, to gain credit for being a centrist who's willing to anger his base? A Sister Souljah moment? I can believe there was some of that present. I can't believe the Obama team fully expected the depth of the reaction, because they misjudged the depth of the hurt in the gay community. Having your civil rights put up for a vote, and taken away, to the tune of vile, hateful rhetoric, can do that. And inviting a major fundraiser who spewed more than his share of that bile to give the invocation, and thus implicit sanction....it's simply too much. It goes too far. Marc Ambinder's wrong about this, by at least half. And Andrew Sullivan is obviously seeing something I'm not; the "earnestness and sincerity of his campaign" are belied by the hamhandedness (or blatant cynicism) of this invitation.

As I told a friend of mine: I knew Obama would disappoint me. It's inevitable; every winning politician must, inevitably, disappoint his or her supporters. I just thought he'd be in office before it happened.

I know, I know. He's a politician, from Chicago. I never bought into the walks-on-water enthusiasm of some. But I thought he was a cut above the typical politician.

I'm not so sure now.

Why I [heart] Glenn Greenwald

His spot-on column today about how Obama's "new politics" is actually the same old politics, and how poorly it's worked in the past.

Go read it, it's good.

It's the end of the world as we know it....

In another sign of the impending Apocalypse, I find myself in agreement with Charles Krauthammer, at least on the Caroline-for-Senate thing.

If Princess Caroline wants a seat in the Senate, let her do it by election. There's one in 2010. To do it now by appointment on the basis of bloodline is an offense to the most minimal republicanism. Every state in the union is entitled to representation in the Senate. Camelot is not a state.

Zing!

Oh, well, never mind, then.

Kathleen Parker has a vaguely-unhinged column up at today's Post explaining that questioning Caroline Kennedy's qualifications for the Senate is reasonable, but there's a simple reason why those who oppose her on those grounds have got their facts wrong. You see, unlike those who opposed Palin on the grounds that she was "anointed--cynically selected without proper vetting", Caroline Kennedy would only be a Senator, would only be one person among 100, and would have to stand for election (eventually) anyway.

The thing of it is, Parker clearly understands, at least on an intellectual level, the argument against appointing Kennedy:

The real rub is that she hasn't earned it. The sense of entitlement implicit in Kennedy's plea for appointment mocks our national narrative. We honor rags-to-riches, but riches-to-riches animates our revolutionary spirit.

Palin paid her own passage unfreighted by privilege. But I and others opposed her spot on the Republican ticket for good reasons, some of which resemble concerns now aimed at Kennedy.

To wit: It isn't enough to want the prize. One must be up to the job, in a league with one's fellow actors.

Excellent summary! Couldn't have said it better. So what could possibly outweigh this argument?

In Kennedy's case, those actors would be senators, not heads of other, potentially belligerent, nations. If appointed, she would be a single vote among 100 and otherwise a placeholder until 2010, when she would have to run for election as any other.

Oh, well, in that case, it's okay, I suppose. After all, she can't launch nukes, so why shouldn't she have it, just because she wants it?

Hey, I have an even better idea. Since a Senate seat is no big deal, a House seat, where you're one person in 435 and have to stand for election every two years, must be next to nothing. If someone in a prominent family decides they'd like one, why don't we just let them have it? After all, you can't launch nukes or anything. And in fact, we could simply say that certain families have first dibs on the seat. We could pass them down through multiple generations! Won't that be exciting! Think about the fairy-tale endings we could put on our media narratives! And we could give those families special titles to show they're part of the aristocracy! Oh, wait, there's that little matter of the Constitution. Well, the last eight years have shown that it's mostly just suggested guidelines that don't really need to be taken seriously anyway.

Sorry. But simply being a Kennedy and deciding she wants to be Senator aren't enough. For Palin to rise to the Governorship in spite of her apparent lack of qualifications says a lot about her political chops and her determination, if nothing else. If Kennedy wants the seat, let her campaign for it.

Would Hillary have won if she weren't Mrs. Bill Clinton? Probably not. But she still campaigned. She met with voters, she pressed the flesh, ate the ethnic food and pretended to like it, the whole thing. Why should Caroline Kennedy have the seat for even two years, and the benefit of incumbency in the upcoming election, simply because she wants it? If there were a track record of elective office, of something beyond boards and fundraisers, it wouldn't reek so much. And if a prominent socialite not part of the Kennedy clan were interested in the seat, they wouldn't be getting this much serious consideration.

Of course, I'm not a resident of New York, so my opinion matters somewhere between diddly and squat. I don't know where Kathleen Parker lives. But to whatever degree she's trying to influence opinion, including the opinions of those who do matter on this question, her reasoning is shallow, waving away with an airy la-de-da some very real concerns about the corrosive effects of dynastic politics. For someone who tries to consider herself a conservative, she doesn't seem to understand basic political theory all that much.

What's the price going to be?

John A. cites anonymous but allegedly inside sources that the decision to invite Rick Warren came from Obama himself, that this wasn't from Feinstein or a staffer. Assume for the moment that's true.

Part of why Obama's felt free to disregard the left is that they gave him their support cheaply. As Congressional Democrats have demonstrated repeatedly, when there's no penalty, no price to be paid, for disregarding your concerns.... your concerns get disregarded a whole lot.

So. What's the price going to be? What sort of concession is going to be demanded? Early action on DADT? Federal recognition of state-level domestic partnerships? It should be something more than just some speechifyin'. He wouldn't have to devote his entire first term to LGBT issues--the Inauguration invocation, while a big deal, isn't an earth-shaker--but there has to be something.

And if he isn't held to it, made to pay a price for going out of his way to insult a constituency--then that constituency has no one and nothing but itself to blame.

This is ridiculous.

Every winning candidate must sooner or later disappoint his supporters. It's inevitable.

Backing the idea of Joe Lieberman staying in the Democratic Caucus was annoying. But Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural? WTF?

The election is over. I thought Obama's appearance at the Saddleback forum, unhealthy for democracy as it was, was an unfortunate example of a candidate doing what had to be done to win. But this is outrageous. The reasons are laid out very well by Joe at AmericaBlog, John at AmericaBlog, at Pam's, by Mark Kleiman over at RBC. I don't have much to add to what they've said.

We've heard oodles and oodles about how Obama's transition team is the savviest political team ever assembled. I can therefore only assume that this was deliberate. Has Obama made a calculated decision that the support of the LGBT community is not needed, that its loss will be more than offset by the uniting picture of a popular right-winger at the Inauguration?

Well, he's a politician. And he won the election. That means he gets to make such decisions.

But I don't have to like it. And I don't.

Most of his cabinet appointments have been good, and I don't share the general amazement that he's picking a team of centrists and relative insiders. That's pretty much the platform he campaigned on. But Rick Warren isn't centrist. He's Dobson with better PR. And putting him up on the podium sends a very clear message.

Message received, Barack. Loud and clear.

Kleiman update

Re: The previous post, which was originally about this post.

Mr Kleiman posted a comment pointing out a factual error in my post (my bad, I gotta stop posting late at night) and laying out his position in more detail. I was, in fact, misreading him in places, and his proposed solution has quite a bit to recommend it. I don't think it's likely to happen politically (govt recognizes partnerships, under some different name, for everyone, gay & straight alike, and religious organizations decide for themselves what 'marriage' means), but it would be a cleaner solution, and Mr Kleiman doesn't seem to think it's likely to happen immediately either. Anyway, go read the comment, it's worth it.

Thanks for the quick & courteous reply. I'm still sometimes amazed to realize I'm not just talking to myself on this internet thingy....

Trying to have it both ways

Mark Kleiman has a generally very good post over at RBC discussing gay marriage and his lack of sympathy for Maggie Gallegher, who resigned from the Coyote Grill in Hollywood after it was boycotted over her contributions to Prop. 8.

Most of the post is very good, pointing out that the boycott was about her public political acts, not her private religious beliefs, and that disapproving of something is not the same as wanting to use the power of the state to prohibit it.

So far, so good. However, in the last paragraph he reveals how little he really gets it:

Not that it matters, but I'm not especially a fan of legal recognition for same-sex marriage. I agree with Barack Obama that the state should recognize and protect committed pairwise domestic partnerships regardless of what they are called, and leave the definition of "marriage" to be worked out in civil society without the interference of the state. But that wasn't the question on the ballot.

But that's the problem. As the experience of New Jersey is showing, saying "it's a protected committed pairwise domestic partnership but not marriage" leads to all sorts of problems. Lack of insurance coverage, hospital visitation and consent-to-treat issues, and more, because the relevant (Federal, for the most part) regulations use the M-word exclusively. If it's not marriage, real marriage, it's separate and very much unequal. Leaving the definition of "marriage" to be "worked out by civil society" is playing with the lives of the people he claims to care about.

Leaving it to the states lets the states serve as policy laboratories. that's the classic Federalist argument for non-involvement. In this case, the experiment of almost-but-not-quite marriage has failed. It has not produced equality under the law for gay couples. Saying "civil society can work it out without government involvement" is impossible in an economy and society in which the government is as involved in our lives as it is. (Should it be less involved? Maybe. But that's not the question on the ballot, to borrow a phrase.)

If Mr Kleiman means that some sort of domestic-partnership status is a necessary waystation on the road to full equality, I'm skeptical but willing to be convinced. But unless I'm misreading him, that's not the point he's trying to make. He seems to be arguing in favor of benign neglect, of leaving the issue fallow because, after all, it's just so messy and while he doesn't personally have any objections, you understand, he just doesn't see the need to make it official. The states can set up something separate but equal (because we all know how well that works out) and "civil society" (by which he appears to mean straight society) can decide whether or not it's ready to allow queers to use the m-word. And if there are specific legal privileges that are tied to the m-word, well, um, I guess the queers will just have to wait, and be grateful for what they can get.

I wonder how many signatures we need to put the validity of Mr Kleiman's marriage on the ballot. We are going to get to vote on that, right? Or is he comfortable with the idea of the majority voting on minority rights because he's confident that it won't be his rights that are taken away?

I dunno. It's late, I'm in finals-week grading, perhaps I'm being unnecessarily uncharitable. But when someone who's usually so sharp says something so obtuse, it stands out.

Ruth Marcus Loses It

Ruth Marcus's column today on why Caroline Kennedy should be named Senator for New York starts off trying for some fair-and-balanced by discussing several very good reasons why she should not be named:

I always find it a bit creepy when children follow the career paths of their parents.... even though politics as family business has a lengthy pedigree in American history, I recoil from political dynasties.

For one, dynasties tend to illustrate the phenomenon of reversion to the mean: It's rare that the second generation outperforms the first....

More unsettling, political dynasties are fundamentally un-American. This is not -- or is not supposed to be -- a country in which political power is an inherited commodity. The notion that Caroline Kennedy could simply ring up the governor and announce, or even politely suggest, her availability grates against the meritocratic ideal. After all, even the children of politicians generally take the time to climb the usual rungs rather than parachute into top jobs.

Right on, Ruth. She gets it. Caroline for Senator would be a bad idea. If she wants to attain high elective office, let her go through the rigors of a campaign. Let her demonstrate her competence and let the voters decide if she's worthy.

A big bundle of cash -- see, for example, Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs chairman, former senator from New Jersey, now New Jersey governor -- is helpful for vaulting your way over the drudgery of doing time on the state Senate subcommittee on pensions. Ditto other forms of celebrity -- see, as an example, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Before getting all huffy about Caroline Kennedy's qualifications for the job, let's take a breath and remember Jesse Ventura and Sonny Bono.

But, again, they all campaigned. They all went through the process. They had to come out with positions on issues that weren't their pet causes, they met the voters, they did what they were supposed to. Yes, they had advantages. All other things are never equal. But U.S. Senator wasn't their first elective office. Even Hillary went through the process. Did she run on Bill's coattails? Duh, of course. But she also did fundraising, and campaigning, and the other things that gave her legitimacy.

So, why is Caroline so uniquely qualified? What makes her the best person to fill that position and represent New York in the Senate at this time?

What really draws me to the notion of Caroline as senator, though, is the modern-fairy-tale quality of it all....The lucky little girl with a pony and an impossibly handsome father. The stoic little girl holding her mother's hand at her father's funeral. The sheltered girl, whisked away from a still-grieving country by a mother trying to shield her from prying eyes.

In this fairy tale, Caroline is our tragic national princess. She is not locked away in a tower but chooses, for the most part, to closet herself there....She is the last survivor of her immediate family; she reveals herself only in the measured doses of a person who has always been, will always be, in the public eye....

I know it's an emotional -- dare I say "girly"? -- reaction. But what a fitting coda to this modern fairy tale to have the little princess grow up to be a senator.

Actually, no. Not if it's by being named to the position with little significant accomplishment in public life. (Yes, she's written a book. Better than nothing, but is that enough? By that standard, Bill O'Reilly is better qualified.) For her to enter politics and build on her family's legacy, by achieving something significant in her own right? Absolutely.

But of all the ways of choosing Senators, and of all the reasons to choose a particular person to fill a vacant seat, "it would make a perfect fairy-tale ending" is one of the worst. It isn't (or shouldn't be) about happy endings to stories we tell ourselves, it should be about the best combination on ideology and competence to get done what needs to be done now. I suspect Ruth Marcus knows better and, on reflection, will come to her senses.

Who, exactly, are these "reactionary liberals"?

George Will's column today is on the perils to the Republic posed by the threat of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. I'll let him summarize it:

[T]he doctrine required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air. The government decided the meaning of the italicized words.

He points out, quite correctly, that the original argument in favor of the Doctrine was scarcity of spectrum; with only a relatively few stations, and those stations using the public's airwaves for private profit, they had a responsibility to present different sides of an issue. (From his comments, it appears Will found the rationale unpersuasive, but that's a separate issue.)

And he observes, correctly, in an era of 100-channel cable packages, exploding talk radio, and that there Internet thingy, the scarcity argument doesn't carry nearly as much weight as it used to. BUT... check out the last few paragraphs. Note what's there, and what isn't.

[S]ome liberals now say: The problem is not maldistribution of opinion and information but too much of both. Until recently, liberals fretted that the media were homogenizing America into blandness. Now they say speech management by government is needed because of a different scarcity -- the public's attention....

And these worrywarts say the proliferation of radio, cable, satellite broadcasting and Internet choices allows people to choose their own universe of commentary, which takes us far from the good old days when everyone had the communitarian delight of gathering around the cozy campfire of the NBC-ABC-CBS oligopoly. Being a liberal is exhausting...

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism's name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.

So I have a question: Who, exactly, are these "reactionary liberals"? Part of why I read Will is his careful research, his willingness to name names, cite sources, and in general provide a factually-grounded as well as well-reasoned argument. (I seldom agree with him, but his columns are always thought-provoking.)

Yet here he simply invokes the right-wing bugaboo of "reactionary liberals." Um, I spend a fair amount of time cruising through the left blogosphere. Not all my time--I do have a life, such as it is--but I'm simply not seeing a groundswell from the Left for reviving the Fairness Doctrine. I'm hearing a lot of bloviating from the right about how restoring the Doctrine is going to be Barack Hussein Obama's first step in turning America into a Socialist Muslim Atheist Marxist Dictatorship. The Lefties I'm reading are more concerned with the economy in free-fall, the Iraq mess, and health care, than with restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

So who are these people, Mr Will? What are your sources? Or, to keep your readership up with the base, do you just occasionally take a Limbaugh rant, edit it for tone, and run it?

Roger Ebert on Ben Stein

A wonderful take-down of Stein's awful creationist movie. Here's a sample:

This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.

And there is worse, much worse.

For the entire buildup, to see how he reaches that point, go read the entire thing.

[With a big h/t to Princess Sparkle Pony!]

Giving Thanks

Gail Collins reminds us of the things to be thankful for that we may not have thought of.

Though if I can find the Thanksgiving Prayer that Heather Havrilesky wrote for Suck.com back in the day... that's still one of my favorites ever.

the Lieberman decision

Disgust does not BEGIN to describe my reaction to this. The Democratic "leadership" has decided that expecting Joe Lieberman to pay a price for supporting the Republican nominee, demonizing and questioning the patriotism of the Democratic nominee, and being the least effective committee chair in the Senate would be unreasonable; after all, that would make Joe all frowny, and we can't have that.

So now the lying opportunist hack is still caucusing with the Democrats. Argh.

Glenn Greenwald has documented some of the extent of Joe's perfidy and the excessive degree of "bipartisanship" that made the Democrats nothing but a punching bag for Republicans, a role they seem determined to keep playing. John Aravosis has some insights as well.

What they said.

I kan too has profundity

This morning's lead article on Salon is an attempt to explain the phenomenon of lolcats to those who have been living in caves the last couple of years. (Obsession with the election isn't a valid excuse, as there were sites dedicated to lolmccain, and lolmccain and lolobama sites up before the election. A lot of them seem to be gone, but some are still around.)

It's an attempt at deconstruction, but it's the most shallow, facile attempt at deconstruction I've ever read, an overly-earnest explanation of how the humor works, how it's actually symbolic, you see, so they're not really cats, they're symbols, all leading to the conclusion (are you ready for this?):

They're people. They're us.

Wow. That's really the best you could come up with? Seriously, anyone who needed that explained to them probably isn't a Salon reader in the first place. The thing I regret most is that reading the article took me about eight minutes, and I'll never get that eight minutes back.

Or, in lolcat:

EPIC FAIL. KTHXBAI.

Quote of the day

From a commenter on one of the blogs at WaPo:

Being in the majority means responding to the weakening cry of "Liberal!" with the loud and overbearing oath, "Dimwit!"

Olbermann

Usually I don't have much patience with Keith Olbermann, unless for some reason I need a dose of umbrage and indignation. (Maybe it's just the things of his I've stumbled across or had forwarded to me--I'm not a regular viewer.)

But this, I think, is worth thinking about. A plea for love in a harsh, sometimes uncaring world.

Memo to Kathleen Parker

Just a few quick comments on your column today:

1) Yes, I'm sure you're getting angry mail from annoyed right-wingers. BUT, your response:

Yes, absolutely, let's start censoring people who entertain ideas and opinions that make us unhappy. Now there's a sure path to enlightenment!

while satisfyingly high on the snark scale, isn't accurate, and I think (hope) you know it. You're confusing censorship and criticism (or threats to boycott). Refusing to read your column and censoring you aren't the same thing. Not even close. If you make public commentary, you're going to have people who disagree with you. Why, even I myself have on occasion been criticized by regular readers of this blog--both of them. (In my case, I don't confuse censorship and obscurity.)

2) A bit of info. You write:

The most common complaint I've heard lately is that when people on the right criticize each other, the left uses that to its advantage. (The right would never do such a thing.)

You're quite right to be skeptical about the right not using disorganization of its opponents to its advantage. Yes, the left has its share of circular firing squads. But the right has been very skillful at exploiting them (anyone else remember Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos'?).

Also, I'm told, the left doesn't eat its own the way the right does. . . . Whether assertions about the left's sturdier loyalties are accurate, I can't say.

I can. They're not. And this isn't new. Truman said, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." Remember the drama when David Geffen suggested Hillary might not be the one? Howard Dean becoming DNC Chair?

But one could argue that eating one's own -- that is, being willing to say what's true even when doing so is not in one's immediate self-interest -- is not a defect but rather an imperative that conservatives might wish to claim as their own.

Here, of course, you're quite right. One's commitment to the truth should be paramount, even when that truth is embarrassing or inconvenient. Alas, we live in an imperfect world.

Oh, and please walk down the hall and point out to Harold Meyerson that while some post-election schadenfreude is in order, and I'll admit to indulging a little myself, it's actually in our long-term best interest for the GOP to get its act together. (Jettisoning the Faux Noise wing of the party would be a first step, I agree, and a welcome change.) But: A healthy democracy needs a healthy opposition party. Today's GOP isn't it. As Meyerson points out, it's a regional, narrow, race- and class- defined party with strong elements of anti-intellectualism, Know-Nothingism, and xenophobia. They need to get their act together to force some discipline onto the Democrats, who certainly don't seem capable of disciplining themselves some day.

(Case in point: Why are we debating whether Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, after he campaigned for the GOP, questioned the competence and basic loyalty of the Democratic nominee, lied about the nominee's voting record, and did NOTHING during his previous term as committee chair? Because, apparently, expecting him to pay a price for misbehavior would make Lieberman feel bad, and that would make people all frowny.)

The Republican party can use this as an opportunity for soul-searching and rebuilding. If they follow the Democratic model, though, they'll have to lose another round of midterms and possibly a presidential election (Sarah in '12!) before they get serious about it.

In the meantime, while I can take some pleasure in watching them go through the process, I can only hope they get through the process relatively quickly.

Well, that didn't take long.

Every winning candidate must, sooner or later, disappoint his supporters. It's inevitable.

I just didn't expect it to happen this soon.

Lieberman campaigned for the opposing candidate. He questioned the competence and basic loyalty of the Democratic nominee. He held NO hearings as chairman of the homeland security committee. With everything going on with warrantless wiretaps, habeas suspensions, renditions, and the unitary executive, he couldn't find anything to poke around in.

Why, exactly, are the Democrats bending over backwards to keep this clown in the Democratic caucus?

Quote of the day

"The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."

- Alexis de Tocqueville, with a h/t to Andrew Sullivan.

Yet another...

Gail Collins mentions today that Senator Lindsay Graham said, at one point during the campaign, that he'd drown himself if North Carolina went for Obama.

Well, it did. But he probably won't follow through.

Just one more broken promise from the Republicans.

Election Day: Report from the trenches

Polls opened in Missouri at 6:00 AM. When I arrived a few minutes before 6:00, there were over 200 people in line, snaking down the steps, along the sidewalk, through the parking lot, almost to the street in the back of the little Knights of Columbus hall where we vote. The parking lot was full, the parking lot in the church across the street was full, and people were parking 2 or 3 blocks away. I've NEVER seen more than 10 people in line at this polling station since I've lived here.

A slightly bleary-eyed 20-something got in line behind me and said this was his first time voting, were the lines always this long? Several of us in line had a good laugh and assured him that no, none of us ever seen anything quite like this, certainly not at 6 AM.

The line moved relatively quickly, as such things go. People were in a good mood, and no one seemed frustrated by the long wait (though one person had to leave the line because they had to be at work at 7:00, but I heard them say they'd be back after they got off shift at 3:30). I got my optical-scan ballot at 6:45 and was out the door at 6:50. By that time, the line was shorter--there were "only" a hundred people or so, and the line only went halfway down the parking lot.

Something big is happening. And with turnout like this, whoever wins will certainly be able to claim a mandate.

One other thing. I'm not one for flag-waving sentimentality. But walking up to the polls, seeing 200 people lined up before sunrise, patiently waiting for the opportunity to cast a vote--Is this a great country, or what? Maybe American democracy has a chance after all. The people are waking up, and they are about to speak. Loudly, I think.

Update: This is the body of an email I sent to Andrew Sullivan. He posted part of it. I'm famous, woohoo! Well, in an anonymous, who-cares kind of way.

One more thing I was wrong about

Last summer, I opined to anyone who'd listen that while the $4/gallon prices were temporary, gas was settling into a new higher range, a "new normal," and we'd never see $2/gallon again.

Yesterday I filled up for $1.999/gal at my local convenience store.

I dismissed certain blogospheric rants about manipulation and price-fixing as so much conspiracy theory, but a 50% drop in 5 months? Demand hasn't dropped *that* much, and perhaps wasn't *that* high last summer.

Just another something that makes you go, "Hmmmmm....."

Guffaw-worthy quote of the day

Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There's a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism.

--David Frum, today's Washington Post

Project much?

Oh, SNAP! Story Blurb Of The Day

From today's NY Times:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. has been butchering Senator John McCain this week. It is not clear who has noticed.

Hypocrisy Watch

Andrew Sullivan defends anyone's absolute right to criticize Catholicism, no matter how crudely.

And yet, a couple months ago, when PZ Myers desecrated a holy cracker, Andrew was most indignant.

I'm just saying.

Science policy questions for the election season

NancyP over at Pam's has a very good post about questions we should be asking the candidates about their policies on science and technology.

I think I'd want to add one or two, but I also think it's late in the day and I'm tired, so I'll let it percolate a bit before I post.

Quote

If the conservative movement in America is mostly about getting the federal government off our backs, then why does the Republican platform promote constitutional amendments to force prayer in schools, force women to have children they do not want and make it a crime to express political dissent by burning a flag?

Rack Jite

Quote of the day

Barack Obama can't help it if he's a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you're a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That's why George Bush is president. And that's where the McCain camp gets its campaign strategy: Paint Obama as cocky and arrogant and wait for America to vote him off, like the black guy in every reality show. A black president? Half of Pennsylvania isn't ready for black quarterbacks. Forget Obama, they think Will Smith needs to be taken down a peg.

--Bill Maher

video moment of the day

Did anyone else catch the CNN camera pointing at someone in the back holding up a banner saying "MCCAIN VOTES AGAINST VETS"?

Alternate Reality Land

Cindy McCain bio film: "It was love at first sight." No mention that John was married to someone else at the time.

Cindy McCain: A woman picks a husband by what kind of father he'll be, and she hit a home run in John. No mention that John's kids were raised by his FIRST wife... the one he committed adultery on, then dumped. Spare me about what a good family man he is.

Paeans to individual responsibility, after a night mocking those who organize citizens to take care of themselves.

Did you know McCain was a hero in Vietnam?

Did she just claim with a straight face that he wasn't a Washington insider?

And that he always speaks the truth no matter what the cost?

Who, exactly, is she talking about again?

Oh, Snap! Part 2

Since last night, the Republicans have reported a burst of new donations, with $1 million in contributions since yesterday.

The Obama campaign reports raising $8 million since last night, and on track to have raised $10 million by the time John McCain takes the stage tonight.

It does indeed appear that the base has been energized--for both parties.

[h/t: Marc Ambinder, by way of Andrew Sullivan]

Quote of the day 2

If we never question our religions or their motives, they will ultimately destroy our freedom to do so.

William H. Reynolds, Creationism: The Fossil Record and the Flood

[h/t: PZ Myers]

Oh, snap!

Last night Palin said this:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

This morning the Obama campaign said this:

Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed.

Let's clarify something for them right now.

Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.

[h/t: Pam Spaulding. That post also has a picture of Palin in what was almost certainly an unintentional pose, that's still disturbing]

Quote of the day

Actually from yesterday, but I just stumbled on it this morning:

Obama hasn't confused his base for the country. These guys don't seem to know the difference.

--Ta-Nehisi Coates

Palin's speech: the morning after

A lot (most) of it was the same culture-war GOP boilerplate we've been hearing for years. And it didn't address any of the substantive issues. It wasn't anything we haven't heard before. And as the Republicans have reminded us, there's a lot more to the job than giving good speeches. She's got a background in broadcasting, we know she's good at reading copy written by someone else. Giving a good speech doesn't qualify her for the job.

The Republicans were never going to just lay down and die. They're going to fight back, and not give up power easily. No one does, why should they be different? Yes, Palin's speech was infuriating. But it wasn't, to use this year's over-used phrase, "game-changing."

It rallied the base; it was clearly aimed at the people in the convention hall, and it clearly succeeded with them. But if I were a middle-of-the-road voter, doing relatively OK but a little worried about my mortgage payment, OK with being in Iraq but not happy with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...would I have heard anything there appealing to me? Or just standard GOP culture-war boilerplate?

Addendum: A bit of linkage:

PZ Myers: This is how we will lose

WaPo: In a more diverse America, a mostly white convention

Gail Collins, NYT: Palin seems an awful running mate, until you look at the alternatives

NYT blog: Still one step behind (apparently written before Palin speech)

AmericaBlog: Sarah stretches the truth

RBC: Palin was at 2006 Alaska Independence Party Convention

CNN's online quick poll:

How do you rate Republican VP choice Sarah Palin's convention speech?

Thumbs up	43%	81618
Thumbs down	34%	64820
Didn't watch	22%	41694
Total Votes: 188132

Oh, and as for Romney's ripping into "liberal" Washington: who exactly does he think has been in charge for the last 8 years?

Quote of the day

"If the Obamas had a 17 year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if that they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families."

--Byron York

[h/t: Andrew Sullivan]

And the nation yawned...

Overnight reaction to the conventions, based on CNN online survey, the holy grail of political polling:

What did you think of the GOP convention's Tuesday night program?

Thumbs up					26%	23444
Thumbs down					27%	25038
Didn't watch					47%	42875
Total Votes: 91357

Liveblogging the GOP convention 2

8:45 PM: Laura Bush walking on. Crowd going wild at the sight of the only member of the Administration not personally touched by corruption or illegality. McCain is a hero, Palin is an executive and reformer! Lots of women in the GOP! Laura loves George! He's a "man of character whose principles will not change." [Nor his ideas, in spite of facts.] George loves America! Lots of opinions lately, not many facts, so here we go with some straight talk. No Child Left Behind. Supreme Court Justices! (crowd going APE. Well, as much as Republicans do.) Faith-based initiatives. AIDS relief in Africa. (All snark aside, that's been a success.) "Change you can really believe in." Bush takes credit for Bill Gates' malaria initiative. We liberated Iraq & Afghanistan! There hasn't been another 9/11! [Question: Why is Osama Bin Laden still at large?] Yay for the troops! [question: Why don't we honor them with more than our thanks, by expanding some benefits and medical care?]

Bush coming on monitor. Crowd going nuts.

Can't be at convention because he's busy working & carrying out his duty. Gustav work underway. Bush on McCain: I know what it takes to be President. I get briefings, threat assessment. McCain's life has prepared him to make tough choices. He commanded his unit. Senate career. Service! He was a POW. [crowd almost missed their cue for an applause line] If the Hanoi Hilton couldn't break him, "the angry left never will." He'll protect human life. He's committed to principle! (how can he say that with a straight face?) He'll make tax cuts permanent, lift ban on driling, support new technologies. (the ones he voted against?) He's independent! He's a maverick! He's honest! The Democrats were threatening to cut off the troops & retreat, but McCain had faith in them! [the troops, not the democrats.] Quote from mccain about rather lose an election than lose a war, leaving the comparison (canard) unspoken. 9/11! 9/11! Palin will be great! I'm optimistic! America is great! Americans are great! Freedom is great! Americans will look at judgment/policies/experience & vote McCain/Palin! Laura's great! God bless everyone!

Laura's back. McCain has what it takes. Cindy supports John! Cindy's made PR trips to different countries! She can make even more! Yay for America!

9:05 PM: Reagan bio film. The media hated Reagan! Some called him a maverick! (McCain, you're no Reagan.) Reagan ran on conviction politics. Yay for America! Yay for Reagan! McCain knew Reagan! [no word on Reagan's surprise when McCain dumped his injured wife to marry the millionaire heiress he'd committed adultery with.] Everything was better under Reagan! Reagan put country first and "saved *our* America."

9:09 PM: Fred Thompson speaks. [My ghod, it just hit me just how much he sounds like Foghorn Leghorn.] Will always have challenge, but yay for America! Palin is a "breath of fresh air." (Unlike the phrasing of his speech.) Having small-town values isn't enough. "Media bigshots" are criticizing someone who was actually governor & not just a talking head on tv. "I say, I say, give me a governor..." he's in full foghorn mode. The crowd's eating it up. She's not part of the beltway crowd. The selection has "the other side & their friends in the media" in a panic. She's not afraid to take on the establishment. (good thing they got a professional actor to give this speech, no one else could give it w/ a straight face.) She knows how to field-dress a moose! They're going to drain the swamp in washington. (that'd be the one Bush has been in for 8 years.)

Pivot to McCain's character. He's a veteran! His sons are in the military! [Again the moving-hurricane-clouds backdrop. wth?] Introduction of McCains in the audience.

Phone ringing. Going offline.

10:07 Back online... and it seems to be winding down for the night. Talking heads are on.

Signing off for the evening.

Liveblogging the GOP convention

Why not...

8:09 PM: Just tuned in via CNN's streaming video. Shanna Hanson is speaking. What's up with the vertigo-inducing cloud-motion backdrop? Are they trying to make it look like the speaker is on the mountaintop or something? Is it intended to remind people of Gustav?

8:11 PM. Empty seats everywhere. The crowd looks bored. TR bio starting.

8:11 PM: History flick. Yay for Lincoln! (Lincoln was the best creator of 1-liners in US history? Until Reagan?) Remember how much the Democrats hated Lincoln! They called him a bad speaker!

8:13 PM: OOooh, risky. Pointing out that Lincoln protected the Constitution. Note the contrast with President Doofus. And here we go, Lincoln put country before self.

8:14 PM: CEO of Raza Development Fund speaking. Democrat who likes McCain. Establishing his credentials as a Christianist. News flash: McCain was a POW! Yay for God! John McCain is a nice guy! Bible quote! Hm, mention of immigrants. How will that play with the base? Biggest cheer yet: "sanctity of life," "sanctity of marriage." Yay for America!

8:20 PM: G. H. W. Bush Bio film starting. He was a war hero! He served his country! Desert Storm! Country First! Bush waves, crowd cheers.

8:24 PM: Putting others first! Service! Hooray for farmers and the private nonprofit no-govt-money agencies that help them! They can't make a living, they can't survive during a crisis--we plant/harvest crops but don't give them money, if they're morally deserving (a "crisis," i.e. not their fault, because low crop prices aren't affected by govt policies, and intrusive government safety regulations are part of the problem). Service! Service!

8:29 PM: Retired army captain. (Retired? at captain?) McCain is a hero. My story isn't as good, but whose is? (That's right, McCain is the GREATEST AMERICAN HERO EVER.) Injured, complications, almost died. Got better. [crowd shot: They look bored.] America is great! Life is tough. America is land of opportunity.

First reactions: I'm struck by the difference in tone. The Democratic convention speeches were scrappy, and policy based. They talked about issues. Sometimes they demagogued, but they talked about issues. It was more than feel-good yay-for-America stuff. Granted, this is warming-up-the-crowd... But so far I haven't heard a single reason why I should vote for McCain other than he's an ex-POW who loves America and God. I haven't even heard any reason why Republicans are better suited to lead than Democrats.

To be fair, I also haven't heard the sort of "We love America and that other party doesn't" rhetoric the GOP sometimes falls into, either.

AFK a bit being domestic. Back later.

McCain Just Didn't Do His Job

So it also turns out Sarah Palin may have been briefly involved with the Alaska Independence Party, which views the USA as a colonizing power and wants AK to be an independent state. She's just now hiring a lawyer for troopergate. She was all about getting earmarked money for her hometown when she was mayor. Her daughter's pregnancy was apparently an "open secret" around the town, but no one in the campaign knew about it. And lots of people who should have been asked as part of a vetting process, weren't.

He's had six months since he wrapped up the nomination. More than just about any candidate in history. And basic work wasn't done.

Some are speculating he wanted Lieberman or Ridge, but they're both unacceptable to the theocrats, so he caved. And, it does seem as if the theocratic wing of the GOP is the only one happy with this selection. And of course, if he can't stand up to activists in his own party, how's he going to deal with Ahmedinejad?

Oh, but wait. He's doing this to win. After all, if he doesn't win, there won't BE a McCain administration to take on Iran. But, of course, this pretty much undercuts his 'maverick' image who's willing to stand up to conventional wisdom and do what he thinks is right.

Either he's incompetent, or he's a moral coward. Or he's just another politician willing to say or do whatever it takes to get to 51%.

What happened to the tough, courageous POW?

Addendum: David Brooks has a guffaw-worthy column today in which he tries to argue that it doesn't really matter, that he knows John McCain and everything McCain does is virtuous and right, simply because McCain does it. But even he is forced to concede:

If McCain is elected, he will face conditions tailor-made to foster disorder. He will be leading a divided and philosophically exhausted party. There simply aren’t enough Republican experts left to staff an administration, so he will have to throw together a hodgepodge with independents and Democrats. He will confront Democratic majorities that will be enraged and recriminatory.

On top of these conditions, he will have his own freewheeling qualities: a restless, thrill-seeking personality, a tendency to personalize issues, a tendency to lead life as a string of virtuous crusades.

He really needs someone to impose a policy structure on his moral intuitions. He needs a very senior person who can organize a vast administration and insist that he tame his lone-pilot tendencies and work through the established corridors — the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council. He needs a near-equal who can turn his instincts, which are great, into a doctrine that everybody else can predict and understand.

Rob Portman or Bob Gates wouldn’t have been politically exciting, but they are capable of performing those tasks. Palin, for all her gifts, is not. She underlines McCain’s strength without compensating for his weaknesses. The real second fiddle job is still unfilled.

So, again, McCain hasn't found someone suitable for the job.

Memo to the candidate: When even David Brooks is concerned, you really blew it.

A question of judgment

Again and again and again: The issue is not Sarah Palin. (Well, not entirely; there's evidence leaking out to be concerned about, more signs that she wasn't properly vetted.)

The issue is what this selection says about McCain's decision-making. In picking a relative unknown, we have 70 days to get familiar with her and learn if she's any more than someone convenient who passes all the right-wing ideology criteria. In selecting her, McCain invites the (false) conclusion that there are no Republican women better qualified. (Kay Bailey Hutchinson has more experience in national and international affairs. Carly Fiorina has more executive experience. Elizabeth Dole has more of both, having served in the Executive Branch as well as the Senate. I'd disagree with all of them and wouldn't want to see any of them in office--but that's because of policy questions, not concerns about basic experience and temperament.)

E. J. Dionne has a good column up today over at WaPo about how this may play out in Convention Week and beyond, and how his own decision complicates McCain's job badly. He also calls out movement conservatives who were horribly concerned about Harriet Meier's lack of experience, but have no problem with Sarah Palin's lack of experience. (Hint: It's not nearly as much about experience as it is about maintaining power and making sure someone is really one of them.) Money quote:

In picking Biden as his running mate, Obama made a prudent choice. It is McCain who is asking us to roll the dice. You'd think that people who call themselves conservative would have a problem with that.

Ordinarily I'm wary of reading too much into the small human-interest details that get tossed into bio puff pieces. But: Obama plays low-stakes poker, a game about deducing how things look from the other person's perspective, making the most of limited information, and adjusting your strategy to the nuances at the table. He plays conservatively, and rarely bluffs. McCain plays higher-stakes (what would be very high stakes for me, but for a man of his wealth not excessive) craps, a game in which the odds are fixed, nuances are few, and letting winnings ride so everything is determined by the next throw of the dice is encouraged.

In this case, gaming preferences may be diagnostic.

McCain's Fundamental Lack of Seriousness

Michael Kinsley has a must-read over at Slate about the GOP's tossing away the experience argument, and the suddenness with which the punditocracy has done so. Suddenly it's not about experience, it's about something else. We're not quite sure what, yet, but it's definitely something. Best zinger statistic:

Why, before her stint as governor of Alaska, population 670,000, she was mayor of a town of 9,000. Remember when the Republicans mocked Bill Clinton for being governor of a "small state"? That would be Arkansas, population 2.8 million. As it happens, 670,000 is the population of metropolitan Little Rock.

Money quote:

How could anyone truly believe that Barack Obama's background and job history are inadequate experience for a president, and simultaneously believe that Sarah Palin's background and job history are perfectly adequate? It's possible to believe one or the other. But both? Simply not possible. John McCain has been—what's the word?—lying. And so have all the pundits who rushed to defend McCain's choice.

Yeah. What he said.

The Palin selection raises serious questions about McCain's judgment, and about how seriously he takes the position. It's looking more and more as if she wasn't adequately vetted beforehand. If you seriously believe that terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are the overarching issues of our day, how can you select someone with apparently no prior interest in foreign affairs at all as your running mate? If you truly believe your opponent is dangerously inexperienced, how can you select someone with even less national experience?

This says something about McCain's seriousness, his judgment, or his competence. Pick one.

Snarky Atheist Video of the Day

Why God Seems Nonexistent.

Nothing brilliantly original here, but well-executed.

And check the comments out. Poe's law still holds: No matter how over the top it is, someone will take it seriously.

[Hat tip: PZ Myers]

Embezzlers (?) For Jesus. Well, self-enrichers, at least.

PZ has the details.

It seems a small bank tried to do everything just as God wanted, including praying before all their meetings and giving 10% of their income to charity. (The article doesn't say whether that's gross or net income.)

It also seems they paid themselves exorbitantly well -- five or six times what bank officers at banks that size usually make.

I know there's something there about the workman being worthy of his hire, but isn't there also something about rich men, camels, needle's eyes, etc?

(Though actually the reference was to a very narrow gate in Jerusalem, called the Needle's Eye, that merchants had to go through. A loaded camel wouldn't fit; thus the camel had to be completely unloaded, with the friendly tax collector conveniently close by. This concludes today's historical aside.)

The FDIC is looking into things.

Obama's speech

Strong start, eh middle, strong finish. All in all, a success. But what in the hell is up with the action-movie-closing-credits music afterwards? It's not inspiring, not uplifting, it sounds like it's supposed to scare us. Better fit for a campaign of fear than hope.

Of candidates and choices

One more reason why PZ Myers is one of my favorite curmudgeons:

Fair enough, actually. It does represent a difference in values: that [Kay] Hagan may not be an atheist but is willing to speak with them says one thing about her values, and that Elizabeth Dole thinks atheists are un-American says something else about her values. It also says a lot about Dole that she is willingly affiliated with the party of bigotry and incompetence, the Republicans. These are choices made by candidates that are legitimate issues to help voters decide who they should elect.

The Republican party is not going to worthy of respect until the theocrats are fully repudiated. And one election cycle won't be enough to do it.

Noonan makes a good point

Peggy Noonan, who I've certainly disagreed with before, about a great many things, makes a very salient observation about the two parties:

Democrats in the end speak most of, and seem to hold the most sympathy for, the beset-upon single mother without medical coverage for her children, and the soldier back from the war who needs more help with post-traumatic stress disorder. They express the most sympathy for the needy, the yearning, the marginalized and unwell. For those, in short, who need more help from the government, meaning from the government's treasury, meaning the money got from taxpayers.

Who happen, also, to be a generally beset-upon group.

Democrats show little expressed sympathy for those who work to make the money the government taxes to help the beset-upon mother and the soldier and the kids. They express little sympathy for the middle-aged woman who owns a small dry cleaner and employs six people and is, actually, day to day, stressed and depressed from the burden of state, local and federal taxes, and regulations, and lawsuits, and meetings with the accountant, and complaints as to insufficient or incorrect efforts to meet guidelines regarding various employee/employer rules and regulations. At Republican conventions they express sympathy for this woman, as they do for those who are entrepreneurial, who start businesses and create jobs and build things. Republicans have, that is, sympathy for taxpayers. But they don't dwell all that much, or show much expressed sympathy for, the sick mother with the uninsured kids, and the soldier with the shot nerves.

Neither party ever gets it quite right, the balance between the taxed and the needy, the suffering of one sort and the suffering of another. You might say that in this both parties are equally cold and equally warm, only to two different classes of citizens.

Of Omens & Portents

PZ Myers, a self-described "godless liberal," is forced to admit that there may be something to omens & portents after all.

He may be on to something.... If there is a magic sky-fairy, he/she/it can't be pleased with the ninnies running around insisting that he/she/it wants them to have a tax cut and kick out the damn furriners as his/her/its top priority.

Hillary's Speech

A bit much boilerplate for my taste toward the beginning, but she ended with a strong finish. She laid out why supporting Obama is important, and her line about "was it just for me, or was it for the people who feel invisible" laid it out right there. If you're still angry about how the primaries went down and use that as an excuse to stay home, you're hurting the people who are going to be worse off with McCain.

On that note, Michael O'Hare has a great post over at RBC:

Someone should suffer for the wrongs done to Hillary, but anyone who thinks that will be Obama if McCain is elected either has no heart or no brain. It's like voting for Nader, compounding the careless, heedless pique of a child who punches a younger sibling because Dad turned off the TV with the wilful ignorance of tourists who yell at people who don't speak their language. And just as destructive. If the voter who chooses to act out that way is among the lucky upper middle class intelligentsia for whom the Bush years have been infuriating, but actually not all that personally injurious, all the more disreputable. [emphasis added]

Yeah. What he said.

Not feeling the Hillary-Love

Jack Cafferty has also had about enough Clintonian drama at this point.

It's not like they have been bending over backwards to help Obama get elected. Bill Clinton has barely been polite. He couldn't even bring himself to say he thought Obama is qualified to be president. Now, Bill Clinton is reportedly not happy about the topic of his speech Wednesday night.

Politico.com reports the former president wanted to talk about the economy under President Bush compared to his accomplishments during his term in office. The theme for Wednesday night is "Securing America for the 21st Century." It seems Bill Clinton is forever more interested in reminding us of what a charming guy he was while in office than in acting like one of the leaders of his party and trying to get his party into the White House.

Kind of sad, really.

Yet, Obama's people have gone out of their way to accommodate the Clintons this week in the hopes of achieving party unity. Obama told reporters on Monday that former President Clinton could speak about anything he likes.

Some of Hillary Clinton's supporters had threatened to disrupt the proceedings if their candidate wasn't shown the proper amount of respect. They're called PUMAs, an acronym for "Party Unity My Ass." They appear to be a humorless lot who cannot come to terms with the fact that the country didn't want Hillary Clinton to be president. So they have been throwing a hissy fit ever since the primaries ended.

It's always and everywhere about them.

Still not getting it

Marie Cocco has an article at today's WaPo about Hillary's thankless job, how it's slightly demeaning to expect her to support the nominee, who came from behind and stole what was rightfully hers.

A few observations:

1. She started with a huge warchest, near-universal name recognition, the support of a popular ex-President, and the best political machine in the business.
   
2. She ran a campaign marked by warring staff, unpaid vendors, and a complete lack of contingency plans after Super Tuesday, when she expected to have it wrapped up. (Remember how surprised they were by the Texas caucus rules, two weeks before the Texas vote? They hadn't even started organizing there, as they didn't expect there would possibly be any need to.)
   
3. Point two suggests a lack of executive ability. I'm just saying.
   
4. Her opponent ran a tightly-disciplined operation, mobilized new supporters, out-organized and out-hustled her. Yes, this was an exceptional year in that a relatively inexperienced Senator, and a black one at that, was able to be a serious contender. That doesn't change the fact that he ran a very good campaign. Much better than hers.
   
5. This is politics, not stickball. It ain't always fair, because life ain't always fair. If it were fair, the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry would never have been seen as anything but laughable. If it were fair, then impeaching a President for lying in a civil suit would have lowered the bar enough to demand impeachment for a President who authorized war crimes in direct violation of legally binding treaty--surely a "high crime or misdemeanor" if there is one.
   

Does Hillary have some bitter disappointment to deal with? Undoubtedly. It's no doubt painful, and having to do much of it in public can only make it worse.

But please. She's not a helpless victim here. She lost the campaign because of the campaign she ran.

Quote of the Day

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born to wealth, but that didn’t stop him from doing more for working Americans than any president before or since. Conversely, Joseph Biden’s hardscrabble life story, though inspiring, didn’t stop him from supporting the odious 2005 bankruptcy bill.

But in the world we actually live in, pro-corporate, inequality-increasing Republicans argue that you should vote for them because they’re regular guys you’d like to have a beer with, while Democrats who want to raise taxes on top earners, expand health care and raise the minimum wage are snooty elitists.

--Paul Krugman, today's NYT

Slant your coverage much, Wofl?

Check out Wolf "Anything-For-My-Pal-McCain"'s lede on CNN this morning:

And now the selling begins. The Democrats need to do some major marketing at their party convention in Denver, Colorado. First and foremost, they need to sell Sen. Barack Obama. They need to convince American voters that he's the right man to lead the country.

"Now the selling begins"? Um, last time I checked, Obama was leading in the polls. Most Americans are already convinced he's the right man to lead the country. And in case Wolf, being new to journalism and all, isn't aware of it, a convention does have some function beyond PR and 'selling.'

Although it is true that John McCain was a POW. It's not relevant in this context, but it gets trotted out to explain everything else, so I figured I'd beat the rush.

Of fighting back and looking weak

Andrew Sullivan asks:

Could it be that in this election cycle, the tactics of the far right are beginning to turn around and bite them?

In order for that to happen, the Democratic leadership would have to make a counterpunch. I don't see that happening. They (still!) haven't learned: When you tell yourself you're being lofty and ignore gutter attacks, you allow those attacks to become accepted as fact. (Thus decorated veteran Kerry was painted as a wimp by multiple-student-deferment Cheney and a candidate who spent the war years keeping the skies of Texas safe from the Viet Cong, until he "talked to the army" and didn't finish his enlistment.) And when you don't speak up to defend yourself because you think protesting might make you look weak.... You just look weak. And are therefore treated with contempt by a party that respects only strength.

Is it a case of lacking the killer instinct, or just the effect of being beaten up by Republicans so badly for so long they've become too timid to assert themselves? I don't know. I do know their "Maybe if we're nice, the Republicans won't be so mean to us" strategy isn't working, has never worked. And if a Democrat had had the kind of week McCain just had, it's all we'd be hearing about from now to election day.

Personally, I would love to see the GOP implode on itself, not only as poetic justice but as a necessary corrective for the last several years. But it won't happen unless it's helped along by a vigorous opposition, one the current Democratic leadership seems unable or unwilling to muster and the candidate seems to be having trouble mounting. Reagan said of the Soviet Union: It didn't fall, it was pushed. Today's Democratic Party won't give the Republican Party even a nudge.

Who's the Elitist Here?

Remember, taking a nine-car motorcade to Starbucks isn't elitist if an ex-POW does it.

I just thought I should clear that up.

"Gee, ya THINK?" Headline Of The Day. Possibly The Week.

From today's Washington Post:
----------
Houses Snag McCain Campaign

McCain's inability to remember how many homes he owns may disrupt plan to cast Obama as elitist.

-----------

McCain went to Annapolis on the basis of his father and grandfather both being admirals. After distinguished service and time as a POW, he returned home to find his wife, who had been raising his children during his captivity, had also been injured in a car accident and was disabled. So, naturally, he divorced her and married a beer heiress worth over $100 million. Today he owns six (or seven, or eight, and today I saw one source that said 10) homes, wears $500 shoes, spent over a quarter-million last year just on domestic help, and says that in order to be rich you have to make $5 million per year--which, coincidentally, is about the expected return on his wife's wealth.

And the kid who grew up in a single-parent home, sometimes on welfare, who worked his way through school, earned the editorship of the Harvard Law Review and a faculty position at the University of Chicago (neither noted for being hotbeds of affirmative action) is the elitist.

That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Update: USA Today now has McCain at 12 houses, worth over $10 million. And you gotta love the closing graf:

McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans. His income has increased from book sales since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

[h/t: AmericaBlog]

We have gone hopelessly astray

Kathleen Parker has an excellent column pointing out just how fundamentally wrong and profoundly un-American the Saddleback Church meeting with the candidates was. Rick Warren is trying to insert himself into public life under the guise of "it's all about worldview," which is a codephrase for "evangelical Christianity."

Of course, the next day, he said flat-out that no Christian could vote for anyone pro-choice. Which sends a pretty clear signal about how he thinks everyone should vote.

Neutral, my ass. And expecting candidates to go through this is undignified, demeaning, and pandering of the worst sort.

Warren used to be someone I may not have agreed with but could at least respect. That's changing rapidly.

And though I'm sure he'd call it "anti-Christian bigotry," I think his insistence on bringing religion, faith, whatever you want to call it, into the political realm and making it a political issue is wrong. And I'm sure he'd deny any such bigotry. While also saying he would never vote for an atheist, no matter what that person's policy positions are. So you see, it's only bigotry when other people do it. When he does it, it's just looking for people who share his worldview. In other words, at least pretend you believe in the same magic sky-fairy he does, or at least in some magic sky-fairy, and he'll condescend to pretending he respects you.

Go read Parker's column, it's worth it.