Flying Pigs (in Lipstick, Even)

I never thought I'd say this, but Sarah Palin was correct. Her assertion that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time" is irrefutably accurate, and I stand wholly corrected. Never again will I mock her claims that she has "seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks [of dinosaur fossils]."

I concede the point entirely, and come bearing evidence proof positive:



Now let's put that lady one melanoma-stricken heartbeat away from the big red button!

Got Legs?

Yesterday I saw a man in a wheelchair wrestling with his keyring in the building where I work. Both of his legs had been amputated at the knee. As I walked behind him I glanced at his t-shirt. Poking above the top of the chair's seat was the image of a frog. The caption above?

That's right.

"Got legs?"

I. am. not. making. this. up.

I have secretly named him Mr. Beckett because he is clearly that kind of awesome.

And in completely unrelated news, your Moment of Zen, featuring break-dancing Russians who really love Sarah Palin (like really a lot):



Aaaand here's a direct link.

Suffering Fools

Yesterday, as I was leaving the pharmacy, I walked behind an SUV that had just pulled in with a McCain-Palin sticker emblazoned on the back. As I passed behind it a woman launched herself from the passenger seat followed shortly by a man on the driver's side who tumbled from the car shouting — shouting! — "Women just shouldn't be allowed to drive!"

I was sorely tempted to stop him and inquire as to what logic led him to believe that the female human animal is incapable of operating a motor vehicle but is nonetheless fully qualified to occupy the Vice Presidency. However, he was far too busy chasing after his wife (who was unsurprisingly storming away from him with the force of a Cat-5) for me to engage in what would undoubtedly have been a most enlightening exchange.

And for the record? Women get cheaper auto insurance rates than men do because women get in fewer accidents. Not that I'd want to confuse Mr. Shirt-Tucked-Into-My-High-Waisted-Acid-Wash-Jeans with pesky facts.

Old Reliable: Matt Drudge

Yesterday afternoon the state of Alaska found that Governor Sarah "Flat-Earther" Palin abused her power in her handling of the Wooten/Monegan/Troopergate scandal. But you already knew that, I'm sure.

Unless, of course, you get your news from the Drudge Report. I'd link it, but if you have a PC as soon as you click the link your computer will have so many Trojan Horses it will be the stuff of legends. (Ba dum BA!)

Nutshell: Matt Drudge is a right-wing mouthpiece who sits in front of his computer 20 hours a day trolling the intertubes for incendiary headlines such as "Cindy McCain accuses Obama of endangering her son in Iraq" and "Did 'SOUTH PARK' go too far this time?" to link on his website. It's a good place to go looking for news stories about freaks in middle America who have some sort of "I'm Allergic to My Refrigerator" club, but a lousy place to go for unbiased news links.

Had Barack Obama been found guilty of the sort of misconduct Palin was found to have committed in the Alaskan state report, I would be willing to bet actual cash money that Drudge would have unearthed some extreme close-up of Obama looking like he was about to eat a baby and splashed it across the top of his site with the gigantic headline "GUILTY!"

Take a look at today's Drudge page. It's kind of like Where's Waldo, but without the so-last-season red striped shirt.



See up at the top where Obama would be eating the baby? Now see that little waving lady down in the corner? And the little bitty headline under it? No?

Try here.

Good old Drudge.

Whatniaks?

The only thing better than watching the vice presidential debate every four years is watching it with a group of people all equipped with food to throw at the TV when one of the candidates devolves into spouting talking points and gibberish. Four years ago it was Cheney and lunch meat. This year it was Palin and popcorn (we have a new TV).

Confessedly, one of the moments that elicited the most raised eyebrows from my highly unscientific living room poll was Joe Biden's reference to "Bozniaks" living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I mean, it's Bosnians, right? Silly Joe.

Except for not. Apparently, Bozniaks is indeed the correct term for Muslims living in the region. And we weren't the only ones who were confused. Even Cokie Roberts chastised Biden for this perceived gaffe. Silly Cokie.

As for me, I'm just glad to be casting my vote for someone who knows more about foreign policy than I do. I mean, no offense to soccer moms, but I'd rather have the guy who knows the difference between Bosnians and Bosniaks (let alone Sunni and Shia) a heartbeat away from The Button.

Islamic Children Gassed in Dayton, Ohio

On Friday, American terrorists in Dayton, Ohio sprayed chemical weapons into the child care room of a local mosque, interrupting practitioners praying in recognition of the Islamic holy month.

A firsthand account of the attack may be found here. The woman alluded to in the link immigrated here from Syria, where she and her children had fled after leaving Iraq. They came to America full of hope for a life free from hatred and persecution. Oh, what a welcoming people we are.

Happy Ramadan.

Would You Like Defibrillation with That?

Today's Headline O' Awesome: Dog Dials 911 When Owner Has Seizure

And here I was pleased when my dog learned to run through an agility course nylon tube. For shame.

McCain Would Tax Health Care Benefits

Earlier this week, I wrote about the differences between the tax plans proposed by Obama and McCain and the comparative benefit of Obama's plan for working class and middle class people. When I wrote that, there was something I didn't know about John McCain and taxes — something that puts the two candidates in even starker contrast.

Despite having claimed publicly and repeatedly that he would not raise any taxes, McCain's tax plan would in fact do exactly that. (Some people have a word for that. It starts with an L.) If John McCain becomes president, he will tax your employer-provided health care benefits. That means if you're a teacher like me, with absolutely no change to your actual income, McCain's plan would in effect treat you as though you'd just received a huge raise of thousands of dollars.

His so-called offset for this proposal would be to provide a tax credit of $2,500 per person, or $5,000 per family. Never mind the fact that the average employer-provided health care costs employers roughly $8,000 dollars a year. McCain is more than happy to treat you as though you've just received a $3,000 raise.

Why are middle-class people and fiscal conservatives voting for this man?

Calling All Fiscal Conservatives

Today's Website O' Awesome is brought to you by Alchemy Today, a burgeoning political blog:

ObamaTaxCut.com

Using data compiled by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and further publicized in the Washington Post, Alchemy Today has created a widget that allows you to compare the tax cuts you would receive under the tax plans proposed by Obama and McCain.

It's actually quite fascinating. Under McCain's tax proposal, my husband and I would receive a $40 tax cut. Under Obama's plan, we would receive a $971 tax cut. Our present income would have to more than triple before we'd get a better deal under McCain. Furthermore, we'd have to make more than $250,000 before Obama would increase our taxes.

The bottom line: If your combined household income is $200,000 or less, you will pay less taxes under Obama than McCain.

Plus, widgets rock.

Added note: Further research into the the Washington Post's findings indicates that you would have to make more than $600,000 a year before you'd see a tax increase under a President Obama. Huh. I guess Rush Limbaugh must have just been, you know, misinformed or something.

If Only She'd Had My Vote to Lose

The City of Wasilla, home of Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, has responded to "a flurry" of requests and begun today to release public files to the media. Anyone with access to the internet can access the documents through the City of Wasilla's website here.

One item of interest to me is the city's response to requests regarding Palin's book-banning attempts. According to The New York Times, Palin attempted to have Wasilla's librarian fired for "disloyalty" (apparently a big Palin peeve) after she resisted the then-mayor's suggestions that book-banning ought to be considered. The firing attempt was blocked by public outcry.

According to the city's records, no books were actually banned as a result. Good. Nonetheless, this raises some serious questions about Sarah Palin's commitment to democratic (small d) ideals.

For now, there's plenty to dig through. Kuddos to Wasilla for releasing these documents to the public. Assuming they weren't thoroughly scrubbed.

I Miss Veronica Mars

You know what I really hate about your garden variety high school TV show? It's not the insipid dialogue. It's not the banal yet soapy plot lines. It's not even the fact that every frame is a free ad for the Anorexia is the New Awesome Council of America.

No, what I hate about high school TV shows is the fact that every time there's an actual classroom scene, the camera opens on the teacher asking what is clearly a beginning-of-class question (such as "Who wants to tell me how a haiku was defined in last night's reading?") and ends thirty seconds later with the bell ringing. At which point the teacher inevitably waits until half of the students have poured out of class before remembering that maybe he should tell them what tonight's homework is.

Gah. No wonder voters think teachers need better accountability.

The Lovers, the Dreamers and a German in a Funny Hat

You may be under the impression that today's big headline is "Obama rocks it out at Invesco" or something to that effect. You are wrong.

Today's big headline is in fact this: "Crucified frog angers pope".

Furthermore, the frog is apparently holding a beer glass in one hand and an egg in the other. Having often found myself concurrently holding those very same objects, I think I'll have to side with the frog.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I feel compelled to report that during my eighth grade science class' frog dissection, my lab partner disregarded the teacher's instructions to pin the frog's legs in a spread-eagle fashion and in fact crucified our frog with T-pins. Our teacher then unwittingly held our frog up as an example of a well-pinned subject. No beer or eggs were involved.)

Pirates vs. Ninjas

Long have we Americans as a people pondered that age old question — who would win in a fight, pirates or ninjas? A longtime member of the ninja camp myself, today I bring breaking news in pirates versus ninjas front:

On Sunday, a team of ninjas was apprehended for threatening to go all vigilante on some local drug dealers. It was unclear if pirates were involved, but clearly the ninjas were firing the first salvo in a resurrection of the long-running battle with their optically challenged opponents.

The pirates wasted no time in retaliating, robbing a luxury yacht on Monday. While initial reports made no mention of ninjas, this was clearly a direct affront intended to mock and humiliate their nunchuk-wielding nemeses.

(People. This is funny because it is TRUE. Click the links!)

Road Rage

ATTN: Persons in sports cars who feel compelled to drive fewer than three feet away from my bumper on the freeway

RE: Structural innovations in transportation architecture

There are FOUR OTHER LANES on the freeway other than the one I am currently driving the speed limit it. Feel free to drive in one of them.

Cheers.

I Guess Squats Are Out

Today at the gym I saw an outfit almost identical to this (but the oh-so-tasteful thongotard was red):



As though time on the treadmill isn't unpleasant enough, I have to be subjected to this? It's not 1984. Your underpants need to be inside your clothes. Even if they are shiny and red.

Especially if they are shiny and red.

SRSLY?

Today, while sitting at a stoplight, I found myself staring at a license plate that utterly compelled me to take its picture. Behold:



Putting aside the absurdity of paying the government actual cash money in order to have "RPRAYRS" stamped on the back of one's car, I just have to ask... an Escalade? Really, you prayed for an Escalade? And you got one?

Maybe next time you could do us all a favor and ask for world peace. Or a cure for cancer. Or at least a Prius.

Don't Mess with (the Illustrious Educators of) Texas

Any plans I may have had to visit Harold, Texas (What? I'm sure they have a gigantic ball of yarn or something.) are officially canceled pursuant to their decision to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons to work.

What better combination than disgruntled youth, overworked employees, and things that kill people?

You know what would make my job as a teacher easier? Fair compensation for my socially crucial work. A supportive administration. A school district that doesn't hide behind the Governator while firing 900+ teachers.

But I guess pissing us off and then arming us works too.

Also, All Cats Will Be Required to Wear Sweaters

There have been recent rumblings about the potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, legislation that would require television and radio stations broadcasting through federal airwaves to provide a balance of liberal and conservative political content. Putting aside whether or not that is a good idea (per Rasmussen, 47% of Americans think it is and 39% don't), what I find beyond hilarious is that the same policy is being evaluated for the internet.

THE INTERNET.

When Rasmussen posed the following question: "Should the government require web sites and bloggers that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints?" 31% of Americans responded yes.

When when when are these octogenarians going to realize that they cannot legislate internet content? I can snap my fingers and have the entire second season of Heroes on my hard drive in an hour without a single cent changing hands, but the government is somehow going to come up with a super-sekrit-hacker-proof-intarwebs-controller that is going to effectively monitor my blog content?

Right. May I interest you in a country song?

(Here's hoping no one tells Congress about Britain... I think they have the intarwebs there, too! Shhh!)

But out of respect for those of you who think that censoring internet content is not only possible but nifty, here is the opposing viewpoint.

Paris is for Fighters

To say I am not a big fan of Paris Hilton is like saying I am not a big fan of stabbing myself in the hand with a fork.

But I have to give her pretty crazy props for this:

"Loves it."

And in the event that you live under a rock, here's the McCain attack add that Paris Hilton was responding to:



The best part? Guess who wants their $4,600 McCain campaign donation back? That's right. Ma and Pa Hilton.

Quiz Blog Part Two: Petro

Yesterday I posed the query: What nation provides the largest quantity of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States?

And you are truly gold-star worthy if you guessed...

CANADA!!!

Yup. Our partially French-speaking neighbors to the north are the single most effective crack peddler supporting our, in the vernacular, "addiction to foreign oil." Here are the top five:

1. Canada (17.2%)
2. Mexico (12.4%)
3. Saudi Arabia (10.7%)
4. Venezuela (10.4%)
5. Nigeria (8.1%)

Surprised? I was. I suspect FOXNN might be, too. Or, you know, not.

This and other fascinating information about America's foreign oil dependence is available here at the Department of Energy's website. And by "fascinating information" I mean tidbits like the fact that the U.S. is currently the third largest oil producer on the planet. Want to guess where we rank in consumption?

In the meantime, however, I am pleased to announce that we can now officially blame Canada. Like so:



(Warning: Video not entirely safe for work...)

Quiz Blog Part One: Petro

Gold star to anyone who can answer this correctly without resorting to Google:

What nation provides the largest quantity of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States (clocking in at an impressive 17.2 percent)?

I'll post the answer tomorrow. And you only get a silver star if you Google it!

Chasing Trends

Yet again today I was confronted with the meaningless expression "40 is the new 30." I haven't even turned 30 yet and apparently it's not even cool any more.

Besides, I thought satin jumpsuits were the new 30. Or something.

Ground Control to Major Tom

I'd like to break my week-long silence to share with you the super-special knowledge that, according to a highly reputable source, non-Earth lifeforms have indeed contacted the planet Earth.

And by "highly reputable" I mean NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell, record-holder for the longest moonwalk.

Now, granted, astronauts have a tendency to later devote themselves to careers as alcoholics and artists (and hey, same difference, right?). But still. I consider this to be totally reliable.

My mind is officially blown. For serial.

(Okay, posterity demands the following: I am fairly certain humans are not the only cognizant lifeforms in the universe. However, I am equally certain that given known technological mechanisms — or even edgily and fantastically theorized technological mechansims — it's probably just us. Suck, I know. Captain Picard for President, etc. etc.)

Why Cats Are Jerks

According the New York Post, a contractor was committed to a mental asylum for attempting to rescue a cat who squeezed into a hole in a wall and refused to come out for several days (rescue attempts apparently included knocking down three walls). After 60 hours, the cat was found and the man was released.

I'm certain the cat found the entire endeavor most amusing.

Ich bin ein...

Those are Berliners. Citizens of the world. Waving an American flag. Not burning it.

Oh please let it be January.

Insert Skeletal Pun Here

One of the things that seems to happen to me every summer is the discovery of some excellent television show (which I assert do, in point of fact, exist) that for some reason I have been totally oblivious to up till that point. This summer, being no exception to the pattern, has brought me Bones, the story of a crime-fighting forensic anthropologist and her actor-formerly-known-as-Angel partner.

Looking back, I think the reason I didn't start watching this show three years ago was that I was still livid over the cancellation of Angel, which I have now almost kind of gotten over (recent purchase of full-series DVD box set notwithstanding). The show really does have a little bit of everything: CSI-style mystery of the week, seasonal arcs that manage not to be too intrusive, humor that generally avoids the overly pedestrian, and of course the requisite star-crossed should-be lovers.

Plus, all of season one is currently up for free at Hulu, so really, you have no excuse.

Tripolar

Last night I saw a car with three bumper stickers on the back:

1. Ron Paul 2008

2. Barack Obama 2008

3. Anti-Gay Marriage (with American flag graphic)

...

O-kay.

Clicking Our Heels

A few days ago Still-President Bush lifted an executive order banning expanded oil drilling off of American coasts (originally issued by his father). Today, the Interior Department opened up 2.6 million acres of Alaskan land for "energy exploration" (that's code for ripping up the Earth to extract something crude).

And look! Oil prices are dropping already! Clearly we have causality!

Except for the fact that oil had actually begun to drop a week ago. But don't tell the man behind the curtain that.

mobile ME

It's likely that Steve Jobs is, perhaps, somewhat responsible for the success of Apple. Probably maybe. But. Today I realized that he truly is standing on the shoulders of giants — giant spoiled brats. Like me.

See, Cult of Mac members don't just own computers. We feel ownership regarding our computers, in that cheesy social worker sense of the word. Mac enthusiasts believe that their computers have some sort of moral obligation to meet their every need, current or future, plausible or implausible. And if the computer should fail in that noble task, the Mac enthusiast is truly offended. It's like if your best friend doesn't call you back for a day and a half. Hello, rude.

As evidence I offer reactions to the launch of the iTunes app store, allowing users to download third party applications for their iPhones (translation: software developed by someone who doesn't work for Apple). More than excitement or gratitude, the overwhelming tenor of comments I have read are almost peeved, evincing a genuine and self-righteous sense of annoyance that Apple hadn't developed any such thing sooner. Jerks.

Confessedly, I share this mentality myself. The apps developed thus far for two-way syncing of Google Calendar on an iPhone and a traditional computer are, in a word, utterlyanddeeplydissatisfying. Resultingly, cutting into my total glee towards my new iPhone is a penumbra of, "I can't believe someone hasn't already thought of and created this. Eye roll."

Shoulders of giant spoiled brats.

I assert, however, that this is actually a good thing. Macophiles' sense of entitlement increases the productivity not only of the source corporation (Apple) but of the consumers themselves, many of whom contribute to solving the problems they identify long before Apple gets around to it. If my parents' generation is the Me Generation, then perhaps mine is the Mobile Me Generation. (Not that I'm going to purchase Mobile Me — that was just a too convenient rhetorical device. Google totally already does all of that for free. Pfft.)

None of this is to say that Mac users are more obnoxious than PC users. Because they're totally obnoxious, too. But that's a different post.

Panic at the Disco

There's something wrong with the economy. I know it. You know it. I've had to restructure my personal finances to accommodate rising gas costs. The condo diagonally above us has been empty for over a year. IndyMac got bailed out — no, seized — yesterday (and I only kind of even know what that means). Smart people are telling me to get out of the stock market. Not that I'm in the stock market (I won't even buy into a poker game for more than three bucks), but it's well-intended and urgently delivered advice.

And while I've read many attempts at analyzing fragments of the problem, I've had a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what the hell is going on.

Today I read an interesting and historically informed article attempting to holistically answer that question: The Panic of 2008: A Turning Point.

Check it out.

Tragically, Hips

I hate it when this happens to me. I was totally going to start an awesome line of leggings that make even mannequins look hip-heavy, but then Lindsay Lohan went and stole all of my ideas!

There's no way she thought of leopard ankle gloves first. No way.

A Moment of Silence Is in Order

Bow your heads for the Fourth Amendment. Lord knows the Senate won't.

Senate Passes FISA Bill, Gives Telecoms Immunity

Lieonomics

Every time I get into an argument about guns with a gun rights advocate, I hear about this study that purports to prove that cities with laws permitting concealed weapons have lower crime rates. This is an assertion I've heard from several people on several occasions, and the study they describe is always the same. I've never been able to find any research corroborating the assertion, and I've looked more than once.

Turns out there's a reason for that. It was likely bogus. The article, entitled "More Guns, Less Crime", was penned by conservative economist John R. Lott — a fellow who has asserted that abortions are good for crime rates, and apparently has a habit of creating internet sock puppets to comment positively on his work online.

His book is, of course, titled Freedomnomics. Sigh.

Win-Win. Win.

Gosh, why didn't anyone just think of this sooner? We're saved!

McCain: I'll Cut the Deficit by Winning Iraq War

Considering McCain's assertion that U.S. troops staying in Iraq for 100 years would be "fine with him," I can't say this gives me a lot of economic confidence in a McCain presidency.

Not that I really had any, given that he's already admitted he's "not an expert" on "this stuff." Of course, he now denies having said that. Someone really needs to tell McCain about the YouTube:

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...

...the moon. Yes, this past May someone in South Wales mistook the moon for a UFO. They even called 999 (the Welsh version of 911) about it.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

Caller: "If you've got a couple of minutes perhaps you could find out what it is? It's been there at least half an hour and it's still there."

Control: "It's been there for half an hour. Right. Is it actually on the mountain or in the sky?"

Caller: "It's in the air."

Control: "I will send someone up there now to check it out."

Well, we all get confused sometimes, no? Just the other day I though my nail clippers were an angry little man wearing a shiny, oblong hat.

The Inconveniences Attending Too Much Liberty

In 1783 William Pitt (the Prime Minister whose actions began the slow dismantling of the hideous British East India Company) stood on the floor of the House of Commons and argued the following:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

Strong words from the man who would soon become the Prime Minister of Britain — a nation which had only recently lost one of its most profitable tentacles in a revolution spurred by accusations that Britain was indeed in the habit of making "the argument of tyrants" to attain its goals.

Today we celebrate that very event, blowing things to bits in the sky to honor our determination to be a nation of free men (yes, then, men) rather than the worker bees of a corrupt king. Reason and the public good were to be our guiding principles — not necessity. Human freedom was to be held sacrosanct, and its infringement was to be guarded against by the vigilance of a robust populace.

And so to me Independence Day is very much worth honoring, less with hot dogs and streamers than with reflection upon the radical language that led to the formation of our nation.

On July 4, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and 56 other men laid a series of charges at the feet of declared tyrant King George III, making the case that he was no longer fit to govern them. Two of the charges were these:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

King George, of course, disagreed.

History repeats itself, and we have had other King Georges, and other attempts to impinge upon self-evident human freedoms, and other rationales for why necessity trumps the right of humans to be free (or at least the right to argue one's case for freedom before a jury of one's peers).

Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Court Ruling

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

We've forgotten our roots. We have. Look:



One of our closest data twins is Iran. Iran. We, the descendants of men who would rather die standing than live on their knees, are now the ideological brothers of those whom we accuse of Islamo-fascism when it comes to humanity's most basic of civil liberties — the right not to be tortured.

Pass the celebratory hot dogs!

When someone tells us that giving prisoners the right to a trial means that they'll inevitably strangle us in our beds, we believe them. In a pique of textbook fear-mongering, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino disingenuously frets, "The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person.' And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave?" (The implication clearly being "Because if he does, he'll garrote your sons and deflower your daughters.") And we sagely nod along.

Am I missing something here? If a judge might reasonably say "You don't have enough evidence to hold this person," then why are we holding this person? If we know that someone is a terrorist, why not try him or her as such, attain a conviction, and carry on? How can we possibly deny the right of prisoners to a fair trial in one breath and celebrate the Declaration of Independence in the next?

You know, this Declaration of Independence:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Like it our not, we live in a nation whose greatest linguistic architect was prone to saying things like this: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Hear, hear.

I'm not against fire works and hot dogs. (Well, actually, I am against hot dogs, but that's a separate issue.) I just think we ought to know why we're eating them. (The hot dogs, not the fire works.)

Happy Independence Day, readers. I wish you happy meditations upon self-evident truths.

ThunderCats! HO!

There is going to be a ThunderCats movie! In 2010! Wikipedia says so so I know it's true!

After being shockingly not disappointed by the recent Transformers movie, I am trying not to get my hopes up here. Because if they ruin Mumm-Ra for me I will never forgive them. Ever. Whoever they are.

Picking the Right Wing's Brain: The Overton Window

Today I bring you insidious genius in the form of the Overton Window. This is a technique developed and employed by right-wing think-tanks to shift public debate in a direction favorable to their policy goals.

The fundamental premise is that each idea exists in one of six phases vis a vis the collective mind of the masses:

— Unthinkable
— Radical
— Acceptable
— Sensible
— Popular
— Policy

These categories exist as a continuum through which ideas can move in either direction. For example, legal slavery was once official U.S. policy and is now unthinkable. Allowing women to perform brain surgery was once unthinkable and is now policy. Gay marriage has moved from unthinkable to somewhere in between radical and policy, depending on where you live; national polling indicates that a majority of young Americans now find the notion acceptable.

The goal of the Overton Window is to allow one to think strategically about moving an idea through the continuum. Foreign policy towards Iran presents a useful case study. Bombing Iran was a radical position seven years ago, and now appears to be teetering somewhere around acceptable. While I personally think the act unthinkable, my thought is irrelevant. As a party engaged in attempting to impact policy, my job is to understand how most people (not my cavalcade of progressive acquaintances) feel about bombing Iran and engage in the debate accordingly. Scoffing at the notion of bombing Iran when it comes up in conversation (while doing so feels quite natural to me) won't get me anywhere; arguing that it's not sensible for a variety of reasons would be a far more effective rhetorical strategy for me to adopt, given my understanding of the notion's position in the Overton Window.

This stuff works. Really works. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, or take a look at public debate regarding privatization of Social Security. It's time to appropriate the master's tools.

Cur, the Curative

My two-month vacation officially starts tomorrow. My husband and I just bought a shiny new gadget on wheels Prius. We'll be vacationing in Monterey for our anniversary. Bush's approval ratings are in the low 20's. I feel safe in saying I am the opposite of depressed regarding my existence these days.

Nonetheless, out of curiosity today I scanned through an article entitled something to the effect of "12 Ways to Deal with Depression" or some such (I'm too lazy to link, and it was barely worth the read). The list contained groundbreaking suggestions such as Make Friends! Find a Hobby! Exercise! (Although the winner had to be "Number 9: Get on Your Knees" which was apparently meant to inspire people to pray). That gem notwithstanding, these lists are almost always laugh-worthy to me because, well, duh much? If you spend all your days lazing in isolation on your ever-expanding posterior with nothing to stimulate your intellect but staring at a talking box, of course you're going to be depressed.

I was, however, pleased to see the presence of furry friends on the list. This, I think, is my secret to surviving what has been a horridly stressful year for me pretty much unscathed — DOGS. (And yes, they really do require the dreaded all caps.) It is definitionally impossible to get all woe-is-me, sad-snowflake when you have 25 pounds of wiggle sticking its tongue in your ear. Really, they should be prescribed. Prescription drogs.

While I Wasn't Blogging: More News You Might Have Missed

This just* in: Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports.

Really, beyond the headline, do you need anything else?

Okay, in case you do, have a quote: "While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website."

I'm sure none of those videos will ever pop up on YouTube.

*By "just" I of course mean 19 days ago, but you know.

While I Wasn't Blogging: News You Might Have Missed

When I was a kid, my parents (posterity and my mother would like me to note that credit here is in fact due to my grandparents) got me a subscription to Ranger Rick magazine. Through reading that magazine I learned about meerkats, cool bugs, and why chopping down the rain forest is bad. I also learned about the Exxon Valdez.

You remember the Exxon Valdez.







To put the following paragraphs in context, in February of 2008 Exxon announced the largest quarterly profits that any U.S. company has ever reported. Ever. Profits so high that the corporation made approximately $1,300 a second in 2007.

$1,300 a second.

Puts our offshore drilling "debate" in perspective, no?

Given that reality, I find it beyond appalling that our highest court in the land (emphasis, apparently, on "high") reversed the $2.5 billion dollar ruling against Exxon in the Exxon Valdez case as "excessively punitive." Excessively punitive to a company that made $2.5 billion dollars in less than three days last year.

Is it even possible to punish this in excess?



According to the Supreme Court, the "reasonable" cost of atonement for the Exxon Valdez oil spill is not $2.5 billion, but $507 million — an amount which the corporation is projected to make in less than one day. And that $2.5 billion was already down from the $5 billion that Exxon was originally ordered to pay by "a jury of its peers."

But see, Exxon doesn't have any peers. Except for maybe Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had to recuse himself from the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Of the people, by the people.

While I Wasn't Blogging: Phoenix is for Crackheads

Thanks to Tom Waits, I have fully relinquished all anger about paying $4.50 a gallon for gas. Why, you ask? Because I realized it's not overpriced oil I'm paying for — it's the privilege of not having to spend my travel time standing (standing!) next to a whiskeylicious homeless man freestyling on his harmonica and dishing out parenting advice to a women three rows up who (mercifully) doesn't speak any English anyway.

And all of that was after he gravely informed me that a good wife listens to her husband.

Matters hardly improved once we escaped that stalwart bastion of egalitarian eco-friendly transportation, the city bus. After walking three quarters of a mile in 112 degree heat to get to a Circle K, we arrived just in time to see a pock-faced transient tweeker get into a fist-fight with the Circle K cashier over a four-pack of tall cans.

We theorized that maybe Tom Waits intentionally planned his tour to hit as many economically depressed towns as possible in order to boost their economies, in which case more power to him. But may I suggest an Oregonian logging town next time?

While I Wasn't Blogging: Essays and Eses

I'm going to spend the next few days trying to get back into the swing of things after having abandoned my blog to go frolicking in Fort Collins and Phoenix (the latter of which is actually a fairly non-frolic-friendly locale during the month of June, can I just say).

Today's "While I Was Living My Life Somewhere Other than in My Armchair" entry will focus on some of the folks I met while scoring AP World History essays for the College Board. No, not the charming Texan gentleman I sat next to on the shuttle or the lovely Alabaman professor with three sons and two dogs or the fellow Californian vegetarian. That would be far too upbeat. Rather, I'd like to share with you my fond remembrances of the guy who made me want to shove my empty wine glass down his throat in hopes that it would dislodge the silver spoon that was undoubtedly planted firmly in his gullet.

Some of you may be familiar with the Absolut Vodka ad that sent Loofah O'Reilly and his ilk into a tizzy:



How unamerican! How incendiary! How... historically accurate!

I was in the midst of deciding exactly how much tequila one ought to consume before having to get up at six in the morning when lo and behold, one of my AP-reading happy hour companions — who ought to by his very station as a history teacher know better — began a most craptastic instructive monologue regarding how all of this "hubbub" about how the southwest used to be part of Mexico is "crap" because (and I'm not making this up) "they weren't using it anyway."

Indeed! The crux of his argument was that hardly any Mexicans lived in what was at that time northern Mexico — part of an undisputed sovereign nation — and so they had no business getting upset when the United States began annexing it in bits and ill-used pieces.

Fascinating argument, really. Just one problem.



I fully expect this gentlemen to chortle in amusement and take another sip from his deeply dirty martini when Russia annexes the northern half of Canada since, you know, they're not using it anyway.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that someone as undoubtedly devoted to the capitalist ideology as this fellow must be defines ownership solely on the basis of usage. Perhaps he'd endorse a sliding scale for theft-related prison sentences based on the extent to which the original "owner" actually utilized the possession. You know, seven years if you steal his liver, seven months if you steal his brain.

We can call it the the "I'm Taking Your Ball and I'm Going Home Act."

Still on Vacation, But.

Some people look life in the face and make excuses for why they don't have to be as good as they could be.

Other people look like in the face and say, "I feel like a million bucks. I think I'll do that again tomorrow."

Senator Ted Kennedy falls into the latter category.

(And yes, blah blah Chappaquidick he deserves cancer blah blah. But let's have an intelligent conversation about your 40-year-old sins before we start espousing right-wing talking points regarding a man whose flesh is digesting itself, shall we?)

Gone Fishing

Laughter Shrapnel is on vacation through June 11 while I'm out of town grading scads of A.P. World History essays.

Cheers!

Replicants

In what can only be lauded as truly flexible government, China has responded to the death of 65,000 of its citizens in an earthquake by relaxing restrictions on the one-child rule.

Yes, that's right, if you're a Chinese citizen and your child has just been crushed beneath rubble, you'll be pleased to know that you are free to manufacture a replacement without having to pay the usual fines. This is the kind of gift the Chinese government generally reserves for more severe tragedies, such as one's first-born child being female.

I Heart Expensive Sandwiches (#63)

Today I accidentally discovered what is officially the best blog ever: Stuff White People Like.

My favorite excerpt is from the Prius entry (which clocked in at #60 on the top 100). "The Prius might be the most perfect white product ever," writes our faithful satirist. "It’s expensive, gives the idea that you are helping the environment, and requires no commitment/changes other than money."

On the nose indeed; my nose, and possibly yours. I confess, I am also fond of scarves (#97), yoga (#15) and coffee (#1, of course).

As white culture (or, acknowledging that no such thing exists, more appropriately white yuppie culture) moves from "the culture" to "one of many ethnic subcultures" I think such satirizing can only benefit matters. But then, white people do love irony (#50).

I'd Like the Conch Now, Please

The thing about malpractice in my profession, it's not like we can accidentally forget to remove a surgical instrument from your abdominal cavity and sew you back up and send you out into the world full of festering metal.

But there are other things we can do:

Teacher Has Students Vote on Whether 5-Year-Old Can Stay in Class

Humanity I Love You

A group of "electro-sensitive" people are taking action against Santa Fe to have WiFi banned in public buildings on the grounds that they are "allergic" to wireless signals. Their argument is that the WiFi banning should be included under Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. One of the plaintiffs asserts that cell and WiFi signals give him chest pains. (I'd see a doctor about that, but I guess the City Attorney works too.)

I'm actually very excited about this bold new legal initiative; I believe this lawsuit will pave the way for the action I plan to bring against the City of San Diego arguing that stupid people should be banned from public buildings on that grounds that I am allergic to them.

Q&A with LOL Cats

Q: What, pray tell, is a LOL cat?

A:


Q: Who, pray tell, have the LOL cats endorsed?

A:


Lo and verily, it is true. They even have an Obama campaign website, the aptly titled Yes We Can Has.

But perhaps the real question is this:

Q: Why, pray tell, is a LOL cat?

A:

Lieberman Meets the Intertubes

The inevitable day has finally come — someone told Joe Lieberman (world-renowned DINO) about the Internet, and more specifically, YouTube. Lieberman, apparently, skipped right past the porn and pandas and moved directly into searching for some combination of "people" and "who" and "hate" and "Jews." But I mean, who hasn't done that search, right?**

Lieberman sent a letter to YouTube demanding the removal of a plethora of content he deemed offensive (clearly a better use of my tax dollars than, say, figuring out a way to get out of Iraq). YouTube's response , excerpted below, is pretty awesome:

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Intertubes 1, Lieberman -8 bajillion. (In all fairness, the guy was already in a pretty deep hole.)

**Disclaimer: I haven't.

Two Percent of Oregon

According to the United States Census Bureau, Oregon has 3,700,758 residents. According to the Portland Fire and Rescue Department, 75,000 people turned out today to see Barack Obama speak — by far the largest crowd Obama (let alone any other politician) has drawn this election cycle.

To put that in perspective, that is one out of every 50 people in the state of Oregon.

Here's what that looks like:





Of course, not everyone is excited. Here's what username Sarah Alton had to say in response to an article about the rally on the Wall Street Journal website:

"Obama - the Candidate as Anti-Christ.
Consider his rockstar status among young voters, his ability to continuously lie without impunity, his connections to mob members and terrorist both real and wannabes. His strong and unscrupulous desire for raw power, at any cost, regardless what it does to others, (he became senator simply by disqualifying his opponents). His empty words and changing promises, his desire to be friends with those who wish to destroy us. His wife Michele has expressed her hatred for this country and has publicly announced her husband as the messiah.
Perhaps you will need to explain to God why you voted for an antichrist, but I am not going to be on that dark list on judgment day."

For the record, a big old [SIC] to all that. Sadly for Sarah Alton, I don't think the Ku Klux Krazypants rallies are drawing 70K crowds these days.

What Else Does Tom Do?

Somewhat to my shock, I am now in possession of two tenth-row tickets to the Tom Waits concert in Phoenix — the only even semi-West Coast location on his 11-stop tour (his first since 2006, and as is always speculated vis a vis Waits, possibly his last). The show sold out online in a matter of minutes; my husband and I logged on at the same time at noon on the dot, and while I got through, he got a "tickets no longer available" message.

Why, you may wonder, is this guy worth so much arterial palpitation?

Behold:



And here, have a direct link.

Who Needs Profs When We've Got Podcasts

Today John McCain gave a speech in which he described what the world will look like in 2013, at the end of his first term. While you'll be pleased to know that we won't have been attacked by terrorists (but only if we vote for him and not that Hammas-loving Nazi appeaser), I'd like to focus on McCain's comments on education. Remember, he's speaking in the present-tense about things that haven't happened yet:

"Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools; the increase of quality teachers through incentives like merit pay and terrific programs that attract to the classroom enthusiastic and innovative teachers from many disciplines, like Teach for America and Troops to Teachers. Educational software and online teaching programs endorsed by qualified non profits are much more widely in use, bringing to the smallest classrooms in America some of the greatest math, English, and science teachers in the country. This revolution in teaching methods has especially benefited rural America. Test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country."

Allow me to repeat for emphasis:

"Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools."

You'll notice there is no mention whatsoever about increasing funding for education, nor is there any mention of eliminating underfunded federal mandates (*cough*No Child Left Behind*cough*). Just a promise that good old Adam Smith capitalism will solve all of our problems, because clearly the only reason that our schools are so rotten (which, point of order, they are not) is because we're just not scared enough about the competition. We're being lazy, see, because we're the only gig in town, so you can take your crappy teachers and you can like it or lump it!

Problem: As federal mandates increase and state economies tank, education nationwide is becoming increasingly underfunded. In California this is presently resulting in a tens of thousands of teachers being laid off; predictably, as teacher layoffs become the norm, enrollment in teacher credentialing programs is declining. Just last week one of my students who has wanted to be a teacher for the three years I've known her told me she's going to be majoring in business in the fall because she figures if she becomes a teacher she'll just get fired. Now, I don't know if John McCain knows this or not, but private school teachers? Charter school teachers? They get recruited from those same teaching programs where enrollment is rapidly dropping off.

No, Senator Nostradamus McCain, the problem with education isn't that we need to be kept even further on our toes — we're already damn ballerinas — the problem is that we need stable, adequate funding and a confident, well-qualified recruitment pool.

Private or not, administrators are going to be facing increasing difficulty in staffing schools with qualified teachers. And I'm sorry, but using "online teaching programs endorsed by qualified non profits" to beam in "some of the greatest math, English, and science teachers in the country" is simply not going to serve as an adequate replacement for an actual human being in the classroom. Anyone with a teaching credential (read: not McCain) knows that no eight-year-old is going to learn math from watching some guy lecture about it. The notion would be laughable, except McCain's not kidding.

I suspect even Adam Smith would be put off. In his seminal The Wealth of Nations he wrote, "The education of common people requires, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the state."

Fighting Fire with Fustian

Today I spent four hours in a sauna-like auditorium shoved into a tiny wooden chair that literally left bruises on the backs of my legs, all for the privilege of unloading on the school board that sent me a layoff notice two months ago. I'm not entirely sure what I said (there may have been some podium-fist-pounding and a poker metaphor), but people clapped when I was done and I felt a hell of a lot better.

Weirdly, I'm actually not sure if I'm fired or not. There were amendments to amendments of recisions of incisions, and in the end it was all very Byzantine.** I'll find out Thursday.

In the meantime, I'm pretty sure there are now five people on the planet who would turn tail and run if they saw me in a grocery store. As well they should — I throw a mean cabbage.

** And now your Moment of Zen: According to my union president's address to the board, the last time my district laid of teachers was in 1918 in response to those teachers' refusal to take loyalty oaths.

Racists: Obsolete

In an interesting political discussion with my family last night, my parents hypothesized that should Barack Obama become the Democratic nominee he would lose to John McCain because a large swath of Americans are still unwilling to vote for a black man as president. They may be right, but the thing is, a large swath of Americans don't have to.

There's an excellent analysis of why that is here (and it really is worth the read), but if you're in a hurry, what it boils down to is this: more people in more states have voted for Obama than any other candidate running and more than all of the Republican candidates combined. Furthermore Democratic turnout has trounced Republican turnout in every single contest so far, and based on mathematical regression models (same link — go read it!), this trend seems likely to repeat itself in the general election. Worthy of note is the fact that Democratic turnout was universally larger even when the Republican contest was more contentious than the Democratic contest (oh, the halcyon days of January). So sure, Kentucky won't elect Obama... but Colorado very likely will, and that's a state that John Kerry lost.

In short, Obama's November success isn't predicated on a moratorium on racism; it's predicated on attaining 270 electoral votes. Even conservative pollster Rasmussen has spent the last several months quietly reflecting the steep uphill electoral battle that McCain will face once the Democrats stop chewing on each other and start chewing on him.

And on a side note, I'd like to take a moment to personally thank George Stephanopolous for the fact that this scintillatingly newsworthy headline came across my Google feed reader this morning: Obama Wears Flag Pin to West Virginia Rally.

When the Ambulance Crashes

Here's the lead: "A Red Cross boat carrying rice and drinking water for [Myanmar] cyclone victims sank Sunday, while the death toll jumped to more than 28,000 and aid groups warned of a humanitarian catastrophe."

Here's the UNICEF link. Hopefully they have sturdier boats.

What, Me Worry?

A new study in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science reveals that conservatives are happier than liberals. I've read research to this effect before and it's never surprised me. I figure what puts the "conserve" in "conservative" is a desire to maintain the status quo. People who hold positions that are protective of the way are things tend to, well, like the way things are, and are hence happier living in that "way things are" world.

But this study contains an additional finding regarding why this happy-disparity may exist: "Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities." This was measured by the extent to which respondents agreed with statements such as, "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are." From these responses the researchers extrapolate, "Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives, apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

So there you have it. Proof conclusive that liberals are the cardigan-wearing emo kids of the ideological spectrum, and Bill O'Reilly actually does have an internal mechanism that allows him to shrug his shoulders at the fact that homelessness among veterans is surging... because at least they're not getting shot at?

Oh, and yes, Bill Clinton really does feel your pain.

Sturm und Drang Makes Me Hungry

Having spent the evening watching primary coverage, I find myself with absolutely no desire to talk about politics and an overwhelming desire to talk about palatics. Here is a list of the top five things I wish I'd been consuming instead of MSBNC election coverage (no offense to Keith "Absurdly Fabulous" Olbermann):

1. Fake Meat Burritos — The more guac the better, and surprisingly good with black olives.

2. Tofu/Asparagus/Mushroom Stir Fry — There's something very satisfying about making a stir fry chock full of the stuff you find yourself picking through the bok choy to get to in restaurants.

3. Three Cheese Lasagna — Doesn't really matter to me what the three cheeses are... ricotta, parmesan, mozzarella, even cottage; toss in a few cloves of garlic for good measure and you have a little bit of Buddha in your mouth, seriously.

4. Goat Cheese and Strawberry Salad — Best with balsamic, and really, the greens are kind of optional.

5. Broccoli Wokly and Cheddar — Because sometimes I feel like being five, and that's okay.

The Wrenching of Guts

Today I have consumed one cup of coffee, one cup of yogurt, one Kashi bar, one fake-meat sandwich (cut diagonally, of course), 72 ounces of water, one single-serving mac and cheese, and six pieces of steamed asparagus. No, I'm not starting a food diary. I'm just contextualizing myself.

This weekend my friend Lauren altered me to a series of images published in Peter Menzel's Hungry Planet: What the World Eats. Menzel's project involved interviewing families regarding their eating habits and then photographing them with all of the products they consume in an average week. For example, America:



Meet the Revis, a family of four from North Carolina that spends an average of $341.98 on food per week. (Full disclosure: I totally use that coffee creamer.)

Now let's meet the Manzos, a Sicilian family of four (point three). For an affordable $260.10 a week, this is what they consume:



So much less plastic! (Or, reconfigured in Americanese, so many more carbs!)

The juxtaposition is revealing on many counts, but in the end, the First World is the First World is the First World. Even the esteemed Dr. Atkins could, I suspect, muddle through for a fortnight.

But there are other worlds. Worlds inhabited by families like the Aboubakars. Here's what they eat for $1.23 a week (a week)... and don't forget to divide by six:



Of course those photos were taken several years ago. I suspect the Aboubakars may now have even less to eat. Today five people were killed in food riots in Somalia. I guess $1.23 doesn't go as far as it used to.

For more images from Hungry Planet, visit TIME's photo series here and here.

It's Funny How the Truth Sounds Like Poetry

Picked up a copy of Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse today in the Barnes and Noble discount section. It was marked down from $26 to $4. Meanwhile, reality show DVD's were selling like full-priced hot cakes.

Neither here nor there.

I'm 12 pages in and already the prose pounds like a machine gun playing Bach's own harpsichord. Here, look:

"The day before I wrote this, Carlos Arredondo, 44, of Miama, Florida, jumped into a military van, dumped out a five-gallon canister of gasoline over himself and lit it, burning up half his body. Minutes before, the MPs who stopped the van at his house told him his only son was shot dead in Iraq. Neighbors said Arredondo went crazy. I don't think so. I think he went sane."

Five Years Ago Today

4,000 American lives later, Mr. President, I respectfully disagree.

Ode to the Grape

Courtesy Daily Kos, I bring you proof positive that A) wine is better for you than Tae Bo, and B) biotechies can be bastards (and I'm not even talking about the rat-killing).

Read it! And then go guzzle some Grenache.

Toon In

The first petition I ever signed was the one that my brother and I created in 1989 imploring our parents to let us watch The Simpsons. Tragically, our democratic machinations were quashed; nonetheless, I have since developed an abiding affection towards animation for grown-ups. Here are, in my opinion, the five greatest examples of this art form (and if golf is a sport, then cartoons are totally art):

5. The Simpsons — The progenitor of the modern wave of animated sitcoms, The Simpsons remains not only one of the most relevant and important airing American television shows, but also, somewhat amazingly, funny.

4. Daria — The protagonist is an awesomely sarcastic Geek the Girl in this sadly-shelved show which is still cuttingly mirth-inducing ten years later.

3. American Dad — Perhaps blasphemously bumping its older brother Family Guy (which needs to start being funny again), American Dad is a fun combination of goofy humor and cultural critique. With a German fish.

2. Home Movies — I've been trying to put my finger on why I like this show so much for years, but all I know is that when I found out it was re-airing on Adult Swim I did a jig.

1. South Park — Crass, irreverent, utterly unpolished. Clearly my type.

Honorable mentions go to Futurama and King of Hill — robots and rednecks, respectively. Actually, I propose they have an old school rumble. I've got ten bucks on Peggy Hill.

My Kingdom for a New Sex Scandal

I'm beginning to suspect that this puts me in the minority, but truth be told, I could care less if the President's pastor believes that human beings are descended from gigantic talking bananas. Reverend Wright screaming "God damn America" has far less to do with my vote than the candidates' positions on education, health care, the economy and, oh yeah, that war thing. I guess I'm not very good at being a scared white voter, but honestly, if this guy shoves himself into the spotlight one more time, I think my head will explode from the tedium.

And if we're really being honest with ourselves I think we'll all agree that the question is not whether Reverend Wright loves America as much as Barack Obama does (a question which will hopefully live infamy due to its being chiseled onto George Stephanopoulos' headstone by vandals) . Rather it's whether he loves America as much as this dog does:

Shiny

Today I joined the legions of those whose televisions require not two but four letters to appropriately form their acronyms: HDTV. While the picture is sharper and the channels are more numerous, what I find myself most pleased with is the fact that I was able to hook the thing up to the new DVR cable box, the DVD player and the surround sound system myself.

I think it is also worthy of note that thanks to this new contraption, I have developed a sudden and I suspect intractable fear of sea turtles.

I'd Like a Refund on My Refund

According to President Bush, the long-awaited tax rebate checks that comprise the backbone of the bi-partisan economic stimulus package are set to start going out on Monday. As a married filer with a fortuitous SSN and a proclivity for direct deposit, that means I should be getting my $1,200 in the next few days. (Too bad my TV decided to turn pink this week, but I digress.)

In his speech, Bush attempted to bolster consumer confidence by saying, "This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump and at the grocery store, and it will also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown."

Um, offset the high prices "we're" seeing at the gas pump? First of all, take your "we" and shove it, President Silver Spoon! Second of all, I thought the purpose of these rebate checks was to stimulate consumer spending across sectors of the economy, thereby reviving flagging retailers — not to grease the palms of the oil profiteering pirates who are largely responsible for this mess in the first place. To be crystal clear, what we have here is the President publicly stating that American should spend the tax dollars they are about to receive in the mail to increase the profits of the oil companies. Somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that this is pretty much what he was envisioning all along — "Go ahead and jack up prices, INSERT STUPID NICKNAME HERE. Bushie's got it covered."

Hell, why not save postage and just cut out the middle man? Go ahead and make mine out to Exxon Mobile.

What's That Go to Do with the Price of Rice in Sioux Falls?

In one of the more baffling abdications of journalistic responsibility in at least, I don't know, a month, the mainstream media continues to by and large ignore the fact that our planet is experiencing an increasingly serious food shortage. But it might get harder for the likes of Chris Matthews and Larry King to keep their heads buried in the mineral-depleted soil as the soaring costs of basic foodstuffs begin to impinge upon the U.S. marketplace. Already in the past week, multiple reports of rice and grain rationing are coming out of cities as disparate as San Francisco and Sioux Falls.

Ironically, this is partially a robbing Peter problem — diversion of edible crops to the manufacture of biofuels has helped to shape the situation. Another component is the incessant plundering of grain fields to feed the nation's millions of dead cows walking.

But really, can our busy journalists be blamed for getting distracted by things like Miley Cyrus' green bra? I mean, it is Green Week or whatever, right?

Soy for Streams

The ironic thing about Earth Day is that the greatest impact humans have on the planet is perhaps less on the actual earth than on the planet's water. While we in America go through bottle after plastic bottle of clean water each day, forty percent of the planet's population lack basic sanitation facilities. Literally thousands of children die each day as a result of conditions related to water and hygiene, which I imagine is about as pleasant as it sounds.

What can you do to help? There's the obvious — water your lawn less liberally, wash your car less often, and switch to a low-flow shower head. That last action would save roughly 2,500 gallons of water per year.

But why inconvenience yourself all year long when you can absolve yourself of all moral obligations vis a vis water in just one day? According to The Food Revolution by John Robbins, the production of one single pound of beef uses between 2,500 and 5,200 gallons of water.

Simply put, forgoing one hamburger is better for the environment than not showering at all for an entire year.

I can't imagine an easier way to be environmentally proactive than occasionally skipping the Super-Mega-Double-Crazy-Vein-Polluting Beefy Burger. Besides. These things are pretty damn tasty.

Clinton and the Cold War

Twice now in the past week Hillary Clinton has suggested that the United States President should use the threat of nuclear attack to cow Iran into submission. Twice now in the past week she has failed spectacularly to distinguish herself from the militaristic Machiavellis who dragged our nation into a foolish and tragically costly war which has placed Americans in greater peril than we were in prior to its commencement.

The two instances to which I refer are last week's farce of a debate and Clinton's appearance on Countdown this evening in which she stated unequivocally that the United States must threaten to respond to Iran's currently non-existent nuclear weaponry with "massive retaliation." Piercing my feelings of horror and dismay, I feel that a particular element of Clinton's newly emerging foreign policy position needs to be thoroughly and immediately explored: her decision to model the United States' treatment of Iran and the Middle East after the Cold War foreign policy of the post-war world.

In her conversation with Keith Olbermann today, Hillary Clinton made the following chilling statement:

"Well what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran, if Iran does achieve what appears to be its continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons, and I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world, and what I think the President should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel."

There are two fundamental problems with Clinton's unfortunate decision to use the lens of the Cold War to frame our current relationship with Iran and nations in the Middle East. The first is philosophical in nature and the second is strategic; both are disturbing and to use Obama's terminology, "wrongheaded."

I'll begin with my philosophical objection. The Cold War was one of ideology, pitting the capitalist West against the communist East (oversimplified for the sake of a larger point). The goal of each contender was not to achieve some sort of conciliatory understanding or peaceful coexistence; the explicit goal was to crush the other ideology and its faithful adherents.

In framing the growing tensions between the United States and Iran through this "with us or wiped from the face of the Earth" lens, Clinton affirms the worst suspicions of U.S. foreign policy — that we not only view Western ideology (Christianity) as superior to Eastern ideology (Islam), but that we understand the goals of each "side" to be the utter destruction of the "enemy ideology." Clinton's A-bomb rattling is precisely the sort of language that incites the spread of violent extremism, and is very, very dangerous.

There are also two strategic issues that arise from modeling U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East after the Cold War.

First and foremost, the Cold War consisted of a stand-off between two nations that already had nuclear weaponry. In an attempt to assure that neither party deployed that weaponry, both sides engaged in a mad and costly arms race. The goal was not to prevent the other side from developing nuclear weapons; the goal was simply to have bigger, better, faster, more weapons ourselves.

This is a very bad model to use in our dealings with Iran for the obvious reason that the objective is very different: currently, it is in our best interest to convince Iran that they do not need nuclear weapons at all. Threatening to use our already existing nuclear arsenal against them is likely to accomplish the opposite. Granted, Clinton claims that "what we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran." But how is it wise to base our current foreign policy and choose our current words towards Iran on the assumption that they will already do the thing we are hoping they will not do? Is it not wiser to adopt an approach, a message, that will entice Iran into believing that we do not want to bomb the bejeezus out of (or perhaps into) them?

There is a second strategic problem with using the Cold War as a template in approaching the Middle East. While it was a conflict of ideology, the Cold War was fought on two physical fronts — the military and the economic. Not only did the proxy military confrontations between the United States and the so-called Evil Empire(s) result in wasted lives and resources, they were ultimately ineffectual in ending the Cold War. It was the economic front that resulted in the West ostensibly winning. The Cold War worked as a war of attrition; through effective use of embargo the United States was able to, for all intents and purposes, starve the Soviets into submission. They had nothing we wanted (well, needed), and we were more than able to thrive economically absent the USSR as a partner in trade.

It seems to me there is a rather massively glaring difference between that situation and our present economic position vis a vis the Middle East today. I'm more than supportive of a decrease in our dependence on foreign oil (or oil in general, for that matter), but I think it is foolish to assume that our Middle Eastern rivals (if we insist on constructing them as such) will spend 30 years glaring at us from afar and them implode.

And again, the underlying philosophical assumption if we adopt this Cold War model would be that upon the imploding of our "Islamo-fascist" enemy, our "winning" would result in replacing their problematic ideology with our superior version. There is no scenario in which a Cold War strategy of "deterrence" as thusly described results in a peaceful, long-term relationship between the United States and Iran.

Today Hillary Clinton has succeeded in validating every worst suspicion of United States foreign policy and the Middle East. God help us if she wins — and I don't care which one.