Is this America?

Pat Metheny and Charlie Haden perform Is this America? (Katrina 2005) for Elvis Costello and Bill Clinton on December 17, 2008. Bruce played on the album and is nominated for a Grammy.

Armchair greens chillin at the TV

Abby was on CBS News earlier this month.

And here's another clip of Abby, dancing:

Did you really think about it before you made the rules?

Republican leadership can't keep themselves from supporting Chip Saltsman's right to show the Republican party for what it is. Apparently we're now debating whether calling Barack Obama the "magic Negro" could actually help Saltsman become Republican Party Chairman.

Brilliant. Strategery at work.

Cartoons and Candy

This should have gone in a Hanukkah post, but alas Hanukkah is over. But I'm still enjoying my new Star Trek Pez.

A man working on a farm

We've been purchasing our produce from Get Green Organics for most of the last year.

Apparently, the force is with us.



President-Elect Obama also promises to advocate for organic farming.

We will celebrate

For the eighth day of Hanukkah, the Miami Dolphins continued their most improbable season ever and beat the New York Jets, finishing the regular season at 11-5 following last year's horrendous 1-15 disaster (which nobody will remember now that the Detroit Lions have "improved" on that by becoming the first team to lose sixteen games in a season), eliminating both the Jets and the Patriots from the playoffs, and going to the playoffs themselves as the AFC East's number 3 seed. That's a run-on sentence. It keeps going long after you expected it to end. Like the Dolphins' season.

(Miami's new NFL record of only 13 turnovers all season tells the tale - it's amazing how much a team's record can impove when it stops making mistakes.)

Next week the Dolphins get to host in the first round of the playoffs the only team they beat last year.

Happy Hanukkah!

I couldn't spell

The age old question makes its way to the seventh day of Chanukah blogging:

Fields of gray

More good news on climate change:

The United States faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested, according to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey.

And then there are the environmental disasters that even the "skeptics" cannot deny:

What may be the nation’s largest spill of coal ash lay thick and largely untouched over hundreds of acres of land and waterways Wednesday after a dam broke this week, as officials and environmentalists argued over its potential toxicity.

And it gets worse. This statement in the article is just incredible:

“You’re not going to be endangered by touching the ash material,” said Barbara Martocci, a spokeswoman for the T.V.A. “You’d have to eat it. You have to get it in your body.”

That's incredibly comforting, isn't it? Particularly given the fact that this is going to end up in the water supply, and poison all of the (remaining) wildlife in the area. "You'd have to eat it." Indeed - there's going to be no choice for some.

UPDATE: According to the headline of this Scientific American article, "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste."

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

UPDATE #2: And worser and worser still. As I said the other day, this stuff is finding its way into the water supply. "You'd have to eat it. You'd have to get it into your body." Words that will haunt the T.V.A. spokesperson. And yes, you can be sure that the situation is even worse than that.

Spin the wheel and hope for the best

Erran Baron Cohen and Y-Love spin Dreidel with Conan, for day six Chanukah blogging.

The way it is

Josh on the current contest for RNC chairman:

With the earlier news about Katon Dawson and his whites only country club and today's revelations about Chip Saltsman, it really does seem like the RNC chairmanship race is down to a straight-up match between the black candidates and the racist candidates.

Sounds to me like an expansion of the Republican coalition.

Obviously, that's not an entirely fair statement. But it's not entirely unfair either, as paying attention to the presidential campaign would have shown you. Encouraging the "base," when you know what the "base" really means, has consequences.

Let's talk a walk down memoray lane.





Those, my friends, are modern Republican family values.

So now that the so-called moderates (Northeastern or Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republicans, whatever they preferred to be called while they engaged in their denial of what "their" party had become over the last quarter century - hey, this is no surprise, people) have been tossed aside and the anti-black thing didn't work out so well, I guess the party is set to rebuild its coalition of hate based on fear of Muslims and gays.

That's change they can believe in.

Funhouse

Everyone glow in the dark

On Sunday, my daughter and I saw a car on the road with a Chabad license plate. Later, we attended the Chabad-sponsored public menorah lighting in Winter Park. That despite the fact that I've never been terribly comfortable with Chabad's messianic, evangelical bent. But this is pretty clever stuff, and qualifies for day five Hanukkah blogging (via Jeffrey Goldberg):

Come on kids

Aside from being the fourth day of Hanukkah, it's also Christmas day, for those you you who had not noticed. Over at Jewlicious, they've got a post about Hanukkah books, and in particular a book that reinforces that Hanukkah is not the Jewish Christmas.

The folks at Jewlicious also take the time to point out the Hanukkah book table at the Barnes and Noble near Lincoln Center.

Which is enough to make it the fourth day of Hanukkah blog post.

Looking for a Christmas Tree

Mariah longs for us (a spoof). (Yes, it's sort-of offensive to me, too.)

The defenders drink their wine

For day three of Hanukkah, be a mensch and join the SuperJews!

Light a match

Second day of Hanukkah blogging. An ode to Rahm.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

A candle burning

Festival of lights began last night!

We better do something

I've been thinking about the bailout of the auto industry through the use of TARP funds, following the defeat of the loan package by Congress last week. I have mixed feelings about the entire thing; I am deeply concerned about the overall economic impacts of a collapse of the U.S. auto industry, and would perhaps lean, ever so slightly, toward providing relief were I in a decision-making position, in no small part because the people lined up on the other side of the issue are so incredibly dishonest and reprehensible. (Richard Shelby, I'm looking at you for starters.) But I'm in no way certain about this; we just don't have enough information and are blindly rushing in to solve something that we don't understand - again.

That being said, Congress already made a decision on this, and the proposal failed to get sufficient support. It's sort-of done. Or so it seemed.

But the President stepped in and used TARP funds to do through the backdoor what he couldn't do according to the rules. Arguably, that's a much needed exercise of leadership in this lamest of lame duck periods. Alternatively, it's just an attempt to push the timeframe for collapse of the industry into the Obama administration in order to shift blame for the collapse away from Bush. In any event, certainly preserving the jobs of working class Americans is a more noble pursuit than rewarding financial executives for their corrupt failures.

Nevertheless, whatever the merits of the proposition that the American auto industry, however poorly run, needs a life vest before it drowns all of the rest of us with it, we seem to have arrived at a short-term solution (or perhaps just a bigger bucket to that we can stay afloat just a little longer) through another presidential usurpation of constitutional authority. TARP, intended to save the financial services industry, is now being applied to heavy manufacturing. Both are important, to be sure. But it seems that this application of TARP funds is completely outside the scope of the original Congressional authorization of funds. (Not to mention that, if those funds were really necessary for the financial services industry, what happens now that those funds are being reapplied?)

Can we even excuse this exercise in presidential hegemony with the argument that the President has extraordinary wartime powers? Is the viability of Chrysler now tied to defeating al Qaeda?

Maybe it doesn't matter anymore - we're less than a month away from a new president and a new direction. And it's not like we're talking about a declaration of war or wiretapping.

But somehow I think it does matter.

Fun and games

Late night. Can't sleep. PS3 is in the bedroom where better half is sleeping.

What to do?

Super Obama World!

Sad Moon

She's not really dead.  As long as we remember her.

Rest in peace.

Another wins

Formal votes were cast today for President. Across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, electors cast their votes in the Electoral College. Votes will be tallied on January 6, 2009, when Barack Obama will officially become the President-elect under the U.S. Constitution.

As pro football legend, Franco Harris signs his autograph countless thousands of times. But the signature he made as one of 21 Pennsylvania electors
for Obama was the one the Pittsburgh Steelers great running back won't ever forget.

"That was special," the Pro Football Hall of Famer said. "This was the most valuable thing I've ever signed my name to."

Circus on the Moon

We got to see a giant frown emoticon in the sky made by the triple conjunction (not a planetary occultation that some mistakenly called it) of Venus, Jupiter and the moon after Thanksgiving - a pretty amazing sight, though in Asia, they got a smiley face.  

Well, the sky was not done impressing. That's one big moon.

They'll clear it up another day

Bush Administration surprisingly backs down on some of its environmental destruction.

Where the grass seems greener

Chris Boddener, blogging for Andrew Sullivan this morning, points to Mona Charen calling out liberals for not giving George Bush credit for PEPFAR, effectively accusing the left of hypocrisy on the issue.

In response to that charge I'd simply point to my post from July 17 this year, where I pointed out the PEPFAR legislation and said specifically "Credit where credit is due." For those needing an primer, that was meant to credit George Bush.

Really just bought and sold

The odds are pretty good that neither Gary Hart ("If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'd be very, bored.") and John Edwards will ever be President, which goes to show that challenging the press to look into your secret romantic life doesn't always work out that well. But how about challenging a prosecutor to look into your ethics in governing?

Rod Blagojevich, yesterday:

I should say that if anybody wants to tape my conversations, go ahead. Feel free to do it. I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously. And those who feel like they want to sneakily and wear a taping devices, I would remind them that it kind of smells like Nixon and Watergate.

Style points for Blago. The analogy to Nixon when facing possible indictment for corruption and the threat of impeachment by his legislative branch is a nice touch.

As a TPM reader pointed out, "People in Chicago have repeatedly said that he's like George W. Bush but not as bright."

Spelling bee

Rod (n)

1. A thin straight piece or bar of material, such as metal or wood, often having a particular function or use, as:
a. A fishing rod.
b. A piston rod.
c. An often expandable horizontal bar, especially of metal, used to suspend household items such as curtains or towels.
d. A leveling rod.
e. A lightning rod.
f. A divining rod.
g. A measuring stick.

2. A shoot or stem cut from or growing as part of a woody plant.

3. A stick or bundle of sticks or switches used to give punishment by whipping. Punishment; correction.

4. A scepter, staff, or wand symbolizing power or authority.

5. Power or dominion, especially of a tyrannical nature: "under the rod of a cruel slavery" (John Henry Newman).

6. (Abbr. rd)

a. A linear measure equal to 5.5 yards or 16.5 feet (5.03 meters). Also called pole.
b. The square of this measure, equal to 30.25 square yards or 272.25 square feet (25.30 square meters).

7. Bible. A line of family descent; a branch of a tribe.

8. Anatomy. Any of various rod-shaped cells in the retina that respond to dim light.

9. Microbiology. An elongated bacterium; a bacillus.

10. Slang. A pistol or revolver.

11. A portion of the undercarriage of a train, especially the drawbar under a freight car. Often used in the plural: ride the rods.

And then there's this definition from an - alternative - dictionary.  (Not safe for the kids.)

Any other definitions come to mind today?

Bend the rules so secretly

A couple of days after Hurricane Katrina mercilessly barged through New Orleans, as the consequences of FEMA's catastrophically inept response were becoming critically apparent to a stunned nation, George Bush scouted the destruction through a foot-long window in Air Force One.

Legend has it that, much like George Bush's 20,000 foot tour of post-Katrina New Orleans, Nero fiddled as Rome burned. Like many legends, the Nero story appears to be more myth than history. For instance, the burning of Rome predated the invention of the fiddle by at least a millennium. Instead, Tacitus said that, unlike his modern counterparts George Bush and Michael Brown, Nero actually rushed back to Rome upon learning of the fires, organized a relief effort, paid the costs out of his own pocket, sheltered and fed the homeless, and redeveloped the area in a safer manner.

But the Nero-Bush comparison is largely unfair. Neither legend nor history will be as kind to George W. Bush.

Bush is not content to simply stand by and watch the catastophic blaze of his failed presidency engulf what he viewed as his personal empire. The idea, encouraged by the imagery from Katrina and Bush's verbal gaffery, that Bush is either aloof or simply a fool or an amiable dunce give Bush much too much credit. These concepts - that Bush is a victim or circumstance or incompetent - seek to absolve him of the criminal state of mind necessary for the level of corruption and systematic abandonment of legal and ethical standards that have characterized the Bush Administration.

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

The common narrative is that George Bush is now standing outside of Rome, fiddle or harp in hand; or is the benched quarterback, content to earn his paycheck while looking on to see if the rookie can bring the team back from an eight touchdown deficit - in the fourth quarter.

George Bush, however, is not a passive observer to the destruction, he's an active participant. He seeks no absolution. He doesn't fiddle; he clears brush. And the environment is just more brush, to be cleared away while he still can.

So in the waning hours of our national nightmare, among the final acts of the Bush presidency will be the elimination of water regulations for the toxin percholorate, a chemical found in jet fuel that, among other things, can pass to infants through breast milk and retard neurological development; opening up of public lands for dirty oil shale development; allowing power plants to operate next to national parks; eliminating the scrubbing requirements that clean emissions from coal-fired power plants; and compounding the damage from mountain-top removal mining operations by permitting dumping into streams and rivers.

And then there's this new report from the Government Accounting Office exposing much of the fraud and waste from the Bush Administration that President-elect Obama will have to contend with upon taking office.

And when President Bush has contented himself with the fiddle, the consequences have been equally dreadful, because all of this happens to be going on at the same time that, following years of neglect and denial, the consequences of global climate change appear to be accelerating faster than even the most pessimistic models predicted, from rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers to Arctic ice retreating 100 years ahead of predictions.

To paraphrase from another fiddler (on the roof):

Rabbi, is there a proper blessing for George W. Bush?

A blessing for George Bush? Of course! May God bless and keep George Bush ... far away from us!

Fire off another lame remark

I was almost disappointed in the latest release of Nixon tapes that Olbermann played a couple of nights ago, when I didn't hear any of Nixon's typical anti-semitic rants.  But on that count, Nixon rarely disappointed.  So here we go.

Who you hurt with your words

Andrew Sullivan is strapping on the bungee cord harness.

I just read the Dissent of the Day that Sullivan posted last night, an email from a fourth-generation resident of Mumbai ripping him apart for following Hitchens' lead on the issue of the city's name. I at least give Sullivan credit for publishing that dissent - though he would have known basically everything that is in there if he had bothered to do the most simple follow up himself.

Not a name

Like many people, I've been trying to understand the Thanksgiving weekend terrorist attacks in India. Last night, turning to an old standby, Slate, I opened up Christopher Hitchens' Slate article encouraging U.S. solidarity with India following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Or should I say Bombay? Because my most significant takeaway from Hitchens' article wasn't the causes and implications of the attacks, but rather that Hitchens views the change in the city's name from Bombay to Mumbai as illegitimate and fanatical. Said Hitch:

When Salman Rushdie wrote, in The Moor's Last Sigh in 1995, that "those who hated India, those who sought to ruin it, would need to ruin Bombay," he was alluding to the Hindu chauvinists who had tried to exert their own monopoly in the city and who had forcibly renamed it—after a Hindu goddess—Mumbai. We all now collude with this, in the same way that most newspapers and TV stations do the Burmese junta's work for it by using the fake name Myanmar. (Bombay's hospital and stock exchange, both targets of terrorists, are still called by their right name by most people, just as Bollywood retains its "B.")

This may seem like a detail, but it isn't, because what's at stake is the whole concept of a cosmopolitan city open to its own citizens and to the world—a city on the model of Sarajevo or London or Beirut or Manhattan. There is, of course, a reason they attract the ire and loathing of the religious fanatics. To the pure and godly, the very existence of such places is a profanity. In a smaller way, the same is true of the Islamabad Marriott hotel, where I also used to stay. It was a meeting point and crossroads for foreigners. It had a bar where the Pakistani prohibition rules did not apply. Its dining rooms and public spaces featured stylish Asian women who showed their faces. And so it had to be immolated, like any other Sodom or Gomorrah.

So I was a bit surprised a few minutes later when I clicked a couple of articles down on the same Slate front page to read this - how shall I say it? - more sober, "Explainer" piece about the change in name from Bombay to Mumbai which, while crediting (or blaming, depending on your preference) the right-wing Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena for the name change, imposing the renaming in honor of "the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, the city's patron deity," gives us a little bit (and just a little bit) more context.

Shiv Sena's leadership pushed for the name change for many years prior to 1995. They argued that "Bombay" was a corrupted English version of "Mumbai" and an unwanted legacy of British colonial rule.

More interesting, it looks like Mumbai was the historic name of Bombay used by certain ethnic groups, as well.

The name change didn't impact all of Mumbai's residents. Speakers of Marathi and Gujarati, the local languages, have always called the city Mumbai. "Bombay" is an anglicization of the Portuguese name "Bombaim," which is believed to derive from the phrase "Bom Bahia," or "Good Bay." (Portugal held territories in western India until 1961.)

So, it appears that Hitch has picked his preferred (pro-Western) chauvinism over his disfavored form of chauvinism. Not that we'd expect that from the wise and erudite Hitchens. I read the Slate articles, and chalked it up to classic Hitch-ism. Hitchens is always right. Everyone who disagrees is wrong.

I get it. I see that short-fuse passion in my middle-schooler. We're working our way through it, I hope. She happens to be a lot like Hitch right now - brilliant but shallow; curious about everything but quick to unshakable conclusions; often temperamental, even explosive; questioning of the existence of a higher power. Yet she'll grow up and learn about the color gray, about differing opinions and viewpoints, the judgments and calculations and guesses and understanding and acceptance and disappointments and redirections and growth that define life, and getting along in life. She'll learn that sometimes she's right, and sometimes there are other sides to the story, more to learn, more perspectives to take into account. Someday, she'll learn that showing respect for varied beliefs and conclusions does not have to mean conceding your own, and sometimes means learning something new. Someday, she won't be a reactionary, but a well-adjusted member of society at large. That is, while I hope she has some of some of Hitchens' wit and education, I expect her to far exceed Hitchens in judgment and character.

Yet it didn't take Andrew Sullivan long to jump, sans bungee, into Hitchens' pit of judgmentalism:

Hitch informs me that the change in name to Mumbai is a function of Hindu chauvinism...I wasn't aware of this but now that I am, the Dish will refer to Mumbai by its previous name.

And so goes my love-hate relationship with Andrew Sullivan - he of charging the decadent left with mounting a fifth column following September 11, but also of authoring Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters in The Atlantic and the web's most prominent voice to elect Barack Obama; the man who continues to express pride in legitimizing The Bell Curve, but also the morality to refuse to accept any indefensible excuse for torture by any other name and the (self-serving, but no less valid) support for marriage equality. So clever and articulate and passionate (like Hitchens), yet so quick to judge and come to conclusions based on a complete absence of information (like, um, Hitchens).

UPDATE: Kevin Drum corrects Hitchens and Sullivan.

Fortunate Son

In order to spend more time with his family, and irrelevant to his abysmal popularity in the state and the almost certainty that he would lose a bid for a second term, Mel Martinez has announced that he will not be running for reelection to the Senate in 2010. Where, oh where, can the Republicans turn?

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — the younger brother of the president — is weighing a run for the Senate seat currently held by Republican Mel Martinez.

Jeb!

Because it's time for another Bush in Washington.

You cannot be serious.

UPDATE: Proposed DSCC ad: "Jeb Bush in 2010. Because the other two Bushes in Washington worked out so well." Or, for TV ads, the words "Bush 2010" on screen, and hysterical laughing, turning to crying, no speaking, background images of Jeb and W together.

Just reach out

Barack Obama names Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. "Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well." A man of his word.

And you don't look a day over...

When did songs I grew up with start getting played on the oldies channel?

There was always talk of a wandering eye

More from the Lieberman file. The latest primer on playing both sides of the fence.

Sounds like a good time

Geek blogging. My inner Trekkie revealed, again.



Some early quibbles about the new Star Trek trailer. (That's right, trailer quibbles. Or, as they will hereinafter be known, Tribbles.)

For one thing, that certainly doesn't look like the Iowa farm that we all know James Kirk grew up on.

And I'm a bit shocked by the idea of an angry Spock - aren't Vulcans emotionally, uh, restrained? When Spock showed emotion in the original Star Trek, it was an oddity, shocking, out of character, and thus, used sparingly and always meaningfully, adding more depth to Spock's struggle against his half-human alter ego in order to remain emotionless, to suppress the duality that tortured him inside with a mask of Vulcan even-tempered logic. Kirk and McCoy were not used to seeing Spock show emotion, yet somehow we're now to think that, early on in their relationship, he exhibited rage, a first impression that would undermine everything that we know they believed about Spock as their relationship evolved. I don't think I'm buying it. (On the other hand, Leonard Nimoy himself appears as "old" Spock in the movie, so I'd have to assume that he was on-board with the depiction.)

I know that Enterprise treated the depiction of logic and lack of emotion as a form of pent-up anger, with the Vulcans further depicted as deceptive, with a thin skin of logic barely concealing weakness and arrogance. But Enterprise is over, and I'd just assume forget it ever happened.

It has become convention to re-imagine, or reboot, classic series. That's fine for a series like Knight Rider and Battlestar Galactica, which could use a bit of a rejiggering with the underlying storyline. Sometimes the reconceptualized series is an improvement on a weak original that had conceptual potential but never realized on that potential (BSG); sometimes it destroys the little bit of value that there was to the original itself (Knight Rider without Hasselhoff camp is just a waste of the airwaves). But sometimes too much has grown around the original to reimagine the show's history away. Continuity matters in the Star Trek universe.

I assume those gripes - I mean tribbles - will get explained in the movie, but why give us something to be frustrated about after seeing the clip? That's the trouble with tribbles. (I know - no shame.)

But yeah, I'll be there on opening day.

It's like the Israelites

She "credentializes him."

I do think that the Clinton appointment will utlimately come down to the Israel-Palestine question. And Clinton enables Obama to overcome unnecessary resistance and paranoia from the Israeli right. She credentializes him with Israelis and American Jews - which will help build support for a sustainable compromise before it is too late for the Jewish state.

Sullivan succinctly summarized my argument in favor of making Hillary Clinton our next Secretary of State. Credit to me: I did send that argument to Sullivan last week.

Andy claims the thought came from Jeffrey Goldberg (since he references Goldberg in his post).

Or maybe he's just using Goldberg as cover so that he can keep me anonymous.

Next time I might send my ideas to Josh instead!

Close their eyes and let it all out into the air

Several weeks ago, an email string started up at work, and fairly quickly turned into a heated discussion about the existence of the threat of global warming.

The most vocal objector to the idea that global warming is real - and that such global warming is caused by man - followed a statement that he was a skeptic, not a cynic, and that his anti-global warming stance was not a religous one, with the following argument:

My objection to the global warming hysteria is partially economic and partially science. It has to do with a belief that the science is not, as Al Gore says, "a settled issue". And the belief that the global science henny pennys are underestimating the economic impact of the "fix".

So just to lay this out in straightforward and simple terms what should be obvious, it's time to look at reality.

Preliminarily, it's an interesting question whether the viewpoint expressed above constitutes skepticism or cynicism, but I don't think that is the correct, or even relevant, distinction. Science requires skepticism.

But the argument disguises as skepticism (which is essential) the fact that global warming "skeptics" just don't want to believe something that is not convenient. The science behind global warming itself is pretty solid (you can test conclusively how much CO2 and methane is pumped into the atmosphere, and you know the chemical reactions it has once it is there); rather, it's the impacts of the global warming (flooding Manhattan, etc.) that are unclear.

So the intended objection is against the theories with respect to the impacts of global warming on the planet, which are necessarily a prediction, with models and variables and unknowns, which cannot be certain until tested (testing is the key element of science; you cannot prove anything without testing). And until testing is done, global warming "skeptics" will deny that the predicted outcomes will come to pass (the "belief" that the science is not settled, which isn't science, it's faith).

The fundamental problem is that you cannot test the theories as to the impacts of global warming until the results actually happen in the real world - we don't have a lab planet to tinker with. Because of faith in a belief that global warming is not a problem, global warming "skeptics" will not believe in the consequences until they actually come to pass.

That's neither cynicism nor skepticism. It may, however, be recklessness (as defined by Websters: "careless of consequences"). Recklessness is fine if the consequences impact nobody other than the reckless person; it's not quite so where the consequences are global. I don't have much concern for the drunk that drives off a cliff, but we make drunk driving illegal so that the drunk doesn't plow into a bus full of children.

The Ostrich lacks the appropriate perspective on whether the sky is actually falling to know if Henny Penny is right or not.

As for the swipe at Al Gore, none of this is specifically an endorsement of the title of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. If we're trying to be accurate, it should have been called something like "An Unacceptable Risk". But those Hollywood folks are better at marketing than I am. And sounding an alarm to wake people up to potential consequences, particularly in the face of great risk, is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing.

It's all balancing of risks. I actually do respect (but strongly disagree with) the perspective that those risks may balance in the other direction, but the problem with the argument of the "skeptics" comes in their denial of the real science part in order to reach their conclusions, unless the "skeptics" can't face up to the actual science because the balancing of the risks cannot work in their favor.

Better to be up front about it. I see the risk of inaction as much greater than the "skeptics," particularly where the "skeptics" would refuse to acknowledge the risk until the risk becomes a reality.

The acceleration of global warming is directly tied to the junk we pump into the atmosphere. Actually facing up to that would have long-term beneficial direct economic effects on the economy despite some up-front costs in moving our energy economy into the 21st century.

Today, more than ever, the costs of a failure to shift our energy economy have become depressingly obvious, with the looming collapse of an American auto industry that found itself unwilling or incapable of shifting in any meaningful way away from a gasoline-based economy engine into more environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient economy.

The costs of ignoring the issue and not doing anything - both direct costs due to ongoing dependence on foreign oil and other limited resources, which will not, despite the red-in-the-face arguments of global warming "skeptics" to the contrary, be impacted in any significant way by drilling, baby, drilling, off the coast and in national parks, and indirect costs as a result of the impact of changed weather patterns on coastlines, farming, healthcare costs, etc. - are, in the not-too-distant future, much greater than the costs of taking action, of building a greener economy and a healthier planet.

The time is now.

Come together across the great divide

I've been a bit cynical about the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I wasn't sure that it made sense for her - why take a short-term position that isn't a stepping stone to another office when she now effectively has a position for life, and isn't Senator a better position to be in for a 2016 run at the presidency (assuming age and health don't make that impossible)? And weren't Obama and Clinton farthest apart on foreign policy issues, so of all Cabinet posts, doesn't Secretary of State make the least sense? Not to mention that I still have not completely overcome my resentment for the way Hillary conducted the later part of her campaign.

But, all that being said, the more I think about the possibilities with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the more sense the idea makes.

First, the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, she implements policy. The President makes the policy - I seem to recall someone saying that the president is the "Decider" - and Hillary has shown that she is a good soldier. Her intellect and knowledge of world events is unparalleled among the set of credible candidates for the job, and she knows essentially all of the international players personally. She has a level of respect on the world stage that is an incomparable asset to a young, new president who, while admired greatly abroad, does not have a long history of dealing with world leaders.

Second, if a major initiative of the Obama Administration is going to be to make progress (and possibly succeed) in an overall plan for Middle East peace, which must involve - must lead with - a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I cannot think of anyone who brings more to that initiative than Hillary Clinton. She is possibly the one person in an Obama Administration who would be able to walk into a meeting with the Israelis without inciting the fear (within Israel, but just as importantly, in AIPAC and the synagogues) that the Americans are sacrificing Israel's security. The value of the credibility that Hillary brings to the issue, the respect that she carries in the Jewish community, and the re-boot of America's image brought by Barack Obama, offers the unique possibility of genuine achievement in the Middle East. Just as important, as the campaign (both her own and her campaign for Barack) showed, Hillary is as tough a fighter and as motivated as anyone imaginable when she puts her mind to something.

The great irony of this is that much of Hillary's credibility as a candidate for Secretary of State, and what makes her potential selection appealing across the aisle, is due to the cynical hyping of Clinton by the right wing beginning with the early primaries, first in order to attempt to make her the Democratic choice because they believed she was too polarizing and would hand the election to the Republicans - see Rush Limbaugh's campaign to get his dittoheads to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries; then in order to try to get the Republicans to vote against John McCain by pretending that Hillary was more appealing to conservatives than McCain - see Ann Coulter's claim that she would vote for Hillary over McCain; and finally the attempt to undermine Obama through the bogus PUMA movement. All of those cynical attempts failed, of course, but served to bolster Clinton's bipartisan credentials.

Nevertheless, I'm not naive and unrealistic about the potential for a Mid-East peace settlement under a Clinton-run State Department - there are huge obstacles that make any solution incredibly difficult, even with the best of all scenarios. And Hillary is nothing close to perfect. But Hillary Clinton would have to be the franchise player on a team with a goal of really, really make things happen in the Middle East.

And from Hillary's standpoint, what better crowning achievement for a lifetime of service?

Moreover, it shows tremendous wisdom and leadership for Obama to take advantage of those skills, regardless of whether he is accused of failing to make "change," as surely the media and the Republicans will spin the selection. The reality is, appointing Hillary as Secretary of State does constitute change - not necessarily of people, but of presidential attitude and behavior, of evaluating and understanding the particular needs and relevant skills to address a particular issue, and then choosing the person best qualified to succeed in achieving a particular goal, regardless of appearances, in order to cause the greatest good. In short, for an Obama Administration, only the best will do, regardless of petty differences and spin about a team of rivals, rather than the reality of a team of the most skilled players.

Look, I recognize that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell were supposed to herald an era of smart foreign policy, and we know how that turned out. And Obama's "change" could turn out to be more of the same. But, it seems to me, the key difference here is the man in charge, someone who is interested in differing viewpoints, is not intellectually incurious, does not believe he is never wrong, whose entire perspective on the world does not come from his inner circle, who is negotiating to keep his blackberry so he can keep up with the world real time and on his own terms. Barack Obama may have made some mistakes in his cabinet choices so far. I concede that those whom I described as "only the best" may, in fact, turn out to be horrible choices whose personal failings undermine the best intentions.

But I continue to believe in Barack Obama's message and his leadership. As a result, it doesn't appear to be in Obama's nature to surround himself with starry-eyed yes-men, fawning hangers-on, Arabian horse judge hacks, pretentious fools and megalomanics, in order to boost his sense of self.

Change comes from the top.

After the politics we have suffered through for so long, that kind of change is essential.

Unreconstructed defiantly

Cuckolds.

And you don't look a day over thirty-two

A fair minded man

Keith on Marriage Equality.



This is one of the most powerful statements on this issue that I have seen. What if statements like these had come before November 4?

The Show Goes On

I caught my friend Tico Perez on his Orlando WDBO-AM 560 radio show "Talkin' with Tico" this afternoon as I was trying to find the Dolphins-Seahawks game. I generally avoid listening to Tico's show because I don't want what he says to impact my regard for him, as I'm sure it would given his lurch to the right (and to the wrong side of history) . But nothing much seemed to be happening with the game at the time (though that changed in the fourth quarter), so I decided to listen in on what Tico had to say.

And right off the bat, Tico alluded to the idea that, as a result of the election of Barack Obama and the further solidifying of the Democratic congressional majority, he may end up being taken off the radio by the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine."

Aside from the fact that Tico is just bloviating and stirring up his audience, I wasn't aware that Barack Obama, or anyone during this campaign cycle, had made an issue of the Fairness Doctrine. And as it turns out, Barack Obama actually opposes a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

“Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” said [Obama] press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” said Ortiz.

So why does Tico - who is a smart guy who should know better and have more respect for his listeners - make that comment? Apparently Tico is reading too many of the dishonest right-wing blogs. Kevin Drum has more. Matt, too.

It's bye bye bye, gone gone gone

The internets and talking heads are abuzz right now about the fate of Joe Lieberman, whether he should be booted from the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and whether, if he remains in the caucus, he should be stripped of his chairmanship of (of all things of which he clearly should not be the leader) the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Cmmittee.

It's no surprise to anyone that I would be happy to see Lieberman completely gone, unwelcome to caucus with the Democrats that he gleefully betrayed. Aot this point, given the tenor of the transition and the mood of the Senate, I don't think that's feasible, and don't believe that the Democrats necessarily need to appear to be punitive, despite Lieberman's duplicity. On the other hand, Lieberman cannot be allowed to blackmail the party that he stabbed in the back, and does not deserve to keep any leadership position. Aside from good will, Lieberman holds no cards. And Lieberman and his allies deserve no good will. Moreover, there need to be consequences for bad behavior. Even if Joe Lieberman swore on the Torah that he would from now on always vote the party line and would shine President Obama's shoes each morning, he should not get a pass on what he has done. His threat to bolt the party if he is stripped of his Chairmanship should be ignored, if not ridiculed. Not to overstate this, but the dignity of the Democratic party and its principles depends on that. They have a choice - to stick by principle and honor, or to be cuckolds.

But Harry Reid has an obligation to put this whole fiasco in the best light. So here's how I think this should all go down.

If Joe Lieberman continues to make threats of switching sides (as if he hasn't already) and officially joining the Republican caucus, Harry Reid needs to, first, pressure the weak-kneed caucus to make sure they understand the stakes and the consequences and the absolute necessity to not roll over on behalf of Joe Lieberman, and, second, make a public statement acknowledging that he knows Joe Lieberman is a man that will always vote his conscience - while refusing to back down from stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship. Accordingly, the Democratic leadership will accept and respect whatever decision Joe Lieberman makes that satisfies his conscience, secure in the knowledge that Lieberman will always vote his conscience on the critical issues confronting the American people regardless of which side of the aisle he chooses to sit. His choice to caucus with Democrats in the past has not impacted his capacity to side with Republicans on the issues that mattered to him in the past, and we know that a choice by Senator Lieberman to caucus with Republicans in the future, if he makes that choice, will not impact his capacity to side with Democrats in the future in accordance with the dictates of his conscience. What's matters is that the Senate acts in accordance with the needs of the country. The Democratic caucus will strive to always make decisions based on advancing that goal. As a man of conscience, we know that Joe Lieberman will do the same, regardless of where he chooses to caucus.

In other words, Joe, we accept your explanation and we respect that explanation. And that's specifically why it doesn't matter to us if you caucus with us.

Go. Or stay. But do it because it is what you wish to do.

(Appropriate portion starts at 0:45)


It's your choice, Joe. As it always is.

On the other hand, Reid could just say, "Take your punishment like a man."

UPDATE: Harry Reid is no James Kirk.

The band played on

I went to early vote with my daughter on a Tuesday, arriving at the poll location just before the polls closed at 6pm. A few people arrived after me before the doors closed, including a young African American woman, her white husband or boyfriend, and their beautiful child. Standing in line, the woman loudly started asking, "Who can talk to me about this Amendment 2" - the proposed Florida constitutional ban on marriage equality. We were already in the polling place, so everyone kept quiet. The woman persisted, asking the poll worker from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office why they wouldn't tell her about the amendment. The poll worker politely informed her that she couldn't talk about it because they couldn't discuss the issues without creating the impression that she was telling the voter how to vote.

As I stood there, I desperately wanted to speak up, to ask the woman how it would feel to her if someone told her that she and her husband or boyfriend couldn't be together, that their adorable child was the product of an impermissible union.

But I didn't want to upset the entire poll, create an inappropriate environment for the other voters, end up campaigning at a polling location. I knew that as soon as I started speaking, I wouldn't be able to stop, and that, in my conservative neighborhood, I would not have much support for my commentary. So I didn't say anything. I shouldn't have been so cautious.

The one truly sour note from the elections was the passage of state constitutional amendments in three states banning marriage equality, including Proposition 8 in California and Amendment 2 here in Florida.

Barack Obama chose not to lead on the issue, stating repeatedly that he believed marriage was only between a man and a woman. Late in the process he made a statement to MTV that he opposed Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban - in California, but in the same sentence indicated he did not believe in gay marriage.

MTV Shows

Joe Biden chose to play games with the issue, too, concluding at his debate with Sarah Palin that he and Palin agreed on the issue. It reminded me of the worst moments of the George Bush-John Kerry town hall debate when Kerry danced around his views on abortion, vacillating and Talmudic hair splitting in order to make his reasonable pro-choice views seem acceptable to a pro-life questioner. It didn't work for Kerry, and Biden's similar verbal gymnastics made Biden look equally foolish. It was cowardly and disingenuous.

The Obama campaign obviously made a decision that taking a bold stand on the right of gay people to have a stable, married relationship with the person of their choosing was too much of a political risk.

November 4th saw one wall come down, but another wall is getting put up.

Just another day

From The Onion:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Thought once he was a fine man

A very close friend of mine voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. She didn't live in Florida back then - she was in a decidedly red state at the time (before the time when we referred to red states and blue states, a vestige of the 2000 elections) - and has convinced herself that, living in a state that George Bush was clearly going to win, her vote was a reasonable protest against two party dominance and the so-called corporate ownership of the political process, and that she has nothing to regret. Ralph Nader, you see, was right, and her leanings still run toward him, although political reality has somewhat eclipsed the dream.

I've never really understood protest votes all that much, particularly where the protest is isolated to one side of the political spectrum, attempting to undermine the candidate that is closer to your viewpoint. People are welcome to believe what they want to believe, and see the world through whatever prism they favor, I guess. And I am extremely fond of that friend and her judgment.

For my part, however, I have always believed that Ralph Nader's brand of consumer advocacy makes no sense in the political context, that Nader just doesn't understand the political process or leadership, and that a failure to recognize that is pie in the sky. (As any consumer advocate can tell you, pie in the sky is dangerous - it's going to fall back to the ground and someone is likely to get hurt.) I was convinced, early in 2000 and long before election day, that Nader was delusional, overbearing, self-important. With Nader, everything is evidence of a corrupt, corporate-owned political system.

That does not mean that there's nothing broken in our political process and in the power of a limited number of big donors to influence that process. And I agree that there are significant issues with the absence of regulation, which passes on the costs of bad business practices to customers who do not have sufficient information in order to know that they are being taken advantage of. The past couple of months have clearly shown this with respect to the financial markets, and the problems are not limited to financial institutions - for example, lax regulation of the energy industry and distorted regulation of home building which encourage urban sprawl. But to have placed Al Gore and the Democrats as a whole on the corporatist, anti-regulation side of the coin (rather than on the side of realists who understand that an efficient market requires cooperation between the government, business and the consumer public) required complete ignorance about Al Gore, and could have been easily resolved by, among other things, simply reading Earth in the Balance, which argued forcefully against polluting corporations passing the environmental and health costs of their business practices on to the public and in favor of reforming corporate behavior by monetizing those costs and pushing them back on polluting corporations. Gore wasn't perfect, but his values represented a world of difference from Republican values. It was clear then, as it is more vivid today, that Gore and Bush were not the same.

Unfortunately, Nader (and his vocal supporters like Michael Moore) sadly confused an orientation toward market-based solutions with a corporate bias.

Moreover, contrast the corrupting influence of corporate lobbyist campaign fundraisers with the reliance by now-President-elect Obama's campaign on innumerable small donors, making his dependence on the American people as a whole rather than on a few special interests, despite what John McCain disingenuously would have had voters believe. It's an approach that a reasonable consumer advocate, short of the unrealistic and counterproductive fantasy of eliminating the dependence of campaigns on any financing at all, should prefer and praise.

But Ralph Nader is not about being a reasonable consumer advocate.

In 2000, I argued - to no one who could change anything - that Al Gore was making a mistake by not backing Ralph Nader's request to participate in the presidential debates. Some Gore supporters feared that by showing Nader the respect of being at the debates, he would have been more of a threat to hijack liberal votes from Gore. My view, having watched Nader, was that Nader's participation would have revealed his complete lack of comprehension of the issues that faced America. Every issue does not boil down to "corporations control America". More importantly, however, it would have also enabled Al Gore position himself as the reasonable candidate in the middle of the political spectrum, which is where he belonged. In addition to giving him a second voice in opposition to the brash Texas governor, taking hits from Nader from the so-called "left" inhabited by Nader wouldn't have hurt Gore, it would have revealed Gore's reasonableness. Governance matters, and since that was Al Gore's key argument, I believed it would have served him well in the debate. The ridiculousness of Nader's charges would have become readily obvious. Perhaps I am wrong about all of that; perhaps Nader's presence at the debates would have led to Nader receiving Perot-like percentages in 2000. Perhaps forcing Gore to discuss his positions on effective regulation would have damaged him with so-called moderates. I think that is wrong - or at least should be wrong - but we'll never know because history took a different course.

Following the election, most of America's progressive movement came to resent Nader's role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, his selfish behavior that led to an eight year period that proved that it does in fact matter who holds the presidency, eight years that President Obama will have a hard time undoing (altough it does offer Obama the opportunity for true greatness if he can succeed).

But beyond the resentment and anger around that particular event, I think many people have failed to truly come to terms with Ralph Nader. For instance, Nader received a respectful hearing earlier this year on the Daily Show.

Sometimes, self-satire can be more revealing than cultivated image. Back in the late 1980's, long before anyone had heard of "hanging chads" (itself requiring a rational consumer advocate, although I don't recall hearing Nader's voice on remedying that product defect), Raph Nader introduced himself to America's children on Sesame Street. Before the 2000 election fiasco, I had watched this clip innumerable times with my daughter on the Sesame Street 25th Anniversary video tape. While presenting himself as a person in our neighborhood, Ralph, in the name of advocacy, harms the consumer - Bob - by destroying something that Bob enjoyed and valued. By demanding perfection, Nader self-righteously leaves everything in tatters. But that's okay to Nader and his supporters, because it just proves that Nader was right all along, consequences be damned.



And so, eight years after that fateful day on which the nation began a month long struggle counting chads and battling in the courts, a day that ultimately changed the course of America in ways that nobody on any part of the political spectrum could have foreseen, and despite the fact that Ralph Nader told us that it didn't matter who was elected president since both Gore and Bush were effectively the same, Ralph Nader - the sanctimonious leader of the church of anti-corporate consumer advocacy - used the occasion of the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States to succinctly and directly lay bare - without satire or any sense of irony - his own true nature.



So we witness in real time the wheels coming off the wagon, the sleeves off the sweater. The message has become dangerous, and the messenger himself defective.

Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

You can go anywhere

Yes. We. Can.

Yes. We. Did.

Yes we did.

UPDATE: Election night slideshow.

Big rumble is about to come

The time for speculation is over, and the big day is tomorrow. While I confess to a sudden onset of nerves, I am also restraining my incredible excitement about what I think is to come.

As I said the other day, my nervousness seems to be seeing Barack in the shadow of Kerry and Gore. But Barack Obama has run a masterful campaign and by all rights should be elected President of the United States tomorrow. Now it's time for America to hold up its end of the bargain, to respond with optimism and hope for a better future, a new direction, the American dream, to form a more perfect union.

It's time for America to finally respond to the continuously deteriorating filth and dishonesty of the Palin/Joe/McCain campaign and its surrogates that focused on looking backwards, inciting the worst instincts in people, fear of socialism (I mean, really?), fear of those who look different, conjuring up nationalistic demons, manipulating the Jewish vote that is so critical in states like Florida (Khalidi, the ever-contemptible RJC, Joe on Israel, and more).

For my part, I will spend all of tomorrow monitoring a Central Florida polling precinct as an election lawyer, to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote gets their chance to vote a true ballot, and that all of those votes get counted. I hope to be extremely bored and have a day without incident.

Turn off the set

I've already expressed my concerns about Barack Obama's half hour on a bunch of networks tonight. So why does Barack Obama need to buy that time? Perhaps it has to do with the free half hour McCain got with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press on Sunday, and the free hour he's getting on Larry King tonight.

UPDATE: OK, it was a very good production. I have this habit of seeing what Barack does through the lens of the failures of our prior candidates. He's not those guys, though. It's a large part of what drew me in so early in this campaign and why my support for Obama has never waivered. I need to keep that in mind.

Cartoons and Candy

Happy Halloween.



(OK, this isn't the one I was trying to embed. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if you go to the link, above, you'll get the right one.)

Might just put you on TV

I don't understand why Barack Obama is doing the half hour prime time show on multiple networks on Wednesday.

This doesn't seem to me to fit in with the Obama campaign's strategy. The Obama campaign is very disciplined and seems to make the right choices, but this one appears to be taking a great risk of backlash against Obama spending, not to mention too much intrusion into people's relaxation time toward the end of a campaign that has become too intrusive already.

Not sure I would want to go there.

Crawlin' where the sun don't show

We've been out of town since Thursday, but apparently while we were away local Orlando news found something to talk about other than Caylee. (Hat tip: Andy Sullivan, pointing to The Anonymous Liberal) Apparently, Orlando news has found a new low.



Presumably, Barbara West is proud of herself.

UPDATE: Confronted with the disturbing fact that his "Redistributor" argument wasn't swaying me, a conservative I know just concluded his argument by pointing out that Barbara West lives in his neighborhood. Is there something in the water?

It's a long race

Not the race for the White House.

I just read a story about the Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco, where it turns out that the woman who ran the fastest time - by a significant 11 minute margin - was not declared the winner, because she didn't start with the "Elite" group.

It makes sense. The lead runners, who started 20 minutes earlier, didn't know there was someone "beating" them - they ran to beat the runners that they thought they were in the race with, and we all know from watching the Olympics this summer that even Michael Phelps swims differently depending on where his competition is. If you know someone can finish later than you and still beat you, you run differently than if all of your competition starts along with you. And rules are rules.

But it isn't fair, either, now is it?

It's sort of like winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

So perhaps I am actually thinking about the elections again.

But this isn't 8 years ago.

Who knows, you might like it

Via Andy:

Getting bagels

I basically grew up at the Deli Den in Hollywood, Florida. I don't think a weekend went by without breakfast at Deli Den, more often than not the Deluxe Extra Thick Challah French Toast. We'd complain - "Not Deli Den again!" And then, when we were old enough to ride our bikes ourselves, where did we go? Yeah, that's right.

Then there was dinner at Deli Den, too. A basket of rolls, metal containers of pickles and creamy cole slaw. Chicken in a pot (yes, another covered metal container), which was half soup, half chicken dinner, or the tenderloin steak, or southern fried chicken (Jewish-deli style). And potato pancakes. All on tan-colored melamine resin plates, with drinks in brown plastic glasses.

Of course, we couldn't leave without take-out from the bakery and deli counters. A dozen bagels (the favorites were the egg bagels and the real pumpernickel, not the fake rye so-called pumpernickel that the new places try to pass-off on you), along with the obligatory lox, carp (no head, please!), and some sliced deli meats for dad, wrapped in the white butcher paper pulled off the giant paper roll. Checking out up front, talking to Carmine at the register.

Deli Den has a new owner, I hear, and the location moved to Stirling Road on the other side of Emerald Hills, the neighborhood where I grew up, after a fire burned the original location on Sheridan Street. You no longer get a bucket of pickles and cole slaw at your table - the health code makes them serve it in single servings these days. And the new location lacks the grimy, cramped, comfortable charm of the original. Moreover, when I was last there a few years back, the French toast was squared off. But still, it's the Deli Den, and sadly among the last of a dying breed (with the losses of Wolfies, Pumpernicks and the Rascal House).

And the point of all of all of this, other than making me hungry despite the fact that I would no longer eat most of those things (since they are not terribly vegetarian), is that earlier today, Barack Obama stopped in at the Deli Den for lunch.

According to reports, Senator Obama had a bagel with cream cheese and lox, whitefish salad, and potato pancakes. Apparently, nobody told him about the chocolate log cake, which is, when served cold, the greatest desert in the universe. Really.

Just saying.

Here's some lousy helicopter video shot through the trees.

We're headed down to South Florida on Thursday to see Bruce perform at the University of Miami. I think we may need to make time to stop by the Deli Den.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tonight at the Amway Arena in downtown Orlando.

"If you'll stand with me, if you'll work with me, if you'll organize with me, if you go vote tomorrow and the next day… then I promise you we won't just win Florida. We'll win this election," he told rally-goers, "You and I are going to change this country and change the world."

The boss (no, not Springsteen; my wife) was there.

Nobody There

Yet another disaster in the morning on the Today show. Why have I been watching this hackery lately?

First, we have Tom Brokaw telling us how terrible the influence of money is in politics, in light of Barack Obama raising $150 million in September. The logic, apparently, is that millions of small donations, averaging under $100 and capping out at $2300 per person, would make him responsive to the crazy ideas of the public at large, rather than being beholden to the small number of interest groups that provide almost limitless funds to the RNC (and, sometimes, the DNC, for that matter), which is funding the McCain campaign's (uncoordinated!) advertising.

Of course, Tom's comment does makes sense when you realize from where he gets his information. "I’m saying that history shows us where unlimited amounts of money are in political campaigns, it leads to scandal." That, of course, was John McCain, commenting yesterday on Obama's record fundraising. When logic fails, at least Tom has John's memos to guide him.

Then there's Anne Curry telling us about "Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke". Does that make him sidekick to Emperor Paulson? (Anne, it's either "Fed Chairman" or "Federal Reserve Chairman".)

Next the Today show forced us to watch Sarah Palin over and over again in her dreadfully pointless SNL "performance". Was it even funny? I've seen the clips about 5 times already - because they're on constantly - and I haven't really been entertained by it yet. That's as much an SNL critique as a Palin critique. And here's the Palin critique that we're not supposed to make because she picked on it herself in the show - specifically, that she can find the time to go on SNL, but cannot find the time to do an actual press conference. It's pretty sad that the media can revel in this nonsense and not express any frustration with the disrespect shown to them and the voters through Palin's refusal to submit to the most basic of interviews and press conferences, and lays to bare the dishonesty of her campaign's treatment of the public's right to know anything and the media's complicity in that failure.

Finally, there was a half-decent, if not that informative, interview of Barack Obama by Matt Lauer.

But, the balance of the first half hour was complete nonsense.

Again.

A man playing G.I. Joe

Joe the General, a/k/a Colin Powell. Because even the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State is a regular Joe.

Powell today endorsed Barack Obama in very strong terms. The strength of the endorsement and its moral foundations and thorough reasoning are stunning. Colin Powell has his flaws - he was a dupe of the Bush Administration in pushing for the Iraq war (which itself may lend some credulity to his reasoning), and has not been willing to stand behind his true views for far too long (sometimes explained by him being a "good soldier"). But this is an incredible moment.

Jokes made

I cannot wait for the election to be over so that I can start adding some more humor back in here.

Fire on the cross

Andy Sullivan today:

My view is that McCain will win Ohio. He will win all of Appalachia. There was only one reason white Appalachian Democrats suddenly discovered Hillary Clinton was their idol, having despised her for years. It's the same reason McCain will win Ohio. It has nothing to do with Clinton or McCain.

I keep telling myself that these folks were never really Democrats in the first place, that they didn't vote for Kerry or Gore anyway, so they're just something to overcome by mobilizing the rest of our voters. I hope that is right.

ELECTION DAY UPDATE:  Andy was wrong about the result.  Barack Obama won much of Appalachia, including Ohio.  He may have been right about why white Appalachian Democrats discovered their love for Hillary Clinton, but he didn't realize that Obama could and would transcend that, whether due to the dignity of his personality, the financial events of the past two months, or the ridiculousness of McCain and Palin.  But this reflects why I backed Obama - only he had had the ability to change the map and to turn away from the politics of the past.  This is a tremendous, exceptional day for America.

Scandal ridden pol

Tim Mahoney is the "Democrat" who barely scraped by with a victory over the stand-in for Mark Foley following his disgraced exit from Congress two years ago. The Herald-Tribune has the story about how the DCCC bailed on the true Democrat during the primaries to support this former Republican, based largely on the fact of his tremendous wealth. If you're not already aware, Mahoney is now under investigation for using campaign funds as hush money for his mistress.

When you play with dirtbags, you get dirty.

And now, the Democrats will be handing this seat back to the Republicans.

Good job, Rahm.

Update: As soon as I posted this, I looked over to the sidebar and I see that Josh has a post up on Mahoney, who apparently in response to a question about how many affairs he has had, responded "You're asking me over a lifetime? I'm just saying I've been unfaithful and I'm sorry for that."

Please drop out of the race now. The party cannot hesitate to toss this guy out in the street. Show more backbone than we have with Lieberman. Please.

A couple of men talking

Not so sure whether I am going to liveblog tonight's debate - I'd almost rather not watch at this point. But I do need an opportunity to use the headine above for this post, and this is the last debate and the format that is supposed to allow for a conversational exchange - the phony, collegial sit down at a table format, just Bob "Wes is Mean" Schieffer, the Original Maverick, and That One.

With respect to the prior debates, I spent a good amount of time criticizing the moderators after the debate. This time, I expect that Bob Schieffer will go into this debate believing that it is his opportunity to give McCain the chance to get back into the race. Everything tonight will be about that. He's already said that tonight's debate will have a clear winner. Given that Obama's strategy is to run out the clock on McCain, that must mean that Schieffer is going to give McCain a huge assist and the opportunity to bloody Barack Obama, or Schieffer is going to use his questions to do it himself. Here's my call on one question: "Senator Obama, why do you continue to claim that the Surge is a failure when all objective observers think it is wildly successful?"

We shall see. Soon.

And before I forget, since the debate is at Hofstra, and I won't probably ever get the opportunity again, and even though he's not there anymore -- here's a shout-out to Ross!

OK, I'll liveblog it! All times are PM!

9:01. It's all domestic, so my predicted question is wrong.

9:04. Freddy Mae? And McCain is still stuck on his stupid mortgage purchase plan. He never learns, does he? And on the broader topic of his argument that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (and CRA) are responsible for this mess, two points: (a) if they were, he has nothing resembling clean hands, given his campaign manager Rick Davis' status on the lobbying payroll of FNMA, and (b) the argument is also just complete bunk [link added] - "Fannie" and "Freddy" didn't cause this mess, it's just an excuse to blame Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Fannie and Freddy aren't perfect, for sure. But the argument is complete BS. IndyMac was one of the first banks to collapse, and it was created because Fannie's and Freddy's standards were too tough. Explain that one, Mr. McCain.

9:07. Gosh, this is boring. Obama running out the clock. Now, McCain is working on his attack - No, I don't want to ask Senator Obama a question. What?! That's cause he cannot look him in the eye. He says "you" about Barack, but doesn't look at him. Joe who?

9:09. That's cause Joe is watching Senator McCain's ads. Ouch! And now Obama is shredding him on the fact that Obama is a better tax cutter. Awesome.

9:11. McCain is incoherent, and makes absolutely no sense. He argues his talking point despite the fact that it bears no relation to anything. Barack is taking him to school very mechanically here.

9:13. McCain keeps tossing out the same nonsene. It's so apparent at this point. He's a weakling. And what's wrong with spreading the wealth? What the heck does he mean? (I know, it's his subtle "Obama's a communist" spiel, but wouldn't most people now like a bit of the wealth?)

9:14. Schieffer back with the line from both previous debates that you guys need to agree that we are going to cut back programs. That's so foolish. Obama is responding as he has to - I believe in pay-as-you-go, but I won't agree to a blanket statement, and a focus on the need to invest in America and how it will save us in the future. Exactly. "We are going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility."

9:17. McCain. Huh? Let me get in some talking points. Blah, blah, blah. "I know how to blah blah." He's so full of it.

9:19. Like I said already, just an old time technical schooling of McCain by Senator Obama. He's a bore, yes, but he's letting McCain make a fool of himself while Obama just looks cool, collected and competent.

9:20. I'm now on hold with the debate because all of the women in my house are fighting. This is a lot more exciting than the debate, but I don't think screaming and tears would go over well in the debate. Times will likely be a bit off for the duration, but I'll try to adjust on the fly...

9:22. I'm not President Bush. That was McCain's big shot there. Pretty flat, I think, although the press is sure to make a big deal about it. If handled right, it's the perfect setup for a devastating Obama ad tomorrow.

9:23. "Even Fox News disputes it." "On the core issues ... you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush." But don't give him credit on torture - he doesn't deserve it, McCain's been a hypocrite on that issue, his votes and deeds not matching his words.

9:25. Schieffer screws the whole moral equivalence thing. Just as bad as my post from the other day. Now we get McCain's crocodile tears on the negative tone of the campaign. And it's all the fault of John Lewis. McCain's a baby, a schmuck and a liar. McCain can prove that Obama hit McCain hard on issues - those negative ads - so his accusing Obama of being a terrorist and teacher of sex to little kids is all ok. He's really playing the victim here? Can he possibly even come off as credible on this?

9:29. America isn't interested in our hurt feelings. Obama pointing out that McCain is a baby, and he's an adult.

9:31. Joe the Plumber again? And he's trying to force Obama to condemn and repudiate John Lewis? Isn't Lewis the guy McCain said is one of the 3 people he'd look to for advice at the Saddleback Forum?

9:32. Good, Obama takes it right back to McCain on why Lewis said what he said. (Should have mentioned Saddleback, though.) Again, Obama looks like the grownup, and McCain is a whining baby.

9:34. McCain is proud of those people at his rallies? He knows what is going on, and he's pretending that everyone is a great patriot. "I'm not going to stand for it...!" Geez, how long can McCain play this victim card? Obama keeps trying to get this to issues, and McCain keeps whining. And he's not the one who has a justified right to whine. What a joke.

9:36. Ayers. ACORN. They're destroying the fabric of America!

9:39. Obama listing the people that he trusts. And this says more about you than it says about me.

9:40. McCain won't give up his stories. He's not interested in Ayers, but he won't stop talking about it. He's an angry old man. Obama is reduced to laughing at McCain.

9:42. Tried to check in on TPM during this description of Joe Biden. Snore. But I can't get TPM to open up. Help me!

9:43. McCain on Palin as a reformer. Did I mention that McCain lacks any credibility? He's so proud of her. And Todd, too!

9:45. How does Obama thread the needle on being polite about Palin and succeed, yet McCain lacks the ability to even try to be nice about Biden. McCain is so incredibly tone deaf.

9:47. Can you give us a specific number on how much you can reduce foreign oil dependence? What kind of question is this? And what does McCain mean by implying that only extreme environmentalists want nuclear power to be safe? Did I hear that right?

9:52. McCain to condescend about Obama's eloquence. He's a nasty man. He's been coached to have a nasty hit in every sentence ("Senator Obama, who's never traveled south of our border"). Who told this guy that he needs to be consistently rude? Does anyone want that in a president?

9:56. Obama cannot help but laugh at what a schmuck John McCain has become.

9:58. What's with the freaky blinking thing McCain is doing. The bitterness is screwing up his physiology. I cannot pay attention to anything he says because he's giving me the creeps with that blinking. JOE THE PLUMBER IS BACK!!!

10:01. Barack talks to Joe now!

10:04. Joe, Joe, Joe! Joe the Plumber, Yes We Can!

10:05. Will Obama's health plan provide McCain with some hearing aids so he can actually respond to what is said?

10:06. It's all bad because the Democrats have been in control of Congress!

10:07. That includes you, Joe!

10:08. McCain won't apply a litmus test! He doesn't need to pander to the right any more 'cause Palin can hand him the right wing? Oh, I see, no litmus test, but someone who supports Roe cannot be qualified! McCain once again tries to have it both ways. What tortured logic. (Like how I got the issue of torture into the conversation about having it both ways?)

10:10. Joe the Plumber for Chief Justice!

10:12. Obama's a baby killer!

10:14. Am not. Stop lying about me. Obama is just destroying McCain on every issue that McCain thinks he can win on.

10:16. Don't listen to Obama. He's eloquent.

10:18. Something about teachers. I don't know. Talking, talking, what's he saying? Snore.

10:21. No tests for teachers!?! That's change we can believe in! I'm just completely baffled by McCain. What planet is he from? He really couldn't have meant that. Could he?

10:23. All I can think is that, when faced with a crisis, McCain will blink. And blink. Blink, blink. Aargh. Please stop blinking!

10:27. Thank you, we're nearing the end! Closing statements!!!

10:29. My dad and my granddad were admirals, dammit! Make me president!

10:30. McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, Obama is. Conclusion: Obama isn't patriotic!

10:31. Schieffer wasn't horrendous; by far the best moderator so far, although the debate was pretty boring. I still don't forgive the Wes Clark thing, but Schieffer was respectable here as someone who didn't make himself the center of the debate and was able to get some sort of exchange between the candidates.

Postscript: On CNN, Bob Bennett just said McCain was dignified. Republicans see the world differently, don't they? And on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan is spinning the debate for McCain.

They just want to keep this as a race, but it should be over. It wasn't really close; McCain was nasty and malicious, Obama was level headed and smart. The talking heads keep saying this was McCain's best debate, but it wasn't, it was possibly his worst. His demeanor was awful, and I'm confident that people who watched the whole thing are going to agree. It's not about how many times you jab at your opponent, it's about what it shows about the knowledge and character and discipline and honesty of the candidates, and on that front, Obama blew McCain out of the water.

Tomorrow, once the polling on the debate comes in, just watch all of the talking heads change their minds and tell us how McCain lost because of his nasty demeanor.

UPDATE: Told you so.