Hide your cookies and hide your cakes

It's Friday evening, which is the perfect time for a recipe for challah bread pudding.

Questions and Answers

Last week when I said that the President needs to invite the GOP members to a meeting and engage them on issues openly, and to broadcast those discussions, this is the type of thing I was talking about. Force the masks to come off. Fantastic.

State of grace

Overall, I liked the President's State of the Union speech. I would have liked President Obama to have pushed more on health care reform, forcing the issue more. (How about this: "House, pass the Senate bill, but I'll hold off on signing as long as possible to give you a chance to get an improved, more bipartisan bill; but if you cannot, the Senate bill will be signed into law.") But that didn't happen.

Nevertheless, this line was the highlight for me:

If the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.

He's on TV

Apparently Jay Leno will be headlining the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Apparently they got tired of people paying attention to the event.

I don't understand why people seem to be confusing Jay Leno with Johnny Carson. Carson was smart, funny, engaging, enteraining. If you could have arranged years ago to get Carson to return to the Tonight Show, now that would have been something. But Carson was smart enough and humble enough to step off the stage in his prime.

Leno? He never had a prime, just a show that represented an alternative for people who didn't find Letterman entertaining, which happened to be more than a few. When he moved to 10pm, every other alternative to Leno was a better alternative. Nobody watched his prime time show for a reason. Who destroys a network for someone so painfully dull, and who compunds the mistake, the way NBC is doing? Damn, give me the 10 pm hour or the 11:30 hour, and I'll bring you better ratings for a lot less.

I don't have any gripe with the guy personally, but he's just not all that. I am not sure why anyone would waste an otherwise good hour. That's what the internet is for.

Time for the shake and bake

No news here, but obviously we're in a bit of a mess as far as moving health care reform forward. The only real answer to passing reform is for an intransigent House to pass a Senate bill that, for reasons mostly of politics and some of policy, many just don't like. Apparently, for some only perfection will do.

Passing reform is essential to reviving the Obama presidency and validating the Democratic Party's work over the past year. The President himself is in a bind to avoid looking impotent against a minority party and his own party's left flank. At the same time, he needs to maintain himself as being above the partisan warfare that continues on the right against all thing Democrat, and particularly himself. So the dilemma is, how do you achieve bipartisan consensus without an honest counterparty?

I agree with Josh Marshall that passing the Senate bill is the only possibility, for reform and for the Democrats' future. And passing reform in pieces parts is just nonsense, unrealistic, unworkable, and stupid politics. Unlike Josh, however, I don't think the clock has stopped ticking and the Senate bill has to be passed today. In fact, I think passing the bill today would be dangerous and foolhardy. (I think the whining and apocolyptic nonsense from the left is also and even moreso dangerous and foolhardy, but, hey, I'm not a politician.)

The important thing to remember is that the President has his State of the Union speech coming up next week. It's the most important platform that anyone can have, and the timing could not be any more perfect. It would be crazy for Obama to jump into the middle of the fray today, when he can fine-tune a pitch-perfect message for the SOTU.

He has the single voice that can settle the stomachs of the panicked, the opportunity to once again explain what the Senate's reform bill does, show why it does what it does, and put the onus on the delay and kill tactics of the GOP. The President has the opportunity to make clear what needs to be done, while showing his willingness to listen and hear all sides - but not in a way that gives others all of the control.

My view today is that the President should use the State of the Union address to send the GOP and America to school. Lesson 1: Coverage for pre-existing conditions. You say you want coverage without restrictions based on pre-existing conditions? The only way we can achieve that is by imposing a mandate, because otherwise you kill the system with free-riders who only join the system when they need coverage; that type of system would only insure the unhealthy, making insurance unaffordable, essentially fee-for service. You will have made the system worse, not better, compounding the problems that are the genesis of the reform effort, such as covering the poor, preventing medical bankruptcies. That's the choice, America. That's the choice, GOP. Are you serious about reform, or are you willing to be honest and tell America that you are opposed to any type of reform, other than "tort reform"?

Force the GOP to answer the question in their post-SOTU remarks or show their disingenuousness by ignoring or changing the topic.

To enhance the President's bipartisan pedigree, he could use the SOTU speech to present the nation with two options: (1) health care reform under the Senate bill, or (2) a bipartisan reform package to be negotiated in good faith under specific principles. Invite the players, Senators and Congressman, Democrats and Republicans, to a table set at the White House or Camp David starting the Monday after the State of the Union. Invite CNN and MSNBC and, if you must, FoxNews, to broadcast the negotiations and discussions live. Enforce good faith discussions by all talking in the sunshine. Ask the news media to abide by one simple rule - show the proceedings, explain what shorthand means, and not spin. (I know, that last sentence is fantasy.)

Make the GOP negotiators present a reasoned case for how to cover people with pre-existing conditions without a mandate. Do you prevent someone from getting back into the plan within 5 years from dropping out? Is that acceptable? Something else? If you don't have an answer, you are not negotiating in good faith. The time for taking pot-shots and not offering real solutions, and not productively engaging in the process, is over.

But just as importantly, this type of event cannot be the end. A deadline must be set, and not one that keeps rolling on. Set a target date - and force a commitment from the House to agree to pass the Senate bill - when the House will pass the Senate bill, which President Obama will sign into law, if the conference does not yield an honest, workable, alternative bill. How about two weeks? Too short, you say? Well, tough; you've been at this for most of a year already, and all of the information is already out there. Get to business, or explain to the voters why the GOP wasn't willing to fight for the principals it claims. If you cannot, the Senate bill will become law, because we need to move forward and address the nation's other issues. No more nonsense.

Do I like that type of show, or think it would actually be productive? No. I don't believe the Republicans are capable of acting in good faith, of honestly presenting arguments. I don't even think they actually have arguments; their opposition is nothing more than that; just opposition, designed to harm the President. It's not about seriousness, it's all about politics. And this example is just that, an example of one way that Obama can put the lie to the GOP.

There may be better, smarter alternatives. And it may be that what I discussed above is too clever by half, that it introduces new uncertainty into a process already bogged down in wasted effort. It's more likely that the best approach is for the President to say to the House, in his SOU, that it is simply time to pass the Senate's health care bill. But upon its passage, all the key players are welcome to get back to the table so that the Senate and the House, Democrat and Republican, can sit down and work out reasoanble fixes for the problem areas in the statute, which may be passed through reconciliation, but which preferably get passed through the normal process, with coorperation from the Republicans. Again, this is the Republicans' chance to put up or shut up.

In either case, the ultimate goal must be the same.

It's time for President Obama to out-politic the Republicans. Make the Republican Ursulas reveal the Sea Witch hiding behind Ariel's voice. Mixing cartoon analogies, it's Obama's turn to Gulp down that can of spinach and save Olive Oyl.

Storm into the ring like Hulk Hogan and turn what looks like hopelessness into a grand victory.

And then, pass the Senate bill.

It's time to call the Republicans' bluff.

Flying by

You would think this wouldn't happen on a flight out of La Guardia (granted, it was heading to Kentucky):

A US Airways passenger plane was diverted to Philadelphia on Thursday after a religious item worn by a Jewish passenger was mistaken as a bomb, Philadelphia police said.

A passenger was alarmed by the phylacteries, religious items which observant Jews strap around their arms and heads as part of morning prayers, on the flight from New York's La Guardia airport heading to Louisville.

Anyway, I'd never heard "phylacteries" before. They've always been "tefillin" to me. There's a Weird Al/Billy Joel song in there somewhere.

Happy meal with fries

HuffPo points to this piece by Victor Schonfeld in the Guardian on the five fatal flaws of animal activism. Worth the read.

Some rise by wrong

Serious-foreign-policy-expert-hero John McCain wrong on the facts again, as he asserts the debunked story that the Christmas Day attempted plane bomber had purchased a one way ticket (he did not).

Heeeere's Johnny.

At least some things never change.

Act and not hesitate

I'm angry, again. Not about Coakley's loss in Massachusetts. But because the Dems seem to have given up. This isn't the end of reform, folks. Just pass the darn Senate bill. Stop this whining and fatalism. Shut up, pass health care reform, and move forward. Do it. If you're going to lose your seat, you're going to lose your seat. So do the right thing before that happens.

The Democrats cannot run from being tagged with the cost of reform, no less the image of dithering for most of a year without passing a bill; the worst thing to do now is to have dithered and still not pass the reform. Can you or can you not simply govern? You're not winning any points for killing the bill. So pass it, and if it takes an ugly election cycle in 2010 before Americans see the benefit, so be it. I cannot see any other political calculus here. Conceding defeat and a wasted year is insanity.

Let's think about this one other way. It's January, 2010, and the exact same Senate bill is on the table, a bill that was passed by a Senate that has 57 Democrats, 1 socialist, 1 Joe-for-Lieberman, and 41 Republicans, which include Arlen Specter. After months and months of work, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman and the Democrats have hammered out a compromise health care reform bill, not a perfect bill by any means, but one that achieves the basic goals of the reformists and which is able to garner enough votes to become law. Who wouldn't be cheering this bill, if that was the scenario? Would the House really be digging in to block passage? What if there were 49 Democrats, 1 Joe-for-Lieberman, and 1 Republican Arlen Specter in favor of the bill (but the other Dems agreed to break a filibuster)? How about now? Really?

UPDATE: Not so fast, Dathon? Perhaps Sullivan and Douthat have a suggestion that could work, here. But Plan A - passing the Senate bill - needs to remain an option if they cannot get a Plan B compromise, and fairly soon. The Sullivan/Douthat solution is as elegant as it is unrealistic. Republicans will not negotiate in good faith; they've shown that already. What's the cost to them if Obama calls their bluff, and they walk away again? Who loses? Something needs to be done on health care reform, yesterday, and we need to move on to jobs and the other issues that are affecting America. Staying bogged down on health care reform, without result, is untenable.

UPDATE #2: After doing the freak-out earlier today, Barney Frank is walking it back, will now likely vote for the Senate bill (if it comes up for a House vote).

Cyclone

Sullivan lost his mind yesterday, freaking out about how health care reform was dead, and with it the Obama presidency. As you already know, I share his anger, but not his hysteria.

Today, Andrew has grasped at realism and pulled himself back from the brink:

Obama will stay cool, get his Senate health bill through the House, and move on to financial re-regulation and economic revival. If the Democrats in the House balk at this, they have to be nuts. They will be buying into the Rovian psych-out. And I don't believe that so many worked so hard for Obama so recently in order to restore the logic and priorities of Rovian cynicism.

That's the right answer. Am I comfortable that the path there will be an easy one? Who could watch what has been going on to be comfortable? But, the path is clear. Keep on moving forward.

P.S.: I spend most of my time here dealing with the immediate politics of this thing. So, at least let me make a point that I have alluded to already. Taking on health care reform at this time was a colossal blunder by the President, and it is now being used by the so-called Progressives as a knife to slit the President's and the Democratic party's throats. I would have been much, much happier if the President had used his political capital to aggressively roll back the torture, wiretapping, and other Bush-era policies that have tarnished the meaning of American freedom.

Look, I'm not sure I am terribly fond of the health care reform bill as it is, and I've written about my concerns in the past. The bill is progress, yes, but for many the costs will create terrible resentment, forcing people to spend more money on insurance they're not sure they want (regardless of whether they actually need it). I'm not sure I am thrilled about what it will do for me, either.

But we are where we are. Too much political capital has unfortunately been invested in it, and the point of no return was passed a long, long time ago. Passing this bill, and now, is essential to save the rest of this President's agenda, and this Congress needs to work hard over the next year to do just that. Period.

Wallowing in the stink

Even in the unlikely event that the Democrats are able to hold on to Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate tomorrow, there needs to be some reckoning of the ridiculous position that both extremes in the Democratic party, from Joe Lieberman on the so-called DINO right, to the so-called Progressives on the left, have placed us in. Together these idiots have made an incredible effort to fumble health care reform on the one yard line, and to undermine the presidency of Barack Obama.

That being said, will I be disappointed if a loss in Massachusetts forces the House to adopt the Senate bill in toto? Not at all. In fact, I prefer that solution even if Coakley pulls this out for the Dems (or, really, if enough Dems get to the polls to pull this out for Coakley) - not because I think the bill cannot be improved upon, but because I am confident that, based on everything we've seen so far, given an opportunity to renegotiate provisions of the HCR bill, the Democrats will somehow, some way, create an opportunity to screw this all up and get nothing. Regardless, at the end of the day, you just have to throw your hands up and say, geez, what political geniuses staged such a clown show to get us to this point?

The so-called progressives - the same ones who whipped up an anti-HCR frenzy (and resultant anti-Obama frenzy) when Joe Lieberman was able to remove any "public option" or Medicare buy-in from the bill, who protested that the reform effort was simply a payoff of the health insurance industry - will tell us it's all the fault of the moderates, for failing to deliver either or both of a sufficiently liberal Senate candidate in Massachusetts, or a sufficiently liberal reform bill. But just give it a rest already. The question here is, do we care about passing any health care reform? When you ask that question, it's clear that the hysterical progressives are the ones that are trying to kill this thing, despite the inevitable protestations that it is everyone else's fault. You have to take the world as you find it, not as you want it to be. You don't have to favor the current bill over a more progressive alternative to agree with what I am saying here. You just simply need a grip on reality.

Remember, these are many of the same progressives who branded themselves as the "reality based community," in contrast to and in mockery of the faith-based, divinely-inspired, fact-free certainty of George Bush and the corresponding manifest faith of the right wing in Bush's infalliable instincts. At this point, the progressives face the risk of growing goatees and becoming a mirror universe parody of their own critique of conservatism.

Reality says, pass the Senate's HCR reform bill. It's simple. Just grow up and get it done.

Have I mentioned lately how angry these people have made me?

UPDATE: What the heck is Russ Feingold thinking? Someone should let him know that his body, the Senate, already passed HCR. The House just needs to pass the same damn bill.

Loose screw, continued

Sullivan, today, chiming in on the point I made earlier this week:

The Republican party right now is largely bonkers. The Democratic party is a lily-livered hackfest of mediocrity. I remain of the view that Obama is the best thing going for this country. But between the insanity on the right and incoherence on the left, he is marooned in a lonely center. Maybe in the long run, this is a better place to be. Right now it is making governance close to impossible, at a moment when we need all hands on deck.

The Republicans have to be who they are - their ideology is dangerous, and their constituency is nuts. But Democrats don't have to be this way. The self-destructive behavior of the "progressive" wing is going to sink the ship before it can even get into open waters. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Feel the shifting tectonic plates

I think that for anyone who paid attention in the horrible aftermath of Katrina, it's hard not to think about the bloated, waterlogged bodies bobbing along the edge of a bridge wall in New Orleans, days dead in the aftermath of the storm, like so much trash tossed carelessly from a passing car, left over from a picnic, washed out into the water by rain or wind or some kid who just kicks it around. Empty plastic bags of humanity, abandoned to the elements, choking the other life out. My stomach still churns at the thought of it, my lunch feels like it's fighting to get back out.

But then again, maybe it's not that hard to forget, or have not to seen or cared, or cared enough to see.

Earlier this week, a colleague forwarded an email titled "Emergency Weather Bulletin" purporting to tell the tale of those tough, true American Midwesterners who, when faced with a blizzard of 90 mile hour winds and four foot snow, were able to help themselves, without government assistance. "Obama didn't come. FEMA did nothing. No one howled for the government. No one even uttered an expletive on TV. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton didn't visit..." And on and on.

And then, the email tells us how those enterprising snow-bound Midwestern real men helped themselves: "We just melted the snow for water. Sent out caravans of SUVs to haul people out of snow engulfed cars. Truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks..." Self-help, that's what it was all about, so they "did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks." Why? because "The world DOES NOT owe you a living."

Any reasonable person would know that the "Category 5 Snow Storm" never happened, would know that even if there were such a blizzard, it's nothing like the destruction of a Hurricane Katrina. And so this touching tale of resourcefulness and dignity and American values in response to intense weather, which never happened, could simply reflect the unfortunate, incoherent gullibility of those who forward it.

But the gullibility is merely a reflection of ignorance. The real problem with this email is the message that it sends, and the lack of shame of those who circulate its race-baiting nonsense. Because it truly is shameful, premised on the idea that lazy liberalism has encouraged dark-skinned people to demand from government what they don't need, that their problems, whether economic or environmental or health or basic life sustainment, are the result of affirmative action and their own doing. Katrina? Whatever. Get yourself a shovel and drain that water from your home. Lazy, good for nothings.

Not like those real Americans in the Midwest. They don't need Al Sharpton. Because those Midwesterners, they're helpful and enterprising, fixing their own problem, being responsible. They've got strong, conservative values.

Oh, and they're white.

Not that that has anything to do with it.

As you know, on Tuesday, Haiti was devastated by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, the most powerful in over two centuries. Deaths are estimated in the tens to hundreds of thousands. We just don't know. President Obama has pledged to help.

But that email makes me wonder. Why do Haitians expect a handout? Why can't those Haitians just get some shovels and help themselves? What makes them like those lazy New Orleans people, and so different from those amazing Midwesterners?



And if you think I'm jumping to unfair conclusions, take a look at the take on the Haiti disaster from Pat Robertson. Robertson takes the they-deserved-it angle, asserting that black slaves in Haiti were able to gain freedom from their French oppressors because they made a pact with the devil.

[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the prince.” True story. And so the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.

You read that correctly: a so-called Christian is lecturing Haitians on why their misfortune is a result of fighting for their emancipation from slavery. Instead of concern and charity, Robertson condescends, pities and condemns them. The Haitian revolution resulted in the only time and only place where African slaves were able to end slavery and establish a free and independent nation. But to Robertson and his ilk, winning their freedom is not the result of the resolve and passion and hard work of Haitian freedom fighters, but instead the result of a pact with the devil; his is the conceit that black slaves were not capable of emancipation on their own, and worse, that their emancipation is the work of the devil. Robertson worships a vision of a god (intentionally lowcase, because it's most certainly not my diety) that punishes a class of people for wanting freedom from oppression. Yglesias takes on the so-called facts. TNC blasts Robertson's racism.

Rush, meanwhile, isn't much for charity, either, as he leads the anti-affirmative-action half of this confederacy of dunces' pincer movement.

This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, 'credibility' with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there.

And then, rejecting the idea of people contributing to a rescue effort:

We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax.

Shrill warning: America obviously doesn't need the KKK anymore, with racists spreading their venom in secret societies, when people like Robertson and Limbaugh can say what they say in the open, and when their adherents can be called (with a straight face) populists.

Those who follow them, those who forward their type of bile, should be ashamed.

But most of them don't even understand why, or care.


[Statue of Toussaint l' Ouverture with sculptor Richmond Barthe in 1950. This statue stands in front of the presidential palace in Port au Prince, Haiti. Additional links added after original posting.]

Everything comes and goes

RIP Teddy Pendergrass.

Loose screw

I used to say, somewhat but not entirely in jest, that I'd rather be a Democrat instead of a Republican because it was better to be good intentioned and stupid than selfish and evil.

Maybe it's about time the Democrats opted for evil, 'cause I've had about enough of stupid.

Ignorant we castigate him

Regarding the whole mishegoss about Harry Reid's alleged racism in explaining why America was ready to elect Barack Obama, and his strong support for that candidacy, as being the equivalent of (or worse than) Trent Lott's endorsement of segregation, the only conclusion I can reach is that the GOP truly believes that Americans are stupid. Unfortunately, too many in the media (and even some, like Josh, for a brief and unfortunate moment) are happy to prove the GOP right. Rather than informing on what was actually, you know, said, the GOP counts on the manufactured debate to shape perceptions. If enough people call Reid out as a racist, enough other people will buy into the portrayal of Reid's words - and Reid the person - as racist.

As for Josh, he briefly bought into the idea that Harry Reid's statement was "offensive." He's off the hook here, because that statement is itself part of a post about why Reid's statement is nothing like Lott's, and Josh's follow up commentary has made the point clear that an inartful explanation of why America is ready for Barack Obama - which acknowledges race in its analysis - is a far, far cry from racism. Yet it's troubling that even Josh can fall into the liberal trap of letting his rational discussion give legs to a partisan talking point, or, as Amanda says (in another context, but in the words I was struggling for here and below), that "liberal tendency to want to prove they’re fair-minded by occasionally letting the other side score a point".

Can Americans distinguish between acknowledging the existence of race and being a racist? The unfortunate fact that the GOP cannot goes a long way in explaining that they just don't even understand what racism is, and why the Republican Party will remain, for the most part, a whites-only club (which, as it turns out, Republicans still happen to like).

The instinct of liberals to give credence to a kernel of Republican complaints is the kernel that encourages the nitwits that we entrust with our media to butter it and serve it up as popcorn. At the end of the day, the critical problem lies there, in the way the media chooses to portray this nonsense. They're not so dumb that they cannot understand the distinction, yet they treat the public as if they are. The difference between Trent Lott's unreformed pro-segregation racism and Harry Reid's anachronistic progressivism is not really that subtle. But the media would rather let the partisans jib-jab it out, because it's better television. Because informing the truth isn't their job.

Updated to add Amanda's quote.

Blaze orange hats

If you are not new here, it is no secret that despite their generally bad reputation among the general, self-apppointed arbiters of decency, I am pretty favorably disposed to the mission of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I guess that makes me a radical animal rights terrorist, a misogynist, or something. But the reality is that PETA are working for a good cause, although a bit obnoxiously at times.

Which is why I am not terribly surprised, though somewhat disappointed, that PETA overstepped by putting Michelle Obama on their latest anti-fur campaign ads, without her permission. Mentioning that the First Lady has disavowed fur, that's a great message. Using the First Lady's likeness without her consent? Well, that's another thing entirely. And it's the type of thing that lets the organization's detractors - those who just cannot stand the anti-fur and anti-meat message, who don't want to be scolded for eating what-they-want-when-they-want-it, and who don't want to be troubled with thinking about the costs to other living things) attack PETA and take the attention away from PETA's message, placing the focus instead on PETA's unorthodox approach. Worse than simply friendly fire, PETA's careless planning gives ammunition to their enemies, and unfortunately creates new enemies.

I am probably going to regret saying this, and maybe I am insensitive to the concerns, but the opposition to the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" advertising campaign is a red herring. The campaign gets attention by catching your eye. Charges that the campaign is degrading seem silly to me. I consider myself pretty sensitive to the feelings of people (though I concede that not all others perceive me that way; but when I'm not, I do feel bad about it - that is, if I feel bad about it). But as far as the PETA naked campaign, I don't know any people who truly object on grounds of feminism or sexism or how it impacts girls' images of their bodies. Sure, they're out there, because the media tells us they are, and you can go to several feminist web sites that complain vocally and at times justifiably about PETA.

I'm not really knocking those activist feminists, either. They do what activists do, and raising sensitivity is what activism is all about. Which is exactly why, then, that PETA does what it does - tries to raise sensitivity about its cause, animal welfare.

To be sure, PETA's too-frequent missteps make its other behavior suspect, as well. I'm not sure why we should be upset about admiring beauty and the point that people can be beautiful without wearing animal products or taking the lives of animals for a tasty meal. Would having less "attractive" women posing in their ads make those ads less offensive? And sure, PETA should be more balanced and take a more co-ed approach. I'd be happy to post pictures of attractive men in PETA ads, too. (No, Dennis Rodman and Tommy Lee, who have done PETA ads, don't fit the bill.) The message of the ads isn't that you have to look a certain way; it's that vegetarianism and respecting life is itself attractive.

How, then, do I explain the ad to the left? Well, I just can't. It's offensive and mean spirited and unfortunate that an organization whose message should be one of respect would do it. I'm all for celebrating beauty; I'm not really in favor of denigrating those who don't fit an image, though. It's true that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more likely to help you lose weight, but there are positive ways to send that message. Moreover, this billboard targets the wrong audience - obnoxious men who laugh at calling a woman fat, a whale, aren't the type who are going to give up their burgers and porterhouses.

But all that being said, at it's core, vocal objection to PETA - and objecting to PETA is how you get your bona fides that you are thoughtful and reasonable - is based principally on a fear of PETA's "radical" animal rights message, with all those other things as excuses. PETA has a message that, for all that is frustrating about PETA, is a just and moral message, yet it's a message most people would rather ignore. Not because they think it's wrong, but because people know that it's right and just, but which they know they have no intention of following. People just cannot stand to be told to do the right thing when societal norms impose no incentives to actually do the right thing. PETA's answer is to make you look.

Still, all publicity is not good publicity, particularly when it takes your natural allies and turns them against you. And turning the First Lady against you is foolish strategy.

Sensationalism is great. Stupidity? Not so much.

The Captain

Back in June, in the aftermath of Michael Jackson's death, we talked about Jackson's 3-D musical at EPCOT (and Disneyland), Captain EO. I just noticed this, but apparently Disney has made the decision to - depending on your perspective or generosity - milk Michael Jackson's death or respond to the pleadings of the Jackson fans and Disney die-hards, and bring back Captain EO (see it here, without going to the park!), at least to Disneyland.

I wonder how long it will take to recall that the film is just laughably bad (although the song is pretty good)? Will George Lucas be able to go back and update the special effects, a la the digitized re-releases of Star Wars? Is there really a chance this can succeed without frustrating parkgoers in a world where quality 3-D motion pictures - Disney-Pixar's Up, Avatar - have become commonplace, don't require a $75 Disney park pass and an hour long wait in the queue line, when you could just as well be Soarin'?

How can you stand to think that way?

The right wing just cannot help themselves. Racist author of The Bell Curve and American Enterprise Institute fellow Charles Murray calls 'em like he sees 'em. And he sees lots of people who don't look like he does.

UPDATE: Ed Koch, who ran around the country over five years ago visiting Jewish congregations to tell them that John Kerry was bad for the Jews and Israel, gets back in the game today by telling us that hundreds of millions of muslims are terrorists.

Lost in the Snow

We're setting all kinds of cold records here in Florida right now.

Meanwhile, via Ezra Klein comes this clip of Straight No Chaser doing a (multicultural? no, that's probably not the right word) rendition of The Twelve Days of Christmas, noting that today would actually be the 12th day. Working the Dreidel song in is one thing. Toto's Africa? Genius.

Open our eyes

OK, so we watched the Fiesta Bowl last night, and - well, I feel really horrible. So does my wife. While being unimpressed by the Boise State marching band at halftime, FOX cut to a student appearing to unenthusiastically play the cowbell. We commented about how even the band wasn't enjoying it....

Well, we're schmucks. Turns out the girl wasn't hamming it up for the camera because she was blind. (Now, it would have been nice if FOX had told us that; it would have made a great human interest story. But, seeing as they didn't even show the coin toss portion of the coin toss, I guess that's expecting too much of FOX.)

No problems at all

Clive Crook, last week:

And whose fault is it that the public is not behind this reform, which Krugman and I both support? It is partly the Republicans' fault, to be sure, for refusing to compromise. It is also the fault of progressive Democrats, for denouncing compromise as the work of the devil--then sourly advocating it (like Krugman) or continuing to rail against it. Mainly, though, it is Obama's fault. Rallying the country behind good policy is a crucial part of his job. It is his responsibility more than anybody else's. Unlike Krugman, I think highly enough of him to believe that he could have done it if he'd tried.

This might be true, if we lived in a world where theory supplanted reality. But we don't. So, what else was President Obama to do? It seems to me - and maybe I'm just a rabid Obamaphile, so whatever I say is suspect - that the President did everything he felt he could, without crossing over into the legislative process. He held a prime time press conference almost exclusively focused on health care, which was overshadowed by the press corps silly infatuation with Henry Louis Gates. He addressed a joint session of Congress, which was overshadowed by the press corps infatuation with a disrespectful and factually challenged Congressfool from South Carolina. What he did not do is dictate terms - which would, in my view, have spelled doom for any health care reform bill whatsoever. So, again, what else was President Obama to do, because that's what Krugman was complaining about when he said Crook was content free. Which he still is.

Glow in the dark

More evidence of the dangers of nuclear power. Will it change any minds in the GOP? Who are you kidding?

Final examination

I was going to give a list of bests for 2009, but you probably don't really care.

Nevertheless, here are some things I enjoyed during 2009:

Music

Bruce Hornby, Levitate. This is a confusing album. At first, it appears to be a convoluted mess, with no underlying theme. But as you listen more, you realize that's part of its genius. It never gets boring. Bruce's lyrics may be maddening, overly complex and assuring him that he's not going to have any hit singles off yet another album. But it's a good time, pokes fun at the right targets, and is all Bruce - and many different versions of Bruce.

Patty Griffin, Children Running Through. OK, so this record is from 2007, but it was new to me in 2009. It's smart, socially conscious and, for a record labeled "Country," it can sure rock at times.

Willy Nelson, Willy and the Wheel. I called it Dixieland, but apparently it's really called "Western Swing." Whatever it's really named, it's great music and a laugh.

Film

Star Trek. No comment necessary. Read the rest of the blog.

Books

The Big Burn: Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire that Saved America, by Timothy Egan. I enjoyed this, although I think the name is not quite fair - it's really about Gifford Pinchot, not TR. And while it tells a good story, it really fails to connect the dots. But since 2009 seems to be the year to lionize TR, between Ken Burns' PBS series on the National Parks and Douglas Brinkley's new biography of TR, I'm sure the editors knew what they needed to do to sell the book. A good read, but not the best non-fiction I read this year.

Columbine, by Dave Cullen. Fascinating and disturbing.

Going Rogue, by Sarah Palin. Not really, just seeing if you're paying attention. I wouldn't read this work of fantasy for money.

January means New Year's

Dick Clark's Primetime New Year's Rockin' Eve 2004, the last year before his stroke, because my girls asked.



Have a happy New Year.