The Aristocrats

I read a great deal of fantastic stuff on the internet tubes I rarely get around to linking, apart from my Mike's Blog Roundup stints at Crooks and Liars. (Limited blogging time, alas.) Without slighting the many other excellent pieces I've read so far this year, this post by Jonathan Schwarz at A Tiny Revolution is absolute fucking perfection, and wins the internets for the day, the week, and possibly the year. It may sound grandiose, but the best comedy and most biting satire depend on truth, and really can be transcendent. This piece might not hit all readers as hard, but I know some people who will really appreciate it as the pure distillation of a certain something, especially if they get the references and know the story (and comedy tradition) behind ATR's name. (It's explained in a link on the sidebar, and also see this post. Wheels within wheels, man.) The Emperor's New Clothes isn't just a fairy tale; it remains the eternal ethos of the ruling class. For folks who sometimes feel like members of the endangered sane staring at naked emperors, it can often also feel like they're taking crazy pills. We might not be able to save the world, but there's a great deal to be said for a few well-placed, artful "fuck you"s to the appropriate people and sharing some warmth and laughter with our comrades along the way. Viva the blogosphere. Bravo.

Update: Driftglass, who not incidentally has been one of David Brooks' sharpest critics for years, wrote a similar post back in 2007. I believe that's called prescience or something.

Update 2: David Dayen (D-Day), who's done some standup comedy, also referenced "The Aristocrats" in a post, although in 2009 and with a different approach.

The Onion Takes on Time Magazine

TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

Ouch.

Time and Newsweek occasionally have decent articles, but it can be painful to find them. (A 2007 post I wrote looked at a sloppy Time cover story on teaching the Bible.)

McArdle as One of Austen's Twits

Growing out of this thread, Susan of Texas has penned "The Role Of Women In Society by Mrs. Suderman, A Lady." It borrows from Jane Austen to satirize one of the biggest class-obsessed twits of our own era, one Megan McArdle (she's shortly to marry one Peter Suderman, hence the title). Check it out. The arts are probably the best way to capture the venal, shallow nature of our ruling class.

Glenn Beck, Stewart Style

This has been all over the blogosphere, but I'm still not tired of it, and it's an instant classic. Stewart plunges into the demagogic truthiness of Glenn Beck:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

If you're not familiar with Glenn Beck's shtick, Crooks and Liars has a good collection. The Daily Show has mocked him many times before, as has Colbert. I haven't written much on the guy, but this October post on Beck's McCarthyist style links several good pieces on him.

A few observations. Many Americans are feeling uneasy, with good reason. There are individual exceptions within them, but overall neither major political party is taking on the power players on Wall Street who nearly destroyed the world economy and are reckless about doing it again. Beck plays off of that real unease, although his main target is the teabagger crowd watching his show on Fox News, and their discomforts are more numerous, reactionary and alarming. Beck's a bit crazy, and he says grossly false, idiotic and illogical things all the time. But he's proven to be pretty successful as a demagogue because he knows his audience. Beck fans hear him speaking an emotional truth to them. He expresses their anxieties and he gives them scapegoats. I tried to cover some of the dangerous demagoguery on death panels and Nazis in an August post (" Obama can't be trusted because he doesn't hate the right people. And surely Obama must hate us as much as we hate him."). But as several others including Digby have noted, for Beck's audience, what he says doesn't need to make sense.

I've said it before, but The Daily Show and The Colber Report are truly brilliant with ridiculous frequency. That's very, very hard, and it's easy to take for granted because they make it look so effortless. This particular bit is also one of Stewart's best individual performances. Mocking the scoundrels and fools in power is extremely important, and sometimes all we have, so thank goodness for artists and comedians.

Save the Needy Insurance Companies

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

On that misspelling thing? The teabaggers are in real trouble. (You probably will want to zoom in on the collage.)

(Hat tip to DDay and Chicher.)

Objectively Anti-Minotaur

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

Via John Cole, who correctly notes, "This is depressing because it is such a realistic portrayal of our discourse."

(The right side of the video is clipped slightly here, but you can see the full frame in full screen mode.)

A Field Guide to Political Creatures

American politics can be better understood by looking at three important political creatures – the wonk, the hack and the zealot. Here's a brief introduction.

Wonks

Occasionally shy, the wonk may be tracked by following its trail of citations. Quotation droppings can also serve as useful clues. Wonks are especially fond of chewing on obscure policy papers and classic works such as this one (that coincidentally captures the wonk mindset):

Meno: Somehow, Socrates, I think what you say is right.

Socrates: I think so too, Meno. I do not insist that my argument is right in all other respects, but I would contend at all costs both in word and deed as far as I could that we will be better men, braver and less idle, if we believe that one must search for the things one does not know, rather than if we believe that it is not possible to find out what we do not know and that we must not look for it.

Highly inquisitive and giddy over problem-solving, wonks typically possess enormous stamina that aids them in poring over legislative bills, detailed memos and original documents. Many prefer a dry climate. It's not uncommon for male wonks to sport beards, but beware the moustache of understanding. The wonk is most easily found in one of its natural habitats – academic departments, activist meetings, certain blogs, Scandinavian award ceremonies and PBS shows. The wonk responds well to empirical data, geeky humor and sometimes wit, but certain breeds can become confused and flustered by prolonged exposure to bullshit. When provoked, some wonks utter a piercing, shrill cry that petrifies their enemies.

Hacks

Over the years, once mighty herds of news wonks were hunted mercilessly in the name of profit, contributing to the ascendancy of the hack. Steven Pearlstein describes the devastation after a typical swarm of hacks:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation…

The hack thrives in moist, damp environments, such as loss-leader magazines, conservative think tanks, political television shows and talk radio cess pools. Hacks display a variety of plumage, often preen and strut, and sometimes can be identified by a sneer or other look of disdain. They play better with their own kind (assuming similar markings), but frequently grow territorial, aggressive and predatory around any other creatures. Some try to disguise themselves as wonks as a hunting technique, with varying degrees of success. They require constant scrutiny, since they tend to steal or destroy anything not firmly secured. Some are quite belligerent, yet prove cowardly when confronted. When pinned down, a hack often flails about wildly, and may bite off its own leg to escape (some instead go very, very still).

Zealots

Let's move on to our third type of political creature. Noted Zealotologist John Cole writes:

Now- nobody SANE is arguing that the health care reform proposals will include death panels, which is probably why James [Joyner] thinks it is so preposterous. He is sane.

On the other hand, the same crazy people who the right wing has whipped into a froth the past couple of decades sure as hell do believe there are going to be death panels. But then again, they also think a small increase in the top marginal rate is socialism, that Sarah Palin would make a great president, that you can make people ungay with therapy, that the earth is ten thousand years old, that Obama was born in Kenya and doesn’t say the pledge of allegiance and was sworn in on a Quran, that the Clinton death list is real and that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, and on and on and on. And operatives in the Republican party, to include elected officials, have spent decades making people believe this stuff. We didn’t imagine Dan Burton shooting pumpkins in his backyard and we aren’t imagining Richard Shelby and others pushing birther nonsense. There is an entire industry pushing this crap.

While the zealot desires that its perceived enemies huddle in the cold (and die), the zealot itself prefers a hot climate, to match its burning rage. Zealots are fond of rituals of shared grievance and fictional courage. The zealot can found wielding teabags, threatening to "go Galt," bullying politicians and citizens at town hall meetings, agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, and crouching in caves covered in batshit. Zealots are best handled with caution or avoided altogether if possible. Their inscrutable, sphinx-like logic can prove hypnotizing, and even the brave of heart and nimble of mind may find him or herself captivated. Disruptive but normally a limited threat in isolation, zealots in numbers can grow dangerous. When challenged or agitated, the zealot can puff up in size and employ a relentless sonic attack.

It can be difficult at times to distinguish hacks from zealots, and the two often intermingle. In fact, they often can't tell each other apart. Traits of hackery and zealotry may ebb and flow back and forth - or coexist - in the same entity. Field studies have discovered hacks and zealots cavorting together, rolling in tall piles of false talking point papers mixed with fresh batshit. Regardless, for dealing with either type, protective fact-checking and latex gloves are highly recommended. Prolonged exposure is best countered with equal or greater time with basically sane, decent people, wandering in nature, or doing something generally positive. If, after exposure to either type, your annoyance lasts more than four hours, turn off the TV.

There's at least one more important political creature that bears mentioning – the Jester. The most insightful of these can be found on basic cable. Impervious to bullshit, and eager to call it out, they are the only creature hacks fear more than wonks. (They're also an exception to the "turn off the TV" rule.)

In any case, that's a partial field manual to political creatures. Join us next time, when we'll diagram a Glenn Beck monologue with crazy string.

(I've linked it before, but Steve Benen has a better –and more realistic - breakdown on the different types of opponents to health care reform. See also "Bush's War Against Wonks" by Bruce Reed and A Political Bestiary. This post is basically a tongue-in-cheek riff on part of an older, serious and very long post on American politics. And of course Stewart, Colbert and a number of other bloggers do better satire.)

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo.)

Anti-Terrorist Fantasy Dream Team on the Case

Together Again for the First Time!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC – Seeking to quell fears of terrorists somehow breaking out of America's top-security prisons and wreaking havoc on the defenseless heartland, President Barack Obama moved quickly to announce an Anti-Terrorist Strike Force headed by veteran counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer and mutant superhero Wolverine. Already dubbed a "dream team," their appointment is seen by experts as a crucial step in reducing the mounting incidents of national conservatives and congressional Democrats crapping their pants.

"I believe a fictional threat is best met with decisive fictional force," explained President Obama. "Jack Bauer and Wolverine are among the very best we have when in comes to combating fantasy foes." Mr. Bauer said, "We're quite certain that our prisons are secure. Osama bin Laden and his agents wouldn't dare attempt a break-out, and would fail miserably if they tried. But I love this country. And should Lex Luthor, Magneto or the Loch Ness Monster attack, we'll be there to stop them."

The move has already earned widespread praise, and veteran columnist David Broder hailed the bipartisan nature of the team. But not all were convinced. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) scoffed, "I thought the president was a Spiderman guy. And what a surprise that a Canadian would use knives on his hands versus a good ol' fashioned American Uzi."

Mr. Wolverine, who also goes by Logan, responded, "What's wrong with Canada? I fought alongside Captain America in World War II, bub. I'm happy to help out."

Some critics have expressed concerns as to whether Mr. Bauer is the best choice to counter the potential threat of a super-villain such as Magneto, a dinosaur stampede or an alien invasion. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded that while Bauer lacks conventional super-powers, he can withstand extreme amounts of pain, has near infallible judgment, can teleport across Los Angeles and Washington D.C. at will, and can go 24 hours without sleep or relieving his bladder.

Should the task of protecting the country prove too difficult for the super-agent and super-hero on their own, Crime-Fightin' Jesus has offered to lend a hand "in a pinch," although he says he would rather spend his time helping the poor "if at all possible." Republicans insist that a law-enforcement approach to terrorism is ineffective.

The Kimberly-Clark Corporation, manufacturers of Depends adult diapers, has already come out strongly against the announcement of the Bauer-Wolverine dream team, claiming that their increased sales are helping spur the nation's economic recovery. Republican Newt Gingrich also condemned the president's actions. "President Obama seems to think that crapping one's pants is a bad thing somehow," said the former Speaker of the House, "but crapping one's pants is what this country was founded on. The Reagan Revolution wouldn't have happened without fear of evil Soviets and welfare queens. And say what you will about President Bush, he kept this country crapping its pants for seven long years after 9/11."

The White House declined to comment.

(See also Hilzoy's video, and The Daily Show on brain eaters, muppets and (most recently) Gunatanamo Baywatch: The Final Season. Plus, there's Dan Froomkin, Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum and I'm sure many more.)

Update 5/21/09: Check out Adam Serwer's great piece, "If Magneto Can Escape, Can KSM?" (via Steve Benen) and this cartoon by Mike Luckovich. Clearly, that we're all thinking about (mutant) super-villains is good news for the GOP.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Hall of Fame Material

George Bush, an avid sports fan, clearly possesses unyielding faith in Hail Mary plays. At his last press conference as president, he once again struggled to take responsibility for any mistakes, and sounded his familiar defense, that only historians could fairly judge him:

Anyway, I think historians will look back and they'll be able to have a better look at mistakes after some time has passed. Along Jake's question, there is no such thing as short-term history. I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed: Where does a President's -- did a President's decisions have the impact that he thought they would, or he thought they would, over time? Or how did this President compare to future Presidents, given a set of circumstances that may be similar or not similar? I mean, there's -- it's just impossible to do. And I'm comfortable with that.

The Bush administrative team really is rather remarkable; on the one hand, it consistently held that no one could have possibly predicted 9/11, levees breaking, rioting and sectarian violence in Iraq, the economic crisis, and a number of other events, yet Bush officials have also argued that only history can judge them. Apparently, it's simply impossible for any human being to imagine future possibilities, or to judge anything accurately in the present, either. This leaves us only with hindsight – perhaps the only appropriate way to judge those whose approach is backwards.

Fortunately, the administration faced these twin impossibilities of prediction and judgment armed with the preternaturally accurate "gut" and deep faith in truthiness of George W. Bush, and the infallible vision of Dick Cheney, sager than everyone else in the administration, but also wiser than the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, the Federalist papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Constitution, and the Boy Scout Oath. Perhaps that's why, even though Bush told reporters yet again that only history can judge him, as Dan Froomkin notes, "Bush has been plenty willing to assert his view of history's verdict on his presidency, even while saying it's too early for others to do so." Yes, in 2004, 81% of 415 polled historians judged the Bush administration a "failure." But if things somehow get better, well then, reckless behavior that accidentally produces good results clearly isn't irresponsible. A few conservative historians have argued that time is on Bush's side, and Bush, his family and friends firmly believe that history will vindicate him. And after all, how could all those historians fairly judge Bush all the way back in 2004? Hurricane Katrina and the economic crisis hadn't even happened yet.

Some historians and journalists talk of objective standards, but no one can fairly say that George Bush, captain of a brave team, is the worst president ever.

Similarly, to use a sports analogy Bush could understand, no one can fairly say that after going a winless, unprecedented 0-16 in the regular season, the 2008 Detroit Lions are the NFL's worst team ever.

Oh sure, some wags might even try to make the case that Bush and the Lions are pretty much the same, but that's a hard sell:

Over seven seasons under [Matt] Millen's leadership as team CEO, the Detroit Lions owned the NFL's worst winning percentage (31–81, .277), have never had a winning season, have never finished higher than third place in the NFC North, and have not played in any post-season games. Despite this record of total and complete failure, Millen received a five-year contract extension at the start of the 2005 season.

One has a duty to quibble with overwhelming public opinion, common sense assessments, and the very act of critical judgment. Strong alternative cases can often be made. For instance, historians of football might argue that the Cincinnati Bengals, with one winning season in the past 18, are a greater failure, and "an embarrassment to sport," that is, a black mark on the entire endeavor of sports altogether. The same cannot be fairly said of Bush in relation to government and leadership, for while some critics churlishly insist he is the worst president ever, others more charitably place him merely among the four or even five worst presidents of all time. Calling him the absolute "worst" is therefore terribly premature.

Plus, who's to say someone worse won't come along? After all, continuing with our sports analogy, the Detroit Lions are actually 0-17 going back to the 2007 season, and theoretically, they could lose all their games in 2009, too. Some of the games in 2008 were close. They could go 0-16 again in 2009, but lose by an even wider margin. (It would take some effort, but they could break their record of failing to "win a road game for three years (0-24)," too.)

Or – what if the Detroit Lions resigned en masse, ran for office and took over our government? Imagine their record in history then (although predicting the future is impossible). Could they compete with the Bush legacy described by Dan Froomkin?

He took the nation to a war of choice under false pretenses -- and left troops in harm's way on two fields of battle. He embraced torture as an interrogation tactic and turned the world's champion of human dignity into an outlaw nation and international pariah. He watched with detachment as a major American city went under water. He was ostensibly at the helm as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression took hold. He went from being the most popular to the most disappointing president, having squandered a unique opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after Sept. 11. He set a new precedent for avoiding the general public in favor of screened audiences and seemed to occupy an alternate reality. He took his own political party from seeming permanent majority status to where it is today. And he deliberately politicized the federal government, circumvented the traditional policymaking process, ignored expert advice and suppressed dissent, leaving behind a broken government.

Critics of Bush claim he's been worse than Nixon in harming America, the world, and most importantly of all, the Republican franchise. But never fear for the brand, because Sarah Palin and her backers are determined that they can outperform Bush, you betcha.

Anyway, sports analogies can be taken way too far, even with a sports lover like Bush. Comparing Bush to the woeful Detroit Lions reveals numerous differences, as we'll quickly see.


Accepting Responsibility

Here's (since fired) Detroit Lions coach Rod Marinelli explaining their disastrous season:

Detroit went 10-38 under Marinelli, who took the job in 2006. In September, the Lions fired President Matt Millen after the franchise posted the worst record (31-84) in the NFL during his seven-year tenure.

“We have nobody to point a finger at other than ourselves, we just didn’t do our job correctly,” Marinelli said yesterday. “There’s a lot to learn from that. You accept the adversity, try to fight through it and try to get better.”

Former Lions president Matt Millen made a similar claim:

"Completely responsible," he said. "I mean, you were head of football operations, you throw it back on me. You can say something about the coaching, you can say something about the players. But inevitably, I'm responsible for them. And so I'm completely responsible for it in my mind."

Millen added that even he would have fired himself.

Meanwhile, here's George Bush in his last press conference as president, boldly acknowledging that mistakes were made:

There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way.

Investigations

Some people are just never satisfied. Even after Millen admitted error, over at the Detroit Free Press, Drew Sharp wrote:

Millen blew it again. Detroit deserves a detailed explanation for what went so horribly wrong from those who perpetrated the deed. Simply saying that you’re responsible for the disaster doesn’t make you accountable. That requires serving a penance. If Millen truly seeks atonement, he must delve deeper into those additional “reasons” of which he spoke.

Meanwhile, here's the "Uber villager Stuart Taylor" on alleged wrongdoings by the Bush administration:

...It would be a terrible mistake, in my view, to launch anything like the big, public criminal investigation that almost 60 House liberals, human rights groups, and others are seeking into allegations that John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, President Bush, and other top officials reportedly approved harsh interrogation methods including water-boarding (subject to limitations that have not yet been publicly identified).

Public Support


This is the most contentious area, because management, punditry and the public often have not agreed. In the case of the Detroit Lions, fans and sports pundits overwhelmingly wanted president Matt Millen sacked, but owner William Clay Ford, Sr. resisted for a long time (eventually, even his own son, Bill Ford, vice chairman of the Lions, publicly said he'd fire Millen if it were up to him). The number and scope of protests pushing for Millen to be fired proved quite extraordinary. In September 2008, Brian VanOchten of the Grand Rapids Press expressed the popular sentiment and urged for more public demonstrations:

It is time for Millen Man March II.

In the aftermath of the Detroit Lions' third consecutive defeat, the infuriated fans of this once-proud NFL franchise must stand united and demand that team president Matt Millen relinquish his throne.

Enough is enough.

The Lions are off to an 0-3 start for the fourth time in Millen's eight seasons of misguided leadership after a humiliating 31-13 loss to the San Francisco 49ers on Sunday afternoon at Candlestick Park.

Meanwhile, with Bush, there was significant public interest in impeaching him, but most political journalists and pundits did not show much interest in this; they lacked their sports brethren's eagerness to criticize management. Mort Kondracke (or his copy editor) expressed a common conservative view by claiming that charges that Bush lied were false. And Gary Kamiya offered, "Why Bush Hasn't Been Impeached: Congress, The Media and Most of The American People Have Yet To Turn Decisively Against Bush because To Do So Would Be To Turn Against Some Part of Themselves."

Brian VanOchten wanted further demonstrations against Matt Millen in September 2008, while in November 2008 at the Wall Street Journal, former John Kerry legal team intern Jeffrey Scott Shapiro inveighed:

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Clearly, there are different standards of fandom, patriotism and coverage. Some have claimed that among Bush cheerleaders, "If Bush were the CEO of a company they invested in, or the coach of their favorite football team, and delivered the same quality of performance he has as president, they would have been screaming for his head on a pike long ago." This view misses an important point of diehard fandom. Diehard fans want their team to succeed, but more important than a winning season is defeating hated division foes – for instance, the joy of the Lions making the playoffs does not possess the emotional heft of the schadenfreude felt when defeating the Green Bay Packers in a nationally-televised Thanksgiving game. Similarly, if Bush fails, if America falters, for diehard Bushies this is paltry compared to the satisfaction of defeating, infuriating and taunting political foes.

The Mood on the Team

After their final loss of the season, sentiment on the Detroit Lions was strong:

“This is the conclusion of all that we’ve done wrong,” Lions kicker Jason Hanson told reporters yesterday. “It’s so mind-numbingly awful. It’s a feeling of complete embarrassment and sadness.”

Meanwhile, in his last press conference, Bush reflected:

We had a -- people -- we -- I had a fabulous team around me of highly dedicated, smart, capable people, and we had fun. I tell people that, you know, some days happy, some days not so happy, every day has been joyous. And people, they say, I just don't believe it to be the case. Well, it is the case. Even in the darkest moments of Iraq, you know, there was -- and every day when I was reading the reports about soldiers losing their lives, no question there was a lot of emotion, but also there was times where we could be light-hearted and support each other.

Habits of Mind

In the final game of the 2008 season, the Detroit Lions had a chance to defeat their division rivals the Green Bay Packers to escape a winless season:

Orlovsky led the Lions back into Packers territory, but a taunting penalty on Smith moved the Lions back near midfield and Orlovsky threw an interception to Nick Collins.

"It was a very bad, selfish decision," Smith said. "I let my emotions get the best of me. It was tough, but it is no excuse."

Perhaps more than anything, the penalties got Raiola riled up.

"Stupid," Raiola said. "You know, just uncalled for. You're in a game like that, you can't do that. Just dumb."

And very much like the Lions.

Bush's "top ten moments":



(However, there are plenty of other contenders.)

Mistakes

Americans may hold their presidents and sports teams to different standards when it comes to success and accountability. But for both, the expectations from the public and punditry can be terribly, horribly unfair. During his last press conference, Bush took umbrage with criticism of his response to Hurricane Katrina:

People said, well, the federal response was slow. Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. I remember going to see those helicopter drivers, Coast Guard drivers, to thank them for their courageous efforts to rescue people off roofs. Thirty thousand people were pulled off roofs right after the storm moved through. It's a pretty quick response.

Could things have been done better? Absolutely. Absolutely. But when I hear people say, the federal response was slow, then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers, or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs?

Meanwhile, here's Lions coach Rod Marinelli looking back:

"The biggest thing in this is how you conduct yourself afterwards," Marinelli said. "We accept responsibility for everything that went down."

Clearly, Marinelli should stick to sports, because with an attitude like that, he'd never make in Washington.


(Previous strained political sports analogies can be found in "Political Football Theater" and "The Sporting Life," while the Commission previously explored the Millen-Bush connection (as have several late-night comedians). For better satire on the Bush legacy, check out Jon Swift. Thanks to Buck for video coding assistance. Finally, apologies to all Lions and Bengals fans – as a Cubs fan, I feel your pain.)

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

True Dat

Unlike Fran, I sorta liked the cheerful stupidity of the original ads (one of my brothers friggin' loved them), but like Fran, I like Wassup 2008:



Fran's also got some bayou music for Barack and a peace sign project for all you damn hippies.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Two Mysteries Solved!

Recently, I discovered that the solution to two big news stories lay in two other news stories. At least, that's the Principle of Economy in Truthiness at work.

Let's turn to our first story, from The Washington Post:

Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match
Strands From Mailbox in Princeton Are Not From Ivins, Investigators Say

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008; Page A02

Federal investigators probing the deadly 2001 anthrax attacks recovered samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J., but the strands did not match the lead suspect in the case, according to sources briefed on the probe.

Hmm, the DNA doesn't match. A tale of paranoid fantasies, claims that don't bear out and a mysterious figure.

Who is the object of that search? Who is the true mysterious figure behind all this? Deep down, you've always known. There can be only one answer.


Moving on to our second story, Obama's VP choice should be apparent tomorrow, which has only increased speculation. As the AP reports:

Obama prepares to name veep, no hints yet

By LIZ SIDOTI and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers
8/22/08

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's potential running mates ducked, dodged and semi-denied their way through a day of political intrigue Friday as the Democratic presidential contender readied a high-tech announcement of his pick for vice president.

"No, no, no, no, no, no, no, nooooo," Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius told reporters who asked for her latest thoughts on the months-long search.

Oh, but yes, yes, yeeeeeeeeeeessssss! We know the answer. Think about it. Obama needs a proven hand, someone knowledgeable about defeating a myriad of enemies, someone well-traveled and experienced.

He's picked someone who, it must be admitted, became a more divisive figure earlier this year, but still has a great groundswell of support, appeal across multiple demographics, and who will help Obama be competitive even in red states.

Really, Obama's VP choice couldn't be more obvious.

Try to top that, McCain!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

A Little Dap'll Do Ya

("Hmm. What is the significance of what those inscrutable black people are doing?")

Yahoo was touting this story on their front page, linking to this story, which in turn linked The Washington Post's gossip column.

John Cole had a funny post on this, and Ta-Nehisi Coates weighs in here here and here. I know the gesture, although honestly, I'm not sure I've heard it called "dap." The New York Times describing it as a "closed-fisted high-five" made me laugh. Still, the craziest description has to be this one, that Cole says has since been scrubbed from the Human Events site:

Michelle is not as “refined” as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her “Hezbollah” style fist-jabbing—mouth-twisted anti-American speeches is STRAIGHT from ISLAM!

The thing that cracks me up about all this is the slight anthropological sheen to some of the accounts, investigating the customs of those mysterious black folk. It reminded me of when Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked whether white people could attend Barack Obama's church. But hey, I suppose it's all educational and in good fun, right?

I was given slight pause by the WaPo piece featuring to a 'body language expert.' For a gossip piece, for fun, that's cool, but I don't want to see that kind of stuff in lieu of serious political coverage, and we have some awfully shallow pundits. (Bob Somerby's written that Chris Matthews loves body language discussions.)

On that note, Gawker had a great piece on all this as well:

The standard cultural arbiter of what Real Americans do and what they are like is someone like Chris Matthews. He's a loud, brash Irish Catholic guy, getting up there in age, with an admittedly solid blue-collar history (former DC cop!) who's been in a bubble of wealth and privilege just long enough to make him utterly deluded about the people in this country who live outside the wealthiest enclaves of the Eastern Seaboard. Over the last decade or so, he's come to decide that Real Americans are, basically, Nixon's "silent majority"—aging white men of modest means. Sadly he barely even understands what these modern-day Angry White Men are like, so he's extrapolating from his own time in their circle, decades ago. This is why he is pretty sure he knows that Real Americans drink like this, and hey, no one plays pool anymore!

Yup, that's the same Matthews who apparently thinks African-Americans and college grads aren't regular people.

Still, I must take issue with Monsieur Coates claiming the fist bump, fist tap, respect knuckles, dap, started as a 'black thing,' whatever that means. As if whites would ever appropriate anything from black culture! Obama clearly stole this gesture from another presidential candidate, and I have the video to prove it:



I still don't know why that didn't make the final cut.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Web Ad: Are You Fat?

Are you fat? Who cares? As long as you've got an unrealistic, negative body image, we're happy to take your money! And if you're as massively, repulsively overweight as our model, better hurry! (Don't be scared off by that 'serious inquiry' thing. You're seriously fat. Yikes.)

Better click the ad, and...


Oho! Why do Chinese women stay slim? Hundreds of millions of them, yet they are all slim. I'm guessing the reasons vary quite a bit, but maybe it's any of a number of factors, such as:

a) Genetics
b) Diet
c) Exercise
d) Iron willpower decadent western women don't possess
e) Lack of food due to abject poverty
f) Photoshop

Remember, ladies, given the population of China, one in ten people on the planet is a Chinese woman skinnier than you. Buy our product today!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Doonesbury, 5-29-08

(Click for a larger view.)

Taking one of the most despicable of many despicable moves by the Bushies, making ya laugh, but in a way that highlights the dark absurdity of it all and doesn't making light of human cruelty... Damn. Look at what Garry Trudeau does in just four panels. Brilliant.

The official site is here.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Cry, the Beleaguered Klansman

Since we were just discussing Holocaust denial, and I (predictably) mentioned Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous poem "First they came…" in the comments thread, this post by Bernard Chazelle at A Tiny Revolution is perfectly timed:

No Heckling Please, We're White Supremacists

In the news:

A white separatist group planning a Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Jena is suing the town, claiming officials are violating the Constitution by asking participants not to bring firearms...

It's hard out here for white racists these days. First they took away their slaves, and we didn't speak up; then they confiscated their lynch ropes, and we didn't utter a word; then they came for their water fountains, and we kept silent.

What's next?

In an Oct. 15 letter to McMillin, Richard Barrett, an attorney for the Nationalists, asks the town for ... "adequate security," restroom facilities, access to drinking water, "adequate and secure parking" and no noise from hecklers.

I know the line in the Declaration of Independence about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of adequate, secure parking" but I looked in vain for a statement about heckling. All I know is, when you're trying to rule the world with an iron fist and enslave half of its population, heckling can be really annoying.

Oh, this also gives me the opportunity to link one of my favorite stories of the year (via Digby, via Perlstein).

The struggle continues, my brothers and sisters. (Thankfully, the right people are laughing.)


(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Your Political Comedy Recap for the Week

Fox News' Half-Hour Comedy Hour proved once again that comedy and conservatism aren't the most natural fit. Nonetheless, Republican politicians unwisely chose to challenge Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert this past week.

But I've Played the Game Risk a Buncha Times

On Wednesday, Mitt Romney challenged the foreign policy experience of his Democratic opponents.

Yes, you heard that right. Romney is asserting that being the governor of Massachusetts for one term — and a world-class panderer — makes him more qualified than them. The man who one week said catching bin Laden wasn't worth the time and money, and the next week told a conservative audience he'd catch and kill him, will lead us to glory.

Romney is probably the biggest snake oil salesman of all the candidates (since Newt Gingrich hasn't declared, but Romney would still probably have the edge). Perhaps he can argue that his constant flip-flopping has required him to become very knowledgeable about different foreign policy positions.

I Used to Be So Poor I Drank My Wine Out of a Box

Rick Perlstein notes that prominent conservative Grover Norquist has argued that the rich are discriminated against. Furthermore, Norquist argues that fighting for a flat tax to help out the poor beleaguered super-wealthy is the moral equivalent of the civil rights movement of 1960s.

That's rather unconscionable and fantastical, even from a man infamous for saying, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Norquist is, after all, a key player in a political party that fought, and still fights, against civil rights.

To be fair to Norquist, he isn't necessarily as reactionary on racial and gay issues as some of his fellows, nor necessarily as intent on voter suppression as his good buddy Karl Rove. But as I wrote over at Perlstein's blog, one of the defining characteristics of conservatism is that, despite its PR, it opposes meritocracy in favor of entrenched, unearned privilege. Many conservatives also believe (or pretend to believer) that the poor are poor from lack of character rather than an accident of birth. Norquist's laughable lament is just another example of class warfare waged by the rich and powerful on average citizens. It's shameless, tasteless, and he deserves to be mocked for it.

Our Monumental Failure Is a Sure Sign of Our Success

Still, Romney and Norquist just can't compete with the frat-boy comedic stylings of their leader, President George W. Bush, who delivered a primetime speech on Thursday. As Fred Kaplan wrote at Slate:

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

Silly Kaplan! A man of Bush's immense gifts can be both deceptive and delusional. After reading Kaplan, just check out Glenn Kessler fact-checking Bush. Or Dan Froomkin's splendid round-up of dissections. Or analysis from Hilzoy and Publius (and Hilzoy's examination of all those Anbar claims).

Really, Bush's speech was really just channeling Chris Crocker to Leave General Petraeus Alone!



A Symbolic Coalition of the Dozens

Perhaps Bush's most comical assertions in his speech were those about his imaginary friends. As Fred Kaplan noted:

Oddly, [Bush] thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." At the peak of the "coalition," back in the fall of 2004, only 31 countries besides the United States had any troops in Iraq. They amounted to 24,000—fewer than one-fifth of America's numbers—and one-third of those were contributed by Britain. Now, according to the most recent official report (dated Aug. 30, 2007), just 25 countries have troops there; they number fewer than 12,000 (an average of fewer than 500 per nation), and more and more, including Britain, are leaving every month.

Yes, even by Bush's own standards, his math doesn't hold up (but then, the Bush administration has never been good at math).

Oh, but it gets better. David Kurtz reports for Talking Points Memo:

It just about epitomizes the President's speech last night. One of the purported 36 coalition nations is Iceland, whose "contingent" to Iraq consists of a single soldier in Baghdad whose primary responsibility is as a media representative. To NATO's disappointment, Iceland is pulling that one soldier as of October 1. You can't make this stuff up.

We still haven't managed to figure out how the President's math gets him to 36 nations in the coalition. But whatever the number, it will be minus one when a single Icelander heads home in a couple of weeks.

Late Update: TPM Reader EF points out that Iceland doesn't even have a formally constituted military, which the CIA World Fact Book confirms. The lone Icelander is a member of the Icelandic Crisis Response Unit. Calling him a soldier may be overstating matters.

Ah, but that Icelandic non-warrior is a plucky fellow!


(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Humans Walk Upright to Conserve Energy

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
7/16/07

WASHINGTON - Why did humans evolve to walk upright? Perhaps because it's just plain easier. Make that "energetically less costly," in science-speak, and you have the conclusion of researchers who are proposing a likely reason for our modern gait.

Bipedalism — walking on two feet — is one of the defining characteristics of being human, and scientists have debated for years how it came about. In the latest attempt to find an explanation, researchers trained five chimpanzees to walk on a treadmill while wearing masks that allowed measurement of their oxygen consumption.

[…]

It turns out that humans walking on two legs use only one-quarter of the energy that chimpanzees use while knuckle-walking on four limbs. And the chimps, on average, use as much energy using two legs as they did when they used all four limbs.

(Read the rest of the article here.)

When asked for comment, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) scoffed, "I object to this study and its findings. One, it promotes the Theory of Evolution. Two, it promotes the conservation of energy. This is nothing more than the liberal media reporting liberal scientific research." The presidential hopeful continued, "If man weren't meant to drill for oil in coral reefs, the Bible wouldn't have said man was granted "dominion" over the earth. Think of all the classic, gas-guzzling cars that would be outlawed if liberals got their way. Unnecessary energy consumption is a fundamental American right, and the reason I want to be president."

Brownback has accordingly vowed to scuffle around on all fours for the remainder of his campaign.



(By the way, the Brownback stuff is all satire. Questionable satire, perhaps, but not to be taken seriously.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Our Nation's Wonderful Political Discourse in a Nutshell (Or, False Equivalency Theater)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Lights up on the studio of a typical political talk show.

Rightwinger: I think we should kill all the fags.

Polite Democrat: Um, I disagree.

Rightwinger: You're a fag, aren't you? Or a fag-lover?

Polite Democrat: No, I – I am not a homosexual, but everyone has a right to live their life in the manner they choose…

Rightwinger: And everyone has a right to believe what they want, right?

Polite Democrat: Yes…

Rightwinger: Well, I believe we should kill all the fags!

Polite Democrat: I really don't think…

Moderator: Surely there's some middle ground here.

Polite Democrat: I suppose.

Rightwinger: No.

Moderator: Why don't we agree to just kill half the fags?

Rightwinger: No, all of them.

Polite Democrat: Everyone has a right…

Moderator: (to Rightwinger) How about three quarters? (to Polite Democrat) Three quarters? Come on, whaddaya say?

Polite Democrat: The Constitution…

Rightwinger: No, every single one of those faggots has to die.

Moderator: Well, how about a different compromise? Instead of killing half, or all of them —

Rightwinger: All.

Moderator: Why don't you just beat them all half to death?


The Polite Democrat sits befuddled as the Righwinger ponders this, then starts chatting it over with the Moderator as the show goes to commercial.

(This tasteless, unsubtle satire was brought to you by the same folks who brought you Color Commentary. More on false equivalency to come!)

Help Fight Math Illiteracy!

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)


There are those who complain the Bush administration‘s federal budget proposal is wildly unrealistic, that they undercount war casualties, and that Bush's proposed escalation could actually run up to 48,000 troops, double his claims.

Those so quick to condemn Bush would do well to remember Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity (or ignorance).

Can anyone not blindly partisan doubt that George W. Bush wants to be the very best president he can be? Can anyone doubt his commitment to excellence, and his desire to command every relevant fact on every pressing situation?

The Bush detractors are wrong. George W. Bush and his top officials are not evil, or even misguided. Instead, like millions of Americans, they hide a shameful secret: They’re not good at math.

Critics like to mock Bush reading My Pet Goat and his affection for The Very Hungry Caterpillar. But while Bush does have a consistent tendency for malapropisms, this past summer he also “read three Shakespeares.” He is not illiterate in the conventional sense. But he very well may be math illiterate. And in his administration, he is far from alone.

Consider the case of chief Presidential Advisor Karl Rove, nicknamed “Bush’s Brain,” “The Architect,” and “Turd Blossom.” He’s widely considered, by Republicans and Mark Halperin, to be a “genius,” one of the smartest of the current movement conservatives. Yet who can forget this famous exchange between Rove and NPR’s Robert Siegel shortly before the 2006 midterm elections? (Full transcript here.)

MR. SIEGEL: We're in the home stretch, though. And many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism about --

MR. ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that. You're just making a comment.

MR. SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day.

MR. ROVE: No you're not. No you're not!

MR. SIEGEL: No, I'm not --

MR. ROVE: I'm looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome --

MR. SIEGEL: -- name races between -- certainly Senate race

MR. ROVE: Well, like the polls today showing that Corker's ahead in Tennessee; or the race -- polls showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race.

MR. SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia. Yes.

MR. ROVE: Yeah, exactly.

MR. SIEGEL: Have you seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race and -- I don't want to --

MR. ROVE: Yeah. Look, I'm looking at all these Robert and adding them up. And I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to "the" math.

MR. SIEGEL: I don't know if you're entitled to a different math, but you're certainly entitled to --

MR. ROVE: I said you were entitled to yours.

After the GOP lost both houses, vultures such as Dan Froomkin pounced:

How did Karl Rove get everything so wrong? And shouldn't we take anything he says from this point forward with a big grain of salt?

Rove's divide-and-conquer political strategy, his insistence that Republican candidates embrace the war in Iraq as a campaign issue, his supremely self-assured predictions of victory -- all were proven deeply, even delusionally wrong last week.

His prediction that Republicans would retain both houses of Congress, in particular, is hardly explicable by "bad math" and Mark Foley.

Either Rove lied or he's clueless. Or both.

Froomkin goes on to quote Mike Allen’s interview with Rove, where the "boy genius" explained his failed predictions:

"[H]e does not believe his data let him down. 'My job is not to be a prognosticator,' he said. 'My job is not to go out there and wring my hands and say, "We're going to lose." I'm looking at the data and seeing if I can figure out, Where can we be? I told the president, "I don't know where this is going to end up. But I see our way clear to Republican control."

And apparently, although Rove loves playing head games, he wasn't just projecting confidence. He really believed what he was saying. As Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe reports:

Rove's miscalculations began well before election night. The polls and pundits pointed to a Democratic sweep, but Rove dismissed them all. In public, he predicted outright victory, flashing the V sign to reporters flying on Air Force One. He wasn't just trying to psych out the media and the opposition. He believed his "metrics" were far superior to plain old polls. Two weeks before the elections, Rove showed NEWSWEEK his magic numbers: a series of graphs and bar charts that tallied early voting and voter outreach. Both were running far higher than in 2004. In fact, Rove thought the polls were obsolete because they relied on home telephones in an age of do-not-call lists and cell phones. Based on his models, he forecast a loss of 12 to 14 seats in the House—enough to hang on to the majority. Rove placed so much faith in his figures that, after the elections, he planned to convene a panel of Republican political scientists—to study just how wrong the polls were.

His confidence buoyed everyone inside the West Wing, especially the president. Ten days before the elections, House Majority Leader John Boehner visited Bush in the Oval Office with bad news. He told Bush that the party would lose Tom DeLay's old seat in Texas, where Bush was set to campaign. Bush brushed him off, Boehner recalls. "Get me Karl," the president told an aide. "Karl has the numbers."

If a certified super-genius like Rove can be so wrong, what sort of advice must Bush be getting? And given the number of mathematical errors by the Bush administration, it can’t be just Rove. Most importantly, given that Bush hasn’t caught these mistakes, he himself must surely share in this dread, shameful condition of math illiteracy.

Bush critics bash Bush for being in a “bubble.” but perhaps they’re being very unfair. Bush constantly claims he doesn’t read the polls. But given the evidence, it may not be that he doesn’t want to. It may be that — he can’t.

Bush and Rove are honourable men — so are they all, honourable men— so what else could explain these lapses? Consider the current war in Iraq. ABC conservatively puts its current cost at one trillion dollars (and the CBO estimates that a phased withdrawal would save a half-trillion). Yet Bush administration officials said the war would pay for itself, or that Iraq would generate 18 billion in oil revenues. Alternatively, they said it would cost 100-200 billion, under 50 billion, or as Andrew Natsios, chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development repeatedly insisted, 1.7 billion. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, and ABC’s current estimate is only 589 times larger than Natois’ figure, leaving him a mere 998.3 billion off the mark (and rising). However, a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money. It seems that many neocons and other Bush officials fit what Washington Post reporter Peter Baker said about Karl Rove: “mortal after all, and not always so good at math.”

This epidemic is not limited to math, however. Over at the Food and Drug Administration, Bush appointees struggled valiantly against with the science of Emergency Plan B. Likewise, the bold efforts of Bush appointees to rewrite NASA scientists were met with cruel derision in the reality-based community, never mind that the appointees were at least as qualified as most staffers in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Reasonable conservative Jon Swift agrees with Blogger-for-Bush Mark Noonan that 'science is dead' while far left radical Gary Trudeau argues for “situational science.” But however well-intentioned, these efforts will only embolden the enemy. If we do not fight for solid math and science education here in the United States, we’ll have to fight for it in the Middle East. There is no winning the “Long War” against terrorism without long division.


Some might argue, perhaps these Bush officials were taught, but they forgot. But surely not all of them can suffer from the poor memory of unfortunate public servant Scooter Libby. Surely it must be poor instruction. Most likely these poor men were assailed with liberal propaganda in their schools instead of being taught basic reading, math and science. They were being taught the words to “Free to Be You and Me” and forced to make macaroni pictures instead of learning basic, fundamental aspects of American law. How else can one explain the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, not understanding habeas corpus as outlined in the Constitution? How else can one explain Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA and current head of the CIA, not knowing what the 4th Amendment entails even though it's absolutely central to his job?

This is not even to bring up the horrible educational wrongs inflicted upon poor conservative pundits and rightwing bloggers. How can Frank Gaffney be expected to find out what Lincoln actually said, or to characterize him accurately? Research is a learned skill, not passed down instinctually from conservative parent to conservative child as is a trust fund. Intellectual rigour is not a birthright in the manner of a think tank position. Bush’s foes charged him with cronyism for his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and for his appointment of Michael Brown to head FEMA. However, this misses the point. Given the breadth and depth of this dire educational gap, it’s not Bush’s fault that he simply cannot nominate a single qualified candidate for anything.

Leadership in combating this problem must start at the top. That's why I propose that we immediately start a program of remedial education for our public officials that covers basic tenets of science, basic principles of American government, basic techniques of research and verification, and of course, basic math literacy. It will be similar to No Child Left Behind, except designed for politicians, their aides and allies.

Some may doubt the need for such a program. Let them consider that the Republican party represents nearly half the country, and that in 2000, the Republican party deemed that out of their entire party, George W. Bush was the individual most qualified to lead our country and the world, a colossus John Hinderaker anointed "A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius." Bush was exposed to some of the best education our nation has to offer, at Andover, Yale, and Harvard. If a man of his obvious gifts could receive such opportunities yet emerge unscathed, unchanged, uninformed and uneducated in such basic, essential knowledge — what chance do the rest of us have?

There can be no delay. Every errant keystroke on the calculator is a tiny victory for Al-Qaeda. Help Fight Math Illiteracy. Leave No Politician and Leave No Bush Official Behind!