lone_pedestrian

After watching a clip of the Rachel Maddow Show and witnessing Chris Matthews talk about how John McCain never made him feel bad about serving in the Peace Corps, and that basic level of politeness from a veteran soothed his doubtful mind just a little bit, I am convinced that what Chris needs is not a national political platform in which to vent his bizarre and defensive problems with his own masculinity, but some serious therapy.

Serious therapy with some beatnik feminist therapist who will explain to him that the patriarchy hurts men too, it pits one man against another, tapping into their competitiveness in a genuinely counterproductive if not out right destructive way. It dictates that only the killing of others is manly while service to others is a weak, simple "domestic" kind of virtue. (If you think I am exaggerating you have not read your Burke lately) After he has a couple of good cries, when he realizes that the war in Vietnam was not a test of national manhood but a major strategic blunder and that characterizing it as such a test got more people needlessly killed, that using his media platform in an attempt to exorcise his own personal demons, by mooning over an idiotic president as he strutted about playing at flyboy back in 2003, and helping give cover to war supporters over and over again actually made him complicit, in his nano-metrical way, in the deaths of thousands of people, he will be left curled up on the brightly colored pillows, shuddering, having run out of tears.

She will sit next to him and ask him very gently and respectfully if he needs a hug.

"HA Ha..." he will laugh and then wiping the wet from his face "That would be very nice"

Refreshed and renewed he will retire from television and return to the Peace Corps confident that it is the right thing to do.

Digby will be made the new host of Hardball and some small ripple of justice will work its way through the land.

"Well, do you think it's - is it just merely coincidence that in the seven years that Rage Against the Machine has been away that the country has slid into a fascist wormhole? I don't think so."

- Tom Morello

All you heard during the primaries was how white blue collar voters were a "problem" for Barack Obama and how Hillary Clinton did very well with them. How in the world does that mean they were devaluing and suppressing the votes of white blue collar workers?

All you heard is that the math was not on her side and that was why she should back off. Hillary Clinton would have had to win all of the other primaries by margins that, given Obama's popularity among his base and his funding, were nearly impossible. Of course many in the media laced these facts with an unhealthy dose of mocking and misogyny (MSNBC I'm looking at you) but that does not change the fact that her delegate counts were not going to add up the way she wished. If anything the media's absurdly sexist and dismissive treatment of her brought out her voters it did not deter them from voting. (That sure as hell was part of the dynamic in New Hampshire and I have no doubt that it was a factor in later primaries after "bitter" and "cling" and her adoption of the full fledged fightin' Tom Joad in classy business wear persona)

Blogs, where so-called progressives feel free to bandy about classism, sexism, homophobia and the occasional bit of white supremacy, are a whole other story but nobody in the mainstream media ever said her working class constituency does not matter in the broader societal or political sense. If anything the media is obsessed with the elusive Reagan Democrat and his imagined political and social preferences. According to the media it is so very, terribly, incredibly important that every Democratic candidate cater to them. I find it unfortunate that Bill Clinton played the aggrieved oppressed white man card and railed against the weak Democratic establishment and the manipulative influence of other groups, groups that should not matter as much as they do. Way to tap that Southern Strategy rhetoric, Bill.

Nobody made her campaign organize only through Super Tuesday, nobody made her hire useless consultants for too much money, nobody made her fail to grasp that maybe, just maybe in the existing system with caucuses that reward the activist base, that the anti-war activist base might actually make itself known this time around. There does not need to be a conspiracy to cover up how great she is doing because she is doing great in a system that does not exist. She is doing great in a system that awards the nomination to the winner of the popular vote not to the person who wins the most pledged delegates and bullshitdelegates superdelegates. In other words she is doing great in the alternate, more democratic, reality that nobody in the Democratic Party establishment, including the Clintons, has lobbied to create.

I watched speeches by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton last night. I only caught the end portion of Obama's speech but I watched all of Hillary's speech. It was a fascinating exhortation to the party to count all the votes and seat all of the delegates. She evoked Seneca Falls, the Civil Rights movement and the Great Florida Voting Debacle of 2000. She labeled the decisions of the DNC as "technicalities". She repeatedly insisted that the voters should not be punished for other people's decisions.

Any benefit derived by Hillary Clinton by this principled, and previously unmentioned stand with regard to the delegates of Michigan and Florida is of course purely coincidental. I do not recall nor can I find reference to the Clinton campaign strenuously objecting to these decisions when they were initially made. Arguably the Obama campaign's focus on smaller states, instead of two states that were assumed at the time and by all candidates to be excluded helped contribute to Hillary's wins in Michigan and Florida. Given Obama's ground game I do not think that Hillary's big wins are evident of much of anything besides name recognition. I found her speech very interesting and despite my distaste for her as a candidate and a politician I think it is an argument that should be taken seriously even if I doubt how seriously she took those states until her "Win Big on Super Tuesday" strategy failed and she needed their delegates.

Obama supporters have based all their arguments lately on the notion that the rules were made, the state parties and legislatures were warned about consequences and they broke the rules anyway. This is also a principled stand that should not be ignored just because it conflicts with another very powerful one. Rules are undeniably important but rules that are arbitrary and oppressive are precisely the kind that feminist and civil rights movements have argued against for decades. I do not think the DNC rules are arbitrary because all of the states were punished equally for violating them. If Montana or Colorado or California had also moved up its vote but was allowed to have delegates seated then the application of the rules would be unfair. Michigan and Florida have not been unfairly singled out from a group of other rulebreakers.(Some Obama supporters are making a variation of this argument that boils rather childishly down to "dems da breaks" mixed with some misogyny, name calling and some serious conspiracy theorizing. Honestly cut it out.)

It comes down to "nation of laws not men" vs "one person one vote". To ignore that both principles are profoundly important to our government and society is wrong headed and rhetorically ineffective. The decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee should be based on balancing those principles and not on some imaginary political benefit to ignoring one in favor of the other.

The decision must be based on principle because is no electoral benefit to be gained from this situation.

Hillary Clinton made the argument that come the general election the Republicans will exploit this to their advantage in Michigan and Florida. I would argue that Republicans will exploit this situation no matter what its outcome might be.

If Michigan and Florida are not counted and Barack Obama is the nominee then the argument will be that he only represents certain* people. He is an elitist handpicked by the party bosses who will not serve your interests. (*certain people being an ever shifting conglomeration of uppity women, religious and ethnic minorities, homosexuals and young college kids with their pants hanging down to their knees.)

Also he has a funny name and is totally secretly a Muslim.

If Michigan and Florida are counted and Hillary Clinton is the nominee then the argument will be that she strong armed the party bosses to change the rules at the last minute and deprive the previously sinister but now saintly Barack Obama of his nomination. She, and her husband, think the rules don't apply to them. All of the stupid fake scandals that got ginned up in the 1990s will be used as "evidence" that the Clintons are sinister and Machiavellian characters who are only concerned with accumulating more power. They will not serve your interests.

Also she killed her lawyer and is totally secretly a lesbian.

This is a rather long way of saying everybody should settle down: stop arguing from partisanship, stop assuming that others are arguing purely from partisanship and really think about these two principles and how to balance them. If this is not properly thought through and very well argued then it does not matter what the outcome is because we will get hammered in the general election and everyone will be utterly unprepared.

Quixote over at Shakesville on biofuels.
Busy at work or I would comment more...

This is the wrong way to go in my opinion.

Energy should be democratized: your house should have solar panels, the parking lot next to your office should get a canopy with solar panels, your office building should have solar panels and small scale wind generation should be permissible in suburban areas. We get 300 days of sunshine a year here in Colorado and all these empty roofs are a sorry sight.

Using up empty land for the generation of power when there is so much empty unused space above our heads is an utter waste. That land could be open space or agricultural land depending on its location. It has value beyond the 600 odd acres devoted to power. Some of that power is going to get lost during transmission anyway.

The large scale centralized thinking is wrong headed and downright anachronistic. If everyone is so worried about terrorist attacks in our new-fangled post Sept 11th world, why are we still assuming our power needs to come from one vulnerable location? If Americans are so wedded to the ideal of rugged individualism, the ideal that gets in the way of universal health care and broad-based funding for public education, why are we also enamored of unwieldy centralized projects in order to get our energy? If dependence on government is a personal failure what is dependence on a corporation exactly? One would almost think we preferred to talk about being independent individuals instead of trying to live like them.

Widespread alternative energy use is not just about independence from foreign countries, it could also be about personal independence as well. That is, of course, if someone would propose a better kind of project. On maybe a couple of million of them.

1. The word blog...followed quickly by all its variants including blogosphere. Worst. Words. Ever.

2. The inability/unwillingness to actually call George W. Bush by his name. Stop giving the man stupid nicknames it's childish and silly

3. The inability/unwillingness to get through any criticism of Ann Coulter/Michelle Malkin/Laura Ingraham etc without reverting to the most egregious sexist, racist and homophobic insults possible.

4. The inability/unwillingness to understand that claiming that you were making a joke does not actually help you when you are caught out being a jackass. It actually makes you look like more of a jackass.

5. The inability/unwillingness to understand that what we consider important and vital is not what everyone else considers important and vital. You actually have to convince them to care.

6. The inability/unwillingness to understand that at this point in history there is nothing radical about swearing. At least not when you do it as a matter of course. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin ya'll are not.

7. The self-congratulation. Oh the self-congratulation

I am not happy with the direction that Venezuela is going right now. Because I am suspicious of the concentration of Executive power in any government no matter what the stated goals of its leaders might be. Listen to a Chavez supporter make the dishonest argument that Hugo needs this kind of power just like American presidents needed that kind of power to get trade agreements passed. Seriously.

Most leftists would argue that the passage and implementation of such agreements in America has been undemocratic and exclusionary. Not the model of governance you would think others should be aiming for but apparently the socialist ends justify the means.

Newsweek has extensive coverage of the recent London terrorism conspiracy arrests under the banner "Five Years of Terror".

Did I miss some seriously crucial events during the last five years? The widespread bombing of New England? Uncontrollable and random sectarian and ethnic violence in Midwest? Kidnappings and assasinations throughout California's major cities? Suicide bombers in Washington DC? Rocket attacks on Disney World?

Americans have not been living with terror for the past five years, Americans have not lived with terror since the Civil War (or depending on your ethnic background since they stopped killing the natives for sport or since killing black people was actually frowned upon and punishable by law). Americans have been living with the manipulation of terrorism for political gain, the ginning up of idiotic fears by the government and the "if it bleeds, it leads" media that do nothing to actually stop terrorists from killing anybody.

9/11 was upsetting and in many aspects surprising but pressuring and manipulating Americans to cower like children in the face of a threat is infuriating and unproductive. Madrid and London were also shocking and upsetting but everybody, like New Yorkers after the WTC attack, went on with their lives without panicking like little chickens.

If Americans would just take a breath and really look at the problem without the hyperbole we might actually get something done.

Once again CSPAN Book TV makes me hit rock bottom with their 48 hours of non-fiction on the weekends. I watched an entire question and answer session with Ann Coulter. Why? Because apparently on lovely Sunday afternoons I want nothing more than to be irritated.

Some comments for Ann (which were mostly shouted at the TV already):

Fitness for the natural environment and your personal notions of efficiency are not equivalent.
Pure X-men style mutation is not as important to evolution as the level of genetic variation produced by sexual reproduction.
Biologists are scientists and they might actually know more about their chosen field of study than Ann Coulter does.(I know one, she kicks Ann's ass up and down the street)
Some things really just don't fossilize. (I know a geologist too, sucker)
In science you don't know the answer to every problem but you have a method for figuring it out eventually. Throwing up your hands and saying "God did it" will never answer any questions except possibly "How can we further guarantee the degradation of the American economy in the face of globalization?".
Just because the science says you are an animal, one that developed the use of tools and language, does not mean it dictates your behavior. So, Ann Coulter, you are free to stop acting like an ornery junkyard dog every time you are on MSNBC.
There is a response to your critique of science here so don't lie to your minions and say our positions are indefensible when there is a defense on a well known "leftwing nut" site.
"Darwiniacs" is really lame especially when Rush set the bar so high with "Feminazis"

This was not the worst CSPAN Book TV related moment in my life but it was certainly in the top five. The only thing more pathetic than watching CSPAN Book TV at 1am is recognizing the voice of one of your relatives calling into CSPAN Book TV.

Indentured servitude contract



Some things this text should prompt you to be grateful for:

Eight hour work day (with time and a half for overtime if you are lucky)
Minimum Wage requirements
Work safety rules
The right to privacy
Working in America where most of these standards are operational instead of working in any number of other countries where employment is closer to indentured servitude than you might think.

Give a hearty thank you for all of your free time and "sufficient meat" that comes without so many strings attached, buy union.

This is one of the more interesting things I have read in my bloggy travels. There is a debate going around about feminism, fashion, sexualized culture and nature of "true" female power. To my mind the best quote because it sums up my position on the issue and induces a slight chuckle at the end, is this from Echidne:

"On one level the questions look trivial from a feminist angle. Who cares if the suffragettes wore those long cumbersome dresses? They got us the votes. From that angle I don't care if a feminist decides to walk around on stilts while wearing multiple neckrings. But that we seldom see feminists so attired suggests that there is a deeper significance in many of our seemingly-trivial (and not-so trivial) choices, and it's the deeper significance that's interesting: The messages we send about ourselves by these choices and the messages others receive and interpret; two processes which don't necessarily match. For example, a woman gyrating around the pole might feel sexually powerful, but a man watching her might see a lobster with parsley behind its ear."

I think we are at an interesting moment where women are allowed to express themselves sexually but are still pressured to do so exclusively for men's amusement. Their own satisfaction, interests and self-respect should not be brought into the equation lest they get accused of spoiling the fun. The anti-sex label gets throw around willy-nilly when really the it is a position against women wasting money, time and effort trying to please others instead of pleasing themselves and accomplishing what they need in order to be independent. I personally spent money of things, shoes and hats being the most frivolous, that I did not need. I have also danced atop a bar to the strains of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" so I am hardly ideologically pure in any real sense.

If something does please you, I do not think it is bad to ask yourself why it does so. Why does it make you feel powerful? Is this actually helping me do what I truly want or need? It is not insulting to ask women (or men) to take a hard look at why it is they want something, why they behave or dress a particular way or why they treat other people the way they do. Other women do not have to look at it the way I do but I would like it if they looked at it a little harder.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

Please call Ken Salazar's office to remind him that all Democratic politicians should respect the wishes of primary voters by supporting the candidate chosen through that process. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut is threatening to run as a "petitioning Democrat" (a category that does not exist by the way)if he loses his primary against Ned Lamont on August 8th. Ken Salazar has stated he will support Lieberman, even if the primary voters choose Lamont instead.

Maybe remind Salazar that after he won the primary in 2004 he got loyal and decisive support from the very kinds of Democrats he is disrespecting now. The kinds of passionate people who believe in the democratic process and come out for caucauses and primaries every election cycle. The kinds of people who go door to door to make sure that everyone gets out and votes for him during the right even-numbered year.

The kinds of people who could cost him his Senate seat if they decide to stay home because he has shown himself to be more concerned with Joe Lieberman personal fortunes than with the principles of representative democracy and the party.

Lieberman cannot be allowed to claim to be a Democrat while ignoring the wishes of the Democrats in his home state and Salazar cannot support him in this endeavor without paying a political price.

I have some issues with this gentleman (www.kunstler.com), a little cranky and paranoid but frequently an interesting read. He makes the entire topic seem wacky instead of being as relevant as it should be. Frankly I disagree with his recent paean to New Urbanists. Their building codes are unnecessarily restrictive and frequently elitist as a result. People should be free to decorate their property however they wish, the only thing zoning codes should address is street layout, building footprints, uses and open public spaces. No historic neighborhood has houses that look exactly the same, there are variations due to personal taste and the passage of time. It is those things that give a neighborhood character otherwise you will be living in Main Street USA or worse.

My trip to San Francisco has inspired me to look at my carbon load, as it is called (no giggling in the back rows). All this plane travel supposedly puts me in the average or just below average category. If it were not for that I would be very far below average. It made me wonder about the environmental impact of train travel but I could not find any definitive information. It is so infrequent in the United States that they have not even bothered to account for it but if you are going to make the argument that alternative forms of transportation are better then you should have some numbers to back it up.