Sarah Palin and her running mate

Sarah Palin with her 2008 and 2012 running mate, Trig Palin. Source: http://www.salon.com/news/environment/feature/2008/09/05/sarah_palin_down_syndrome/story.jpg

In "Sarah Palin Is a Genius at Taking Umbrage," Emily Bazelton writes that Palin, because she is the mother of a child with Down Syndrome, can get decent political mileage out of over-the-top umbrage in certain situations. Further, Palin (or her handlers) know this and take advantage of it. "It's another genius shot from her motherhood arsenal—an arsenal she's figured out how to deploy like no other woman in politics," writes Bazelton.

Which situations? Recently, Obama said that he bowls like he's in the Special Olympics. And Rahm Emanuel recently criticized some liberals as being "fucking retarded."

What's kind of funny about all of this is that I have often thought that Palin is fucking retarded. And I have thought that she campaigns for national office as if she were in the Special Olympics.

I still find it hard to believe that she wants to be President, now that she is producing so much video for Fox News that might be used against her down the road. But, as Bazelton points out, she appears to be positioning herself to do just that.

One of the many things that bothers me about Palin is her running mate, Trig Palin. The Palins must have thought that they had hit the jackpot when she found herself pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby. Trig is now a living, breathing, token special needs child that Palin can use to appeal to voters and disarm their rational faculties. The strategy is so transparent, I don't know why more people don't complain about it. To use some Kantian language, Trig is being used as a means to Palin's political ends. And since Trig cannot consent to Palin's scheme, he is being used as a mere means. This is morally wrong. Her base—or that part of it that realizes what she is doing—is giving her a pass because it is politically expedient to do so.

Or so they think.

Last weekend, as Palin was pandering to the Tea Party in Nashville, she asked everyone, "How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for you?"

"Not great," I thought, "since you and the Party of No have, with your extreme partisan maneuvering and propagandizing, made change so difficult, bitch."

Obama won the last election by fifty-two percent. How does Palin expect to win an election by mocking potentially all of the people who voted for him? I don't understand the strategy. In fact, one might even call the strategy "retarded."

A Few Climate Denial Crocks of the Week

Here are two videos from the series Climate Denial Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair.

You have probably heard someone justify skepticism about the reality of climate change by pointing at the snow outside their window—as if a colder-than-usual winter was proof that all of the scientists who are convinced that climate change is real somehow made a mistake. In this video, Sinclair explains what is wrong with this argument.



Some global climate change deniers justify their skepticism by claiming that large numbers of scientists actually deny the reality of global climate change. It is often said that 32,000 scientists have signed a petition denying its reality. But it's a crock. Sinclair explains why in this video.

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate v1.3

Source: http://www.queeried.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/same-sex-marriage-flow-chart.png

The Smug and the Dead

Two especially interesting blog entries concerning the Tebow Super Bowl ad produced by Focus on the Family have appeared on Slate recently. Those of you who haven't seen the ad may see it below.



In "The Invisible Dead: The grisly truth about the Super Bowl abortion ad," William Saletan discusses the facts about Pam Tebow's medical condition when she declined to abort the being who would become Tim Tebow. Saletan writes:

Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.

Read the entire entry here.

In "Tebow Ad All Smiles, Cruelty," Amanda Marcotte discusses the perhaps unintended suggestions of the ad. Marcotte writes:

When you argue that you survived a harrowing pregnancy because you're "tough," you imply that other women who die under similar circumstances were too weak to deserve to survive. It's already bad enough that the religious right shames women who choose abortion for choosing their education, careers, relationships, already existing children, or their own lives over the obligation to have another baby. But shaming women for being weak who die trying to fill the mandate (or who are deprived of the choice) to bear children at all costs? That's dark indeed, no matter how glowingly white the background of the ad is.

Read the entire entry here.

Marcotte's blog entry resonated with me. As I recall saying elsewhere in this blog, a loathing of human beings is an essential part of Christianity, no matter how vociferously any particular Christian might deny it. Some Christians, however, reserve a special loathing for those of us who dare not to conform to their Christian worldview. The Tebow ad is an insult to anyone who is not irrational enough to roll the dice with their own lives like Pam Tebow. The smiling faces delivering the underlying "misogynist ideology," as Marcotte puts it, aren't nearly as kind as they are smug. And if there's one thing I hate, it's smugness. How they hope this ad will appeal to the very people the ad insults is a mystery.

Paul Krugman: America Is Not Yet Lost

Published: February 7, 2010

A version of this article appeared in print on February 8, 2010, on page A21 of the New York edition of the New York Times

We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic.

What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.

A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.

Last week, after nine months, the Senate finally approved Martha Johnson to head the General Services Administration, which runs government buildings and purchases supplies. It’s an essentially nonpolitical position, and nobody questioned Ms. Johnson’s qualifications: she was approved by a vote of 94 to 2. But Senator Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, had put a “hold” on her appointment to pressure the government into approving a building project in Kansas City.

This dubious achievement may have inspired Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama. In any case, Mr. Shelby has now placed a hold on all outstanding Obama administration nominations — about 70 high-level government positions — until his state gets a tanker contract and a counterterrorism center.

What gives individual senators this kind of power? Much of the Senate’s business relies on unanimous consent: it’s difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And a tradition has grown up under which senators, in return for not gumming up everything, get the right to block nominees they don’t like.

In the past, holds were used sparingly. That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.

How bad is it? It’s so bad that I miss Newt Gingrich.

Readers may recall that in 1995 Mr. Gingrich, then speaker of the House, cut off the federal government’s funding and forced a temporary government shutdown. It was ugly and extreme, but at least Mr. Gingrich had specific demands: he wanted Bill Clinton to agree to sharp cuts in Medicare.

Today, by contrast, the Republican leaders refuse to offer any specific proposals. They inveigh against the deficit — and last month their senators voted in lockstep against any increase in the federal debt limit, a move that would have precipitated another government shutdown if Democrats hadn’t had 60 votes. But they also denounce anything that might actually reduce the deficit, including, ironically, any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely.

And with the national G.O.P. having abdicated any responsibility for making things work, it’s only natural that individual senators should feel free to take the nation hostage until they get their pet projects funded.

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness.” Yep, that will really resonate with voters.

After the dissolution of Poland, a Polish officer serving under Napoleon penned a song that eventually — after the country’s post-World War I resurrection — became the country’s national anthem. It begins, “Poland is not yet lost.”

Well, America is not yet lost. But the Senate is working on it.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html

The Pot and the Kettle

The following passages appear in an Associated Press story.

Questioning the Supreme Court and other government branches needs to stay within the range of fair criticism or "run the risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties," Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday.
Thomas also told an audience at the University of Florida law school that some comments he hears about the court "border on being irresponsible. . . ."

Thomas supported the 5-4 ruling that allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target candidates by name.
Thomas said the court should be questioned but is bothered by some rhetoric with "the idea of assigning ulterior motives to opinions that people don't agree with, rather than saying simply that the court doesn't agree with my argument. . . ."
Thomas brushed off a question about campaign finance, wasn't asked specifically about adding more minorities to the court or who he expects will be the next justice to leave the court. He did, however, address campaign financing Tuesday at an event at Stetson University.
"I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company," Thomas said at Stetson, according to a report in The New York Times. "These are corporations."

Another example of the fine art of bullshitting

When I think of Rush Limbaugh, the Shit Demon from the film Dogma sometimes comes to mind.

Perhaps you have heard what the prescription drug addict himself has said about the Obama Administration's response to the earthquake in Haiti. If you have not, or if you need a refresher, here's what he said, among other things:

Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. 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.

Clearly, for people like Limbaugh—you know, bullshitters—there is obviously no way for the president to win. If Obama rushes aid to Haiti, then he is only trying to "burnish his credibility with the black community." If Obama does not rush aid to Haiti, then he, like that prick who preceded him in office, doesn't care about the suffering of victims of natural disasters, like all those people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit who made the mistake of voting democratic.

Now, Limbaugh appears to believe that we've helped Haiti enough, so screw 'em. But the president obviously does not and cannot share Limbaugh's attitude. Limbaugh knows that if Obama drags his feat or only half-heartedly comes to Haiti's aid, he will receive widespread condemnation.

Many of us understand that a rapid, massive aid effort is clearly appropriate and required, and that is just what Obama is trying to mobilize. And yet Limbaugh condems the man for it. And that is why I can confidently, and without reservation, classify Limbaugh's criticism as another example of the fine art of bullshitting.

Hey, Rush: go f*ck yourself. And while you're at it, think about all the Haitians whose lives might have been saved if you hadn't convinced people not to contribute to the aid effort.

Why I Am Not a Christian: Exhibit A

If you follow current events and have some knowledge of history, you've probably noticed that Haiti seems to be victimized by one disaster after another. And perhaps you've even wondered why.

There are at least two answers to this question. One is informative and enlightening; the other is unbelievably stupid.

According to Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, Haiti's bad luck is attributable to "a killer combination of geography, poverty, social problems, slipshod building standards and bad luck, experts say."

With regard to geography, Haiti is prone not only to hurricanes and other tropical storms, but also to earthquakes, according to Borenstein.

Haiti's social problems make natural disasters even more difficult to deal with. "It starts with poverty, includes deforestation, unstable governments, poor building standards, low literacy rates and then comes back to poverty," writes Borenstein.

Some, however, disagree with the experts.

According to Pat Robertson, Haiti's suffering is attributable to its being cursed:

ROBERTSON: [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. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."

And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. ... They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God.

This is one reason why I am not a Christian. When some Christians attempt to make sense of reality, they sound like time travellers from the 16th Century. Not only is Robertson's apparent ignorance of 500 or so years of scientific progress breathtaking, but the possible moral implications of his view are repulsive and sickening. Is it wrong of us to send aid to Haiti? Should we all just turn to God and pray and leave it at that?

All of you morons who send money to CBN and their propaganda show The 700 Club need to stop. Pat Robertson is evil. By supporting him, you participate in the evil and are thereby complicit in it.

If there is a hell, it is intended for people like Pat Robertson, not me.

McGwire admits to steroid use

Read about it here.

Politics = the fine art of bullshitting

You've probably heard by now that republicans are calling on Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to resign. Reid is the Democratic leader of the Senate.

In their new book Game Change, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write that Reid "was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately."

As Douglass K. Daniel of the AP reports, republicans are arguing that there is a double standard. Democrats called on Trent Lott, the former republican Senate leader, to resign after he made racially sensitive comments, but democrats are not demanding that their own leader resign.

Some object to the argument by claiming that Lott's remarks and Reid's remarks are different. You, of course, can be the judge. According to CNN, Lott said the following about former senator Strom Thurmond: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

As CNN points out in the same story,

Thurmond ran as the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in the 1948 presidential race against Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey. He carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state of South Carolina, of which he was governor at the time.

During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Now, carefully review what Senator Reid said. With the exception of his use of an "N" word, what did Reid say that was racist or offensive?

Nothing.

It is not racist to point out the racism inherent in American politics.

And using the particular "N" word that Reid used simply does not compare to a possible endorsement of pre-civil-rights era segregationism and racism.

So why are republicans making such a big deal out of this? Politics, of course. Reid faces a tough reelection campaign, and this issue might make that campaign even tougher for him if they can make this stick somehow.

That's politics. Throw around as much bullshit as possible and see what sticks. Whether there is truth in your bullshit or not is irrelevant.

That's why Liz Cheney, who is just about as repulsive as Dick—and that is pretty freaking repulsive—was trying to make an issue out of this on Sunday's This Week. Here's the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the most endangered Senate Democrats is the leader, Harry Reid, and he got into a little bit of hot water over the weekend. This new book, "Game Change," by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, quotes him in a private conversation, saying that -- let's show it right now. "Reid was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama, a 'light-skinned African-American' with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as Reid said privately."

This has already drawn a lot of criticism. Republican Chairman Michael Steele this morning is saying that Reid ought to resign. The president has accepted Harry Reid's apology.

But Steele himself in some hot water, as well. He's got a book out this week, a lot of Republicans angry about that. And he's saying he's not going to take the criticism anymore.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEELE: I'm telling him, I'm going to look him in the eye and say, I've had enough of it. If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program, or get out of the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Judy, let's talk about Reid first. He didn't need this at all, already at 52 percent unfavorable in Nevada, being defeated, behind both his opponents right now.

WOODRUFF: Ouch. He didn't need this, but, you know, he does have friends in the White House. Somebody very close to the president said to me yesterday, after all this blew up, said, you know, this is the Mormon from Searchlight with an ear of tin and a heart of gold. He's done some very good things for the White House. They know he's carried their water on -- on health care, and they're not -- they're not going to put any distance between themselves and Harry Reid.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There had been some talk which Reid -- sorry -- which Reid tried to squash that he might not even go through with the election in November. You say he's in the race to stay?

HUNT: Oh, I think he's in the race to say. This is what Harry Reid does. What else is he going to do? He's not going to go back to Searchlight. And I think the only hope he has -- because his numbers are terrible -- is that the dysfunctional, corrupt Republican Party in Nevada. I mean, with the senator, with the governor, I mean, they have more people under indictment or under -- and that's the only thing -- it is probably the worst state in the union to make the case against Harry Reid, as unpopular as he is, and that's his only hope.

REICH: This is -- this is the Democrat's great benefit. I mean, every time they're in real, real trouble, the Republican Party comes to their aid.

HUNT: Michael Steele...

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: And Michael Steele is a good example. This week was basically designed for the Republicans, with the Democratic resignations. I mean, it looked like Democrats in disarray. And Michael Steele comes in, and talk about disarray. He is going rogue.

CHENEY: But, you know, can I just point out that I think one of the things that makes the American people frustrated is when they see time and time again liberals excusing racism from other liberals. And I think that, you know, clearly, Senator Reid's comments were outrageous. And the notion that they're being excused...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But in a private conversation that he thought was off the record...

CHENEY: I don't think racism is OK, George, whether you're saying it in private or in public. And the excuse of it by liberals, you know, is -- is really inexcusable.

But I do think, frankly, you know, he's given the voters of Nevada yet one more reason to oust him this -- this next time around, and I suspect that's what they'll do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, you're shaking your head.

WILL: I don't think there's a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.

CHENEY: George, give me a break. I mean, talking about the color of the president's skin...

WILL: Did he get it wrong?

CHENEY: ... and the candidate's...

WILL: Did he say anything false?

CHENEY: ... it's -- these are clearly racist comments, George.

WILL: Oh, my, no.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ... quickly, Liz, I -- I think it was certainly an indelicate comment, but, in fact, during the election, there were stories and there were people commenting on Tiger Woods, Adrian Fenty. I mean, I think it's very unfortunate, but I think there is an element that says that -- that -- that some -- some blacks do better than others because of appearance. I don't think that's right...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ... but I don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: ... this may be the way that liberal elites speak to each other in private. It is not the way that people that I know speak to each other in private or public...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ... no one's ever accused Harry Reid of being a liberal elite.

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: ... all of us hope that this nation will be one, where we're judged by the content of our character, and that is not what that comment...

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: Before we banter around or use terms like "liberal elites" or "racism," let me just say that race is, unfortunately, still a factor in politics and in this country. We may not like it; we may not want it to be. And in the election, people did talk about race. That does not make them a racist.

Amen, Professor Reich.