Good!

Please take a moment and relish this New York Times headline from today:

Corruption Inquiry Threatens to Ensnare Lawmakers

Then, click on the link and go read the article and revel in the fact that, for once, the story lives up to the hype. Oh, the sound of the piper about to get paid is so very sweet to the ear. America will be a better place if scumbag politicians accepting bribes from lobbyist vermin finally get the boot. I know Scanlan can only rat on so many, but our Congress needs a good purge. Send a good 20-30 of those doughy fuckers to jail, let G-dawg and friends pound their pucker holes to oblivions and, goddamit, let our political "leadership" realize that perhaps they ought to focus on their individual constituents rather than high-paying corporate and institutional donors.

Violence begets violence, I know. And as an American, I've been raised to accept violence as a reasonable solution to many problems. That, in turn, creates a multitude of problems for our socieity. In this case, though, I don't see anything but good flowing from the potential exposure of people like Scanlan, Abramoff, Delay, Ney, Blunt and others to the institutionalized violence of our federal penal system. In fact, that sort of goodness can't come soon enough.

DOJ, elections and race.

And finally, I highly recommend this post from Publius on recent shenanigans at DOJ surrounding the pre-clearance of Georgia's new voter ID law. It's shameful. But hailing from Georgia myself, I can say it's not at all surprising. Atlanta, for all its metropolitan trappings and urban nature, still just mostly consists of a shiny veneer covering up rotten core of the state.

Anecdotal proof: I used to wait tables at a restaurant in Marietta. One day, while taking an order, I heard a table of five talking behind me. One woman at the table said, "We hired a gardener this week." One of her table mates, responded, "Oh, is he black." First woman, "Yes." Table mate, "Oh you better watch out, those people are just animals." Later on, I heard this table decrying the coarseness and general ignorance of "new money." Atleast they're equal opportunity haters...

Kinsley on abortion. What about the rest?

I generally like what Michael Kinsley has to say. He's smart, erudite and funny. His commentary in today's Post, though not funny, highlights those qualities. He points out a rarely-discussed issue in the mainstream media, namely that there is no debate over abortion, merely a bunch of shouting. That's all well and good, but by that standard where in our society is there a debate anymore?

I'm busy shouting on this blog, right-wingers are busy shouting on their blogs, Congress is basically locked up in a shouting match, and our President regularly issues disjointed quasi-oracular statements on whatever topic du jour his disinformation campaigners think will motivate his base. He's not shouting I admit, but they've pumped him so full of pep-pills, anti-depressants and the occasional rufie that he probably can't muster the strength to shout anymore. Regardless, my point is, none of this constitutes debate.

So what does Kinsley want us to do? We don't debate abortion because 1) we don't know how to debate anymore, and 2) the hacks (as he rightly points out) like to manipulate hte polity through emotional issues. Which came first? Likely the 2nd. Question is, how do we return ourselves to a position wherein we can begin seeking grounds on which to debate. Let me suggest one method: compromise. (Yes, I said it again). The mouth-breating proto-fascist Christian stormtroopers probably won't agree, but I suspect that most of the rest of us might be able to find some shared ground. Perhaps it's the value of a woman's life, perhaps it's the links between poverty and teen pregnancy. I don't know. The point is, if we can find some shared values, we can then debate how those values inform the legal and political decisions that shape our national abortion policy. Until we do that, though, all the moaning in the world about the lack of debate isn't going to solve anything.

Whither the Republic?

The Decemberist has written a fascinating analysis of the recent collapse of the Congressional Republican organization. Though this morning's passage of a spending bill might seem to undercut some of his arguments, I think he's spot on. What this morning's vote represents, if anything, is the Republican leadership having to fight tooth and nail to get legislation passed that's a mere shadow of its former self. Now, instead of radical crap foisted off on the American public through a lot of legislative arm twisting, we get much weaker, watered-down versions of the same designed to make moderate Republicans happy. It's not pretty, but I think it's more along the lines of our traditional political model than previous efforts from the Delay/Rove/Blunt slimebag contingent. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the spending vote comprises a real change in Republican leadership methods. Rather, I think it's a tempering.

Compromise, contrary to my regular assertions as a 20-something, and certainly contrary to the frothy ravings of the loony right wing, is not a bad thing. If the Republican Party focused more on finding a happy median for a majority of legislature regardless of their party, I think they'd get further in the long run. Today's vote seems like a step in that direction. And I, for one, think it's a positive sign.

229 years ago we declared independence from a country run by a monarch and a parliament. Over the last 5 years, we've seen a president asserting monarchical powers at every turn and a complacent Congress acting more and more like a parliament. Finally, it's nice to see atleast one half of that equation changing.

Free Bicycle Content!

I put a new saddle on my fixed gear yesterday. It's a suspended Brooks B72. For the uninitiated, this may look like an ass-hatchet from hell. Appearances are deciving in this instance, the saddle feels very much like a leather barcalounger whilst riding. Very, very nice. For those of you out there riding somewhat upright bikes and having trouble with plastic saddles, cutouts and the like, I recommend finding a used B72 and riding it for a while. You might just like it.

Assholes in the news.

Actually, it's only one asshole, but he's all over the news these days. Whose that asshole? Why that'd be George W. Bush, the Asshat-in-Chief. Or is that asshole...?

Anyway, in a sudden, unexplainable and painfully tardy burst of critical thinking, a sizeable majority of Americans have settled upon the painfully obvious conclusion that our President is basically a dunce and decided that they no longer approve of his "hard work". Yippee. The President, of course, doesn't give a shit. At least that's what little Scottie McClellan has to say in this article. According to Little Scottie, the President doesn't pay attention to these sorts of opinion polls. Why, you might ask? Well, because "You can get caught up in polls...Polls are snapshots in time."

That's right. And if you put all those little snapshots together, you can make a flip book. And if you flip through the book, you'd see this dandy scene. So yeah, out of context one little snapshot might not mean much, but goldang, taken together you suddenly get a sinking sensation.

So, imagine your a one-note wonder dry drunk asshole swinging by your foot into a rocky cliff. What do you do? The obvious choice: blame someone else.

"You dirty muthafuckas! You egged me on! You made me climb this cliff. You gave me beer. You made me leap head long off this cliff!"

Stupid fucking asshole. And a failure too.

Something worth reading.

Actually, a few things worth reading. I don't have time to write, so instead I'll direct you to other people's writing.

1. The Decemberist writes an article for the American Prospect telling Democrats why they should ignore the model set by Newtie in 1994.

2. Publius has an interesting take on race in France and race in America.

3. The Church Sign Generator provides hours of family fun.

4. And finally, definitive proof that you'll be more comfortable in Hell.

A Personal Reflection

All my life, I was never able to understand how parents put up with their crying children. I really couldn't. It just seemed to grating, so incessant, that I couldn't see how it wouldn't drive them crazy. Well, I think now I do. The peanut has been kind of fussy of late. In the evenings, she'll spend a good 10-15 minutes having a melt-down before falling to sleep. She'll cry and wail like all those kids who used to annoy me so much. And you know what? I can take it. I feel so sorry for her, so small and so limited in her ability to tell me what's bothering her, that I don't even pay attention to the fact that she's wailing in my ear. My focus on her well-being and comfort seems to overwhelm whatever sense of annoyane I might have at her cries. Love, it seems, is far stronger than fleeting concerns for personal comfort.

Dick Cheney is an evil troll.

Don't take my word for it. Read this article from the Boston Globe laying out all the reasons why I can such a dastardly thing.

Hypocrisy ain't much of an argument, but it's oh so gratifying

"Hypocrisy" or "hypocrite" is the gotcha assertion of the weak debater. I don't mean that people who toss about such charges have a weaker argument or, indeed, that the charge is not true. Rather, I tend to believe that bloggers and other such folk typically levy the charge when they lack the willingness, intelligence, or energy to offer a substantive argument. The latter, for example, is one reason why I regularly call Republicans hypocrites. And today, it's the reason why I'm going it again.

The curren Republican leadership in Congress is the slimiest group of ignorant, feckless hypocrites that ever clawed their way out of the sewer of American politics. Take a glance at this article and tell me that I'm not speaking the truth.

America's Fuckwit Contingent (AFC), formerly known as the Republican Party, has once again proven that there isn't an ethical, moral, or just plain common sense standard that they can't shit on in their pursuit for political points. This weeks Republican turdfest started when the WaPo published the unsurprising, but heretofore unsubstantiated story that contrary to domestic and international law, the CIA is running a de facto overseas gulag system. Every two-bit self-righteous red state assclown in Congress immediately began to fire up their inner whiney little bitches and bellyache about dire threats to national security and the virginal sanctity of classified information.

Now, ignoring the fact that the American gulag system is illegal, there may be some merit to their mush-mouthed caviling. There may be some information that is classified and whose release would harm the United States's best interest. In those instances, investigation into the source of leaks might be necessary to prevent further harm. I can accept that principal, though I would argue that it does not apply when the classification is used to hide illegal, immoral activities that violate every norm of human decency (i.e. torture). What I cannot accept is the AFC's uneven application of that principal.

Where, exactly, were Denny "Bi-partisan Bills are for Suckas" Hastert and Bill "Conflicts of Interest are for Pansies" Frist when they were asked to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame? They certainly weren't out there trying to ascertain "the actual and potential damage done to the national security of the United States and our partners in the Global War on Terrorism", that's for damn sure. So what gives? Well, I'm going to have to resort to the easy out to answer that question: they're all lying, cheating, stealing low-down hypocrites. It's as easy that.

The appearance of impropriety

I was reading a story on Yahoo news the other day about Tom Delay getting the original judge on his case dismissed because that judge had, in the past, contributed money to Democratic causes. At the time, two things caught my attention. First, that's a pretty fucking ridiculous claim to apply to judges in Texas. Why? Because all judges are elected and, hence, almost all judges have political affiliations. If the mere act of contributing funds to a political cause makes a judge partial, are there any impartial judges in the state of Texas? Seemed to me that Delay ran the risk of starting a tit-for-tat snipe session at every judge that got appointed to the case. Sure enough, Ronnie Earl had the judge that dismissed the first judge dismissed as well, this time on the theory that he is a Republican partisan. Where, exactly, does this end in a state where there are no unelected judges?

The second thing that caught my attention was this quote: "He's not the right judge for this case. It's not personal; it's not about him. It's about the appearance of impropriety." Now that's rich. A man who has been chided by the House Ethics Commmittee for actions that, at a minimum, had the appearance of impropriety, who argues that those same actions are legal and ethical, now arguing that the appearance of impropriety must be avoided at allc costs in the judicial setting. This makes me wonder, does Tom Delay really hold the courts in such high regard and the legislature in such low regard that he's willing to hold members of each to such vastly different standards? If that's the case, does such a man really deserve to be a legislature? What possible justification can he provide for that different treatment. One body make laws that govern our country, the other reviews them. These seem like equally important roles and not ones to be pissed upon by some two-bit cretinous thug from Texas.

Stare decisis and super precedents...

There's a great post over at Balkinization about the role of precedents in the Supreme Court and how that relates to cases such as Roe, which most right-wingers would like to see over-turned.

Failure?

Here's a neat trick that jessmerk pointed out to me today. Go to Google and type in "failure", then click on "I'm feeling lucky." What should come up, but the official biography of George W. Bush.

Moral relativism

If you've ever had a chance to read it, Southern Appeal is a conservative legal blog written by a pretty smart guy. He and Publius of Legal Fiction often go at it, and the results can be entertaining. That said, the blog is basically crap, starting off with the tagline "Giving the bayonet to the 'dictatorship of relativism' since 2002." Why it is crap is perfectly exemplified by this post. Read it and read the comments. You'll see that it's a bunch of southern troglodyte conservatives (am I being redundant?) joking about the Reformation and deciding it's better to bag on liberals. Now isn't that nice. For 500 years Catholics and Protestants have been at each other's throats over the "fundamental" issues of their respective theologies. I mean, these battles were so important that members of each sect have willingly killed and tortured thousands of members of the other. And yet, this battle is unimportant, a laughing matter even, compared to the vicious attack of liberal thought and politics. Hmmmm... So are they acknowledging that relative to liberal ideas, the concepts they originally fought over are similar enough to merit cooperation? Doesnt' this seem to imply that their so-called dedication to moral objectivity exists only within the scale of inter-sectarian issues and fades away when they move out of sectarian topics? And how does that differ from relativism? Anybody?

It's all about control.

Do you know what this article and this article have in common? If you do, do you know how they might relate to this article. Let me tell you: they're all about control. Specifically, they're all about the religious right's burning desire to control our sexuality and our lives. Really.

Consider the first article. It reports the heartening news that pharmaceutical companies have developed a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), the leading cause of cervical cancer in this country. It also reports the appalling, yet unsurprising news, that our radical mullahs have severe misgivings about making this vaccine available to teenage girls because it might "send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage". Really? And what subtle message are these cracker-ass christopaths sending? Well, really, there's two. They are:

1. "I don't care if your cervix turns into a rotten pile of mush rendering you either sterile or dead, at least you weren't having sex."
2. "Our desire to see all woman conform to our views on sexuality and behavior outweighs any concern we might have for their health and welfare."

Both are equally disgusting and, ultimately, both are about controlling women's behavior. Consider what the wingnuts want to do: create disincentives to pre-marital sex. They want to make the avoidable risks of pre-marital sex unavoidable, thus ensuring that women inclined to consider such things won't engage in pre-marital sex. Unable to pass laws that explicitly penalize pre-marital sex, they're content to gamble away women's future for the sole purpose of controlling their behavior.

And look at the second article. It's all about Samuel Alito, Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court and how the right-wing loves him. Why? Well, for one thing, he's opposed to abortion and seems likely to be another vote on the Court in any future challenges to Roe. Ask any right-winger why he opposes Roe and they'll try to stuff your ears, eyes and mouth full of putrescent shit about "the sanctity of life" and "save the babies" and "aren't you glad your mother didn't have an abortion?" Dig deeper, though, and you'll come up with this justification, "women should bear the consequences of their pre-marital sex and those consequences should always include a baby." Same argument, same topic. Make the risks of sexual activity so high that it creates disincentives to have pre-marital sex and do that regardless of the ultimate long-term effects. How many conservatives, despite their pathological willingness to suggest they might do so, have actually adopted a baby from a girl or woman who decided not to have an abortion? Not many, I'm quite certain.

So finally, we come to the third article. It reports that some drug companies are working on creating anti-HIV gels that can be inserted directly into a woman's vagina and, presumably, a man's anus so as to prevent the transmission of HIV. Sounds good, right? Well, it is. But what's going to happen if those companies are successful and start trying to market the gel in the United States. Well, suddenly, gay men might be better able to avoid a risk of unprotected gay sex. And, suddenly the raving lunatic fucktards of Kansas City won't be able to chant AIDS Kills Fags Dead with any factual basis. If the risk of gay sex decreases, what do you think the right-wing is going to have to say about that?