M.

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:00:17 GMT

I was going to write up more comments about health care reform and the 'kill the bill' crowd, but much of what I wanted to say is written up excellently here. So instead I will just say: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/deans_blind_spot.php <---- THIS THIS THIS.

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:00:35 GMT

My fellow liberals are going to drive me crazy, one of these days. There's an actual petition to *kill the Senate bill* because it's not good enough. Christ.

I mean, what, do they think if they start over on this thing that it'll somehow magically get better? That the interests who had influence over the process will just go away? Madness. It's taken six months to get *this* far, for God's sake. If there was a do-over, it'd just give the various lobbies time to weaken it even more.

Are there things I don't like about the bill, as it stands? Sure. But history would suggest that there just aren't a lot of windows of opportunity for this kind of thing, in our fucked up system. Sweeping legislative changes don't come out fully-formed; you get what you can, and then fight to gradually keep improving the programs and protections. Otherwise, you end up with nothing at all. It's not fun, or inspiring, or dramatic, but it's a reality that we have to face.

American culture, summed up in 30 seconds?

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:43:34 GMT

I occasionally catch episodes of this show called "Man vs. Food" on the Travel Channel, which is about a guy traveling around to different restaurants that have eating challenges. (Last night's example was an 11-lb. pizza, 6 of those pounds coming just from the meat toppings.) It's fascinating in a slightly horrific kind of way? But anyway, the moment I'm referring to in the title came near the end - the entire restaurant was watching the host try and fail to wolf down all that pizza. And (seemingly spontaneously), a few guys in one corner of the place start chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

I don't know, something about it just struck me as a kind of perfect symbol: a guy making himself sick by wasting resources, just for the hell of it, met with cheers.

...that said, I did laugh pretty hard.

In other news, almost to the end of the decade, you guys! Technically December 2010 should be the end, I guess, but it's been such a resoundingly depressing period that I'm willing to just call it off.

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:32:54 GMT

I need to stop watching the health care reform debate, oh god. A few weeks ago, the latest was that a strong public option was unacceptable to our 'principled centrist' friends, so the Senate bill was negotiated down to an opt-in by state public option and allowing people 55 and up to buy in to Medicare. Joe Lieberman was all for this in September. Now, he's planning to join the GOP filibuster if this provision, *that he supported 3 months ago,* is included. At this point, his only remaining principle seems to be pure sticking-it-to-the-left. Fuck that guy.

(As an aside, stupidest 'defense' of Lieberman from a 2006 defender: from Jon Chait. "I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform." OH, WELL, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE THEN. How is this even an argument for how Joe's not that bad?)

Add in Michael Steele's new ad bragging that, yes, the GOP is trying to stonewall on health care, and I'm near the point of wanting to stab myself *in the eyes.*

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:46:45 GMT

From one of the "srs conservatives," today's LOL: "Remember that the bitterest opponents of the Clinton-era U.S. interventions in Kosovo and Haiti were conservatives like Tom DeLay, who condemned the Clinton administration for treating “foreign policy as social work,” in Michael Mandelbaum’s evocative phrase. The post-9/11 moment represented a departure from this conservative suspicion of nation-building, as Jacksonian sentiments were yoked to the ambitious project of building democracies in the Muslim world. But now that Obama, a man most conservatives dislike and distrust, is the steward of that effort, those conservative instincts are making a comeback."

AHAHAHA. "Conservative instincts," right, okay. I'm sure there's something to that for guys like DeLay beyond "a democrat likes it!!" Funny how they rediscover these instincts right when their guy goes out of power, isn't it? It's such a mystery.

(RE: Afghanistan, in general - I'm dubious a change in strategy/resources will make all that much of a difference, honestly, in the longterm. But realistically, the Bush II legacy is a shitload of horrible situations for the next guy to deal with, with no clear-cut solutions. If he were proposing some new engagement for the troops, then yeah, fuck him, but committing resources to salvage at least a less-terrible situation in the region after we've already gotten involved strikes me as at least kind of understandable.)

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:54:46 GMT

So this is apparently a potential scene for the 2009 Star Trek movie that was written to allow Shatner to appear as the original timeline's Kirk.

And, well, wow. I wouldn't have thought anything could make that movie even slashier, but they apparently found a way.

Political links

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:19:36 GMT

-"A group called the Chicago Tea Party Patriots publicly heckled a grieving family and suggested that the couple fabricated their tragic story. At a town hall held by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) on Nov. 14, Dan and Midge Hough spoke about how they believed the death of their daughter-in-law and her unborn child were caused, in part, by a lack of health insurance."

-Most mind-boggling critique of Obama I've heard yet (echoed here): "The new tenant of the Oval Office takes a strikingly different approach. President Obama is almost defiantly deliberative, methodical and measured, even when critics accuse him of dithering. When describing his executive style, he goes into Spock mode, saying, 'You've got to make decisions based on information and not emotions.'"

Yeah, how...dare he? Because gut-based decision-making has worked out so well for us. If it's just partisans looking for any attack to stick it's especially ill-considered because, you know, I get the impression most people actually like Spock.

-There's apparently a new law being introduced in Uganda to put homosexuals to death, and it's sponsored by a member of 'Family,' the massively creepy US-spawned merger of extreme-right Christianity and a relentless drive for political power. (More on the organization can be found here, if you really want to horrify yourself.)

-To close up, a quote from Alberto Gonzales, apparently now working as a college professor: "Dream big but be patient… You never know when the next George W. Bush is going to come along and give you a once in a lifetime opportunity like he gave me, but you have to be patient."

As one of the Wonkette commenters sums up -
"Step 1: Dream big.
Step 2: Family of Presidents comes along and gives you job.
Step 3: I don’t recall.
Step 4: Tenure!"

Also, the phrase "the next George W. Bush" is not one I'd associate with positive hopes for the future, kthnx.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:43:31 GMT

AWESOME: "When the Republican National Committee gets together in January to talk about the things they talk about, the "Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" will come up for a vote. The goal of the resolution is to subject Republican politicians to a test that measures their support for ten basic party principles. If someone disagrees with three or more of the policies, the resolution's supporters want to withhold party money and endorsement. The 80 percent threshold comes from a famous Reagan quote: 'The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.'"

So many epic things about this: first, that they're considering narrowing their coalition at a time of remarkable lack of popular appeal for the Republican party. Second, that they've managed to *completely miss* Reagan's point with that quote - that if you can get someone to work with you on some issues, that person should be encouraged to do so and maybe persuaded to do more, not excommunicated from your movement - in favor of a hilariously literalist understanding of his words. (I guess Reagan really is like Jesus, in a way?) And third, that several of their core party principles mention *opposition to Obama,* specifically. TIMELESS VALUES.

Also, greatest headline of the month, no contest: "Paula Deen hit in face by ham."

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:31:34 GMT

Last bit of embarrassing Merlin fangirling for the weekend: the guy who plays Arthur talking about how, when he practices his lines with the guy who plays Merlin, he does it with a terrible Bowie-in-Labyrinth impression. MY GEEKY WORLDS ARE COLLIDING.

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:52:51 GMT

Oh, my internet browsing = dangerous - I've fallen in love with a trip idea again. This Antarctic cruise sounds so fantastic. I'm going to keep looking at trip ideas - I'm not even sure I'll end up going Antarctic, and if I do this may not be the cruise - but I know myself. With Iceland and Australia/NZ, I looked endlessly at options but ended up circling back to the packages that first drew my attention.

Seriously, though, omg Antarctica. *daydreams*

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:43:59 GMT

ASDFAOIEJF MERLIN/ARTHUR SCENE OF *AWESOME.* Oh, show of pseudo-medieval cheesiness, I love you so hard. (Also: the guy who plays Arthur clearly ships it.)

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:12:24 GMT

According to a newly released poll, 52% of Republicans believe that President Obama did not legitimately win the election - that it was, in fact, stolen by ACORN.

America, you are fucking depressing. That is all.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:51:18 GMT

House: decidedly meh, I think. Continued the problems of overstuffing it with personal storylines and underplaying that pesky "medical" thing. To repeat what I've said elsewhere, the problem with Attie's episodes is that they're all kind of stage-y and artificial - characters just monologue without any seeming thought in the writing to whether what they're saying is something a real person would say. That leads to things like Wilson saying "dying is easy, living is hard!!" in "Games," and Cameron's speech at the end of this one.

And those personal storylines felt...pretty arbitrary, really. Cuddy/Lucas doesn't really make any sense - maybe it's not supposed to, and the point will be that she realizes she doesn't want the guy. But at the moment it seems more like her personality changes to suit whatever guy she's with. Taub and Thirteen (both of whom I generally like) never seemed particularly into the diagnostic work when they were on the team, so this episode establishing reasons they needed to come back didn't really ring true. And Cameron and Chase's responses were just too compressed to really work - if they were allowed to play out over two episodes, it might have flowed better. As it is, they had to be emotional contortionists. Not a strong way to get rid of a character who's been there for six years and a relationship that's lasted almost half that time.

Also, I'm going to steal two insights from the AV Club review - about House getting Taub and Thirteen back, "there's no build-up and release to it. We have no investment in their return, because there's no status quo that's in danger of being lost." House PTB have been seemingly focused for the last season or so on getting buzz through shocks like characters quitting or being fired, or kissing, or well, killing themselves. As such, the audience can't want things to get "back to normal," because there is no real 'normal.' Also: "Writing tip: if you're working on a script, and you type 'Is this about me and Lucas?,' you should delete that. Maybe take a break, go for a jog, actually have a conversation with a person. Also, delete all those General Hospital episodes from your DVR, because friend, they ain't helping." So true.

Despite all this criticism, I didn't hate it. And it's definitely not the worst episode ever or anything. But it's a perfect manifestation of "things that have made recent storylines on House weaksauce," come to life.

All the pro reviews of the episode I've read hated the shit out of the personal storylines here, so they will probably *loathe* next week, hahaha. House/Cuddy/Lucas gameplaying as a focus AND House getting sappier about her! Now that'll be an entertaining trainwreck.

HIMYM: very, very funny episode. I guess the problem really was that they didn't know how to write Barney/Robin a storyline as a couple and keep the group dynamics working? I can accept that. I'd still like to think those crazy kids will work it out in the end, though.

Big Bang: Sheldon and Penny, omgomgomg. (...Sorry, shipper moment.) I don't want them to ever get together because TV shows can't do romance well (and especially this one can't - ugh, Leonard/Penny), but as a comedy generator they're pretty much perfect.

ALSO. I tried to go through the various comms to gather some entertaining craziness, but there was *too much.* Between Cam fans rending their garments and declaring that House as a show is unworthy of JM's talent, H/Cuddy fans bitter about Lucas (and mad at Cuddy for being too mean to House - hi again, early s5 H/W fandom!), H/W fans being crazily over-positive about Cuddy/Lucas because it removes a "threat," and in my other fandoms, Sheldon/Penny fans getting hilariously defensive because some reviews called the idea "insane" and Barney/Robin fans somehow shocked that Barney's getting back to normal, and I can't even keep up with it all. IT'S TOO BEAUTIFUL - LIKE FLYING TOO CLOSE TO THE SUN.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:33:40 GMT

Okay, I said I wasn't going to talk about Sarah Palin, and I'm not. But I can't resist linking to some of Wonkette's coverage of her various press maneuvering today. Right now they're live-blogging her Oprah appearance in the blog's typical surreal humor style. To give you a flavor for it, from the post on the National Review's 'Going Rogue'-centered blog:

An editor, when asked if he's going to liveblog the Oprah appearance: "[ugh] when is the oprah program on?"
Commenter: "When you took this job, you knew there would be days like these. I feel bad for you, but all this prestige and glamor has a price."
Editor: "I had no idea days would be like this when I took this job. I was naive, not expecting something like Sarah Palin to manifest itself. People who take jobs writing about politics today will find themselves, in two years, liveblogging an actual rabid cheetah (GOP candidate for president) plugging its book on the Sarah Palin Show."
Other commenter: "And the most accepted form of political discourse will be in the form of biting each other on the back of the leg. All national issues will be solved in this way."
Another commenter: "No shit, right? The GOP is killing the snark by becoming a caricature of a caricature! It’s like we don’t even have to do anything and it’s still funny. And by funny, I mean like when a clown slits his wrists."

ETA: Unrelatedly, quoth pundit Mark Shields on 'Washington Week': "And I think it makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection."

Dear political leadership of all stripes: the function of the nation's military is not actually to shore up your insecurities about your own manhood through the irresponsible exercise of indiscriminate power so you can experience it vicariously. I know! *Shocking.* Ugh, this is all giving me 2003 flashbacks.

fucking UGH

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:47:22 GMT

From an article titled "God, the Army, and PTSD," which argues that religion has harmed veterans' psychological treatment:

"Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. 'That’s too many,' McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. 'They are too young' to be filing claims, and they are doing it 'too soon.' He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are 'costing us too much money,' and if the veterans 'believed in God and country...they would not come home with PTSD.'

... "For Sullivan, McLendon’s remarks reflected the views of many political appointees in the VA and revealed what was behind their efforts to reduce costs by restricting claims. The backlog of claims was immense, and veterans, often suffering extreme psychological stress, had to wait an average of five months for decisions on their requests.

"When I asked him years later about the meeting, McLendon laughed. Then his face darkened in anger. 'Anybody who knows me knows I wouldn’t talk that way.'

"Nevertheless, McLendon was open about the skepticism he felt toward the diagnosis of PTSD, calling it 'a made-up term,' which has 'taken on a life of its own.' As he spoke about the diagnosis, he pounded the table with the side of his hand more than ten times, hitting it so hard that the wooden surface shook. 'Do I think they have a mental illness and should be stigmatized for the rest of their life?' he asked. 'What gives a psychiatrist the right to do that?'"

Somehow, I can still be surprised by this kind of shit. Despite his denials, I tend to believe the quote above really did come from him - it's of a piece with the "Prosperity Gospel" school of Christianity, which holds that the people God favors are wealthy and successful on Earth, and that those who are poor or sick are that way because of their own sins. (Which, even as lapsed as I am, strikes me as a horrifying twisting of Christian doctrine for reasons of self-delusion, but, anyway.)

ANYWAY. Tonight I will either check out some fandom comms for mock-worthy commentary or finish switching out my icons, whichever I turn out to be in the mood for.

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:20:32 GMT

News round-up post for, like, two weeks. Oof.

First, non-political - a Facebook status update has been used for the first time as an alibi in a criminal case. Even more amusingly, the NYT write-up of the case describes said status update (which was apparently "ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK......WHERER MY IHOP.") as "indecipherable street slang" and "gobbledygook." HAHAHA, there is no context in which the phrase "indecipherable street slang" is not cause for pointing and laughing.

Topic #2: posts replying to this year's election results. First, from the ever-unintentionally-hilarious Erick Erickson, in reference to the NY-23 district congressional results, in which far-right conservatives took a race that could've easily been won by a moderate Republican, replaced said moderate with a Glen Beck-endorsed candidate that didn't even live in the district, and ended up losing to the Democrat: "The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens. This is a huge win for conservatives." Sure it was, Erick, sure it was. They're apparently planning to do the exact same thing in the Florida Senate race, which moderate Republican now-governor Charlie Crist could pretty easily win. AWESOME. Keep going with your purity purges, guys, it's clearly a winning strategy for...someone!

The second post is a thoughtful response to someone else's mildly infuriating post about the gay marriage vote in Maine, in which said other poster claims the results against gay marriage are evidence of something besides anti-gay prejudice. Coates makes the obvious connection to the Civil Rights movement and notes that conservative opinion-makers at the time claimed that the attempts to keep black people from voting in the south weren't trying "to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote."

Topic #3: health care reform! I'm pleased the House managed to pass it, even if some of the provisions are troubling (the Stupak amendment, for example, which seems to restrict abortion coverage for even those *not* on the public option, which clearly needs to be changed; I'd be willing, grudgingly, to accept restrictions on coverage for abortions themselves - i.e. not contraceptives, or Plan B - for those on the public plan, but this is just excessive). But even with its flaws, we can be grateful the Republican alternative didn't pass. There are other problems with it, but the one highlighted here is fucking insane - the way it set up its health insurance exchanges made it so that the policy was subject only to laws in the insurance company's "primary state," which could be any of the fifty or any US territories, and *not* the laws of the state in which it's purchased. This is very similar to what happened with the credit card companies - after a similar policy was enacted to make the companies subject to only their "primary state"'s regulations, most of the companies have set up mailboxes in South Dakota and other states with lax consumer protections and can then jack up their interest rates and late fees at will. This has obviously worked out well for everyone!

Next, a hilarious/horrible speech from the floor of the House from Rep. Mike Pence, who urges his "Democrat colleagues" to fight the health care bill. For FREEDOM. To prove that regular Americans oppose the bill, he cites his cousin who's suffering from cancer and awaiting insurance coverage for an experimental treatment. Who is omg scared of government-run health care, which he apparently thinks will be mandatory! I wonder where he could've gotten that crazy idea. Could it be Mike Pence??

Last in this area, a tweet that reminds me why I fucking loathe Jonah Goldberg. *Obviously* a slight delay in obtaining knee surgery is a more important issue than the not-at-all-permanent consequences of an unwanted pregnancy!

And, hmm, that's it for themes. Everything else I link to will be an individual story. I refuse to talk much about Sarah Palin, but I couldn't resist linking to this apparently real "photo illustration" of Time columnist Mark Halperin reading her book. First: why would you have to photoshop a picture to make it look like you're reading it? Second: could they possibly have found a douchier pose to paste his face onto? There is no possible explanation but that the Time graphics people hate him.

-Michael Steele news! I kind of love this loon. He admitted that white Republicans are often scared of him, in print. Really. Wonkette has taken to posting all Steele news with the header "moo moo baby" in reference to the time he compared himself to a "cow on the tracks" of the train of health care reform. It's an easy joke, but it makes me laugh every damn time.

-A post from my favorite conservative commentator, Daniel Larison. He's the old school, small-c type of conservative that I generally respect, while still often disagreeing with them. Anyway, in responding to a poster that says she misses Bush because he "loved America," he writes: "Bush’s love of country was something similar to what the Apostle called in another context 'zeal not according to knowledge.' The man was actually overflowing with saccharine, do-gooding, Gersonian sentimentality and he had no shortage of emotional, demonstrative professions of patriotic devotion. So what? What good did it do anyone? It might even have been better had Bush been less enthusiastic in trying to protect the United States, since he would not have been so ready to see dire threats around every corner where none existed. America needs fewer paranoid, jealous lovers, not more." The whole thing is well worth reading.

-In news that reminds me that no matter how much of a lapsed Catholic I am, I'm still not *lapsed enough,* the Archdiocese of Washington, DC is threatening to discontinue the social services it runs in the District if it doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law. Because it would be forbidden from discriminating against gays and lesbians in employment. Grandstanding ballsy fuckers - yes, your ability to discriminate against TEH GAY is *clearly* more important than Jesus's commandments to care for the less fortunate. I totally remember that part of the Bible.

-Another Erick Erickson/Red State digest: he's so outraged! that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be sent to New York to face a civilian court. A baby step towards reestablishing the rule of law is so horrible, you guys. Most amusingly, his argument includes this sentence: "At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime." He says this, mind, as part of his effort to *prevent* Mohammed from having a trial in which he has access to lawyers and to review the evidence against him. Which is the kind of up-is-down pronouncement that Erickson is so adept at.

-Today's right-wing tantrum against Obama: ZOMG he bowed to the Japanese emperor!!!! HOW DARE HE. I particularly note the commentator referring to him as the 'boy king,' which is. Wow. No words.

-Lastly, to end on an amusing note, observe pundit David Brooks's obvious crush on Senator John Thune. "The first thing everybody knows about him is that he is tall (6 feet 4 inches), tanned (in a prairie, sun-chapped sort of way) and handsome (John McCain jokes that if he had Thune’s face he’d be president right now). If you wanted a Republican with the same general body type and athletic grace as Barack Obama, you’d pick Thune." (Yes, Obama won because he's teh hot! The campaign, issues, and eight years of Republican incompetent malfeasance were not even worth mentioning.)

...I failed at ending that on funny, didn't I? Oh well, this post is probably long enough.

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:16:45 GMT

So, I have been uncharacteristically short on mocking stuff this week - low energy, not in the right mood, etc. *Some*thing had to snap me out of it, and today, this did it.

From a NYT article: "Mr. Obama’s exclusion of the obvious threat — that he will pull American troops out of Afghanistan if Mr. Karzai does not comply — reflects a stark conundrum: How much leverage does the United States really have over the Afghan leader?

"“You know that scene in the movie ‘Blazing Saddles,’ when Cleavon Little holds the gun to his own head and threatens to shoot himself?” asked Ronald E. Neumann, a former ambassador to Afghanistan."

Holy shit, what. Someone thought it was actually a good idea to say that. Really. Even leaving out the, um, obvious racial implication of invoking that scene? It's not a good metaphor. Because in Blazing Saddles, that ploy *worked.*

This 'former ambassador,' by the way, was W's envoy there from 2005-2007. One might recall that during this period, we drew down our troop level there to support the surge in Iraq, and the Taliban insurgency became stronger? And that this was the point Afghanistan started to turn from a forgotten war to an outright quagmire? Yeah. Clearly a valuable source of insight, here.

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:36:39 GMT

House: uneven and trying to do way too much at once, but the part I watch the show for - House and Wilson - was unmitigated awesome. I'm such a sucker for House using his devious semi-evil ways to save Wilson from himself. House's declaration at the end of the speech and Wilson's thank you were basically admissions of love. The parallel of House/Wilson to Cam/Chase (with H/W actually coming out kind of healthier, what?) continued to work and amuse me. The parallel of C/C to the patient and the comic book guy was way more forced, but it led to the strong scene of Cam finding out what Chase had done, so that's all right.

I continue to not really know what they intend with the H/Cuddy stuff, honestly, aside from "fuck with the shippers' minds." An episode of House pursuing Cuddy, again, and at the end - they're still in the same limbo where they want each other, know it's a bad idea and could never work, and step back (temporarily) from going forward with it for one reason or another. I don't know how many times we need to hear that same point, show? Meh, so long as I am also pandered to, I guess I can deal. Though, again, the female characters get plots and they're all about their romances? Really? ...I need to stop even trying a feminist critique on this show, I know it's just going to annoy me.

HIMYM: Wow, that was...kind of bad, actually? Was it just me? It was an awfully light and jokey way to treat the end of a couple they've spent a season and a half building towards. On the other hand, the whole season so far has been really off-balance and weird, so if a break up was what they needed to fix that, I guess I'm for it. (PS: fat suits = never funny. Unless you're going hacky on purpose to point out how lame it is, which this was not.)

In conclusion, when I'm next in the mood to sample hilarious shipper rage (still not at my right hormonal level for schadenfreude! it's cyclical, what can I tell you), house_cameron, house_cuddy and barney_robin should be ripe for it.

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:48:06 GMT

Keep meaning to write one of my snarky political posts - sooo much material - but I've been all out of sorts and tired this week. Weirdly, being moody like this makes me *less* likely to mock things. I don't understand my brain. I had been trying to write something anyway, but when I couldn't even work up the energy to give a good mock to this bit of low-hanging fannish fruit, it was time to stop trying to force it. Ah well, maybe tomorrow.

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:12:08 GMT

So, McDonnell won in Virginia (as expected), and Christie won in New Jersey in a squeaker. Expected political media narrative of the week: does the fact that the GOP won two gubernatorial races in an off-year election during an inherited recession mean Obama's presidency IS OVER?? Lots of hilarious overreactions are sure to ensue.

The other two races I'm following are still pretty close, with the gay marriage law in Maine in danger of being struck down (ugh!) and the wingnut in New York's 23rd close to being defeated (hah!). I will probably be up for a while refreshing these pages, because I am lame.

Election 2009...

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:28:05 GMT

...happens tomorrow! Interesting races to follow:

1) Maine is voting on a referendum about gay marriage. Maine's an interesting case because it's (I believe?) the first state to institute gay marriage via the legislature rather than a judicial ruling. Whether it can withstand the referendum is an important test because, if the side favoring equality fails, other state legislatures are less likely to take the risk.

2) Virginia and New Jersey are voting for new governors. Virginia's mainly interesting because it's local to me, and it's officially a toss-up state now - though probably McDonnell, the Republican, is going to win (boo, hiss). Entertaining thing about the NJ race: the Republican challenger unwisely decided to swipe a Monty Python sketch, edit in references to his opponent, and air that as a commercial. Without checking with anyone involved. Politicians: DO NOT screw with comedians, seriously. They will cut you.

3) Potentially the most interesting, against all odds: the election in New York's 23rd district to replace their representative, a moderate Republican who was selected by Obama to be Secretary of the Army earlier this year. Another moderate Republican, DeDe Scozzafava, was selected/elected (I'm not entirely sure which) as the official GOP candidate. The winner of this election will only serve for a *year,* as they're just serving out McHugh's term and will have to run again to get reelected to a full term. Pretty boring right?

HA, well. That was when the far right's purity trolls decided to flex their muscles - declaring Scozzafava a "leftist," a Conservative Party candidate named Doug Hoffman entered the race, and every big-name conservative flocked to endorse him, including, eventually, the National Republican Congressional Committee. Activists like Erik Erikson came out with charming statements like this: "We should be magnanimous in victory — and whether Hoffman wins or loses, as long as Dede Scozzafava loses it is a victory — but we should demand accountability, we should demand a reckoning, and we should demand a purge from the party establishment of those people most responsible for the Republican disaster in NY-23." (That "disaster" refers to selecting a so-called leftist - who is, by the way, solidly in the mainstream of New York Republicans - not creating enough interparty squabbling to lose a seat that they could've easily kept. Of course.)

Sure, Hoffman has no grasp of local issues, and doesn't even live in the district. (Check out this link for a picture of the guy, by the way. *Yikes.*) But former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, one of Hoffman's earliest backers, defended him on this by describing local issues as "parochial." That's right - they're trying to win this election with the "your concerns aren't that important" argument. And it might work! Current polling has Hoffman up by 5 points, with a lot of undecideds.

But over the weekend, Scozzafava dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, so no one really knows how this'll shake out. (Add in to this that the turn-out rate for off-year elections is typically absurdly low, so "likely voters" are extra-difficult to determine.) But whatever happens, I would bet on the right's activists declaring victory and planning even more primary challenges against GOP officeholders - if the conservative wins, they've saved the district from the gutless GOP leadership; if he loses, it's because said leadership backed the RINO for too long.

2010's gonna be fucking hilarious, that's for sure.

(Incidentally, how far to the right do you have to be to consider *Newt fucking Gingrich* not conservative enough? Jesus.)

So, that was a long politics post! To make up for it to the many of you who probably do not care, have a funny article about a 70-year-old Washington Post editor beating up a staff writer. ...I think it's funny, anyway!

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:21:27 GMT

Confusing-to-me political commentary of the day: here. Andrew Sullivan is a recovering conservative and an interesting blogger that I often agree with and generally find to be a good read. Which is part of why I find that post so odd/vexing.

Keeping pressure on Obama to deliver on his campaign promises on gay rights = definitely a good thing, mind, and I can also see being disappointed that more hasn't been accomplished on this front so far. But it strikes me as singularly odd to complain about the new hate crime bill's inclusion of crimes motivated by hate of sexual orientation (and, as he omits, sexual identity - making this the first national law to include transgender rights) as a "piece of symbolism" while complaining that the president's remarks weren't up on his blog quickly enough and that he failed to use the word gay. That's just so perfectly backwards. Possibly this is motivated by his own opposition to hate crime legislation in general - he maintains his old conservative belief that they're inherently unnecessary - or maybe it's just your standard Boomer pundit's preoccupation with appearance and symbolism as more important than even actual legislative gains.

ANYWAY. Have I mentioned my new tv crush? It's Top Chef's Kevin. He's a freakishly talented cook (he's dominated the competition so far, and it's a pretty talented group), nice to the other contestants, completely drama-free, seemingly good at everything (loves cooking meat, eats vegetarian part of the year, gave up a full scholarship to MIT to go to cooking school, weirdly good at throwing horseshoes) yet not annoying about it. Plus, funny.

Kevin: *talks about how he can eat 150 chicken wings in an hour*
Other contestant: "He didn't get fat by accident."
Kevin: "It's a personal choice."

Basically, he's a magical gnome of awesomeness.

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:06:34 GMT

Truefact for today: if you hear someone describe the health care reform bills as "government-run healthcare," you can safely assume they're not interested in an honest debate so much as in scaring the uninformed. It's meant to call to mind systems like Britain's, where the doctors are employees of the government. What's actually on the table is government-run *health insurance,* a much less dramatic change. And even *that* is really pretty limited. To quote Ezra Klein, one of the Washington Post's few remaining non-hacks, "For the real liberals, the public option was already a compromise from single-payer. For the slightly less radical folks, the public option that's barred from partnering with Medicare to maximize the government's buying power was a compromise down from a Medicare-like insurance plan. For the folks even less radical than that, the public option that states can 'opt out' of is a compromise from the straight public option. Access to the public option will be a political question settled at the state level. It is not a settled matter of national policy."

Of course, even that Joe Lieberman's threatening to filibuster, the fucker, because ""I think a lot of people may think that the public option is free. It's not. It's going to cost the taxpayers and people who have health insurance now, and if it doesn't it's going to add terribly to the national debt..." Which is just bullshit. It's fundamentally not a new entitlement, and will be financed entirely by participants' premiums. I kind of wonder if he's not bluffing - he's coming up for reelection in 2012, and he may want support from the party to run as a Democrat again. And money from the party, of course.

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:46:40 GMT

Depressing story out of Texas - the state executed a man, Cameron Todd Willingham, for killing his three children by setting his house on fire. There was initially evidence of arson, but all the supporting evidence was highly faulty - witnesses who changed their statements to describe him as not caring about his children after he was accused of murder; doctors declaring him a "sociopath" who'd never talked to him and had no expertise in sociopathic behavior, based on the crime he was accused of and the presence of a skull tattoo and an Iron Maiden poster. Even more troublingly, his state-assigned lawyer has publicly stated that he believes his client guilty and seemed to put little effort into his defense. (Quoted from the New Yorker article: "'There were no grounds for reversal, and the verdict was absolutely the right one.' He said of the case, 'Shit, it’s incredible that anyone’s even thinking about it.'"

In January 2004, an expert who consulted on arson cases reviewed the evidence, and was shocked by the hugely faulty conclusions the arson investigators had reached. (Another disturbing quote from the article: "Still, many arson investigators believed that what they did was more an art than a science—a blend of experience and intuition. In 1997, the International Association of Arson Investigators filed a legal brief arguing that arson sleuths should not be bound by a 1993 Supreme Court decision requiring experts who testified at trials to adhere to the scientific method. What arson sleuths did, the brief claimed, was 'less scientific.'")

The expert, Dr. Gerald Hurst, quickly wrote up a report on his conclusions, as Willingham was set to be executed only weeks after he began looking at the case. A copy of his report was sent to the Board of Pardons and Paroles, who denied the request for clemency; there was no record of anyone taking note of the new evidence or responding to it. A member of the board defended this by saying "We get all kinds of reports, but we don’t have the mechanisms to vet them." Willingham was executed in February of 2004.

After years of continued attention and inquiry into the scientific flaws of the prosecution's case, Texas established a commission to address forensic science errors in the justice system. An expert hired by the commission excoriated the arson investigators, and there was some speculation that Texas could officially acknowledge that it had put an innocent person to death. That didn't happen - Governor Perry, under whose watch the man was executed, replaced members of the commission before they could issue their report.

If you want to *really* depress yourself today, watch an interview with Willingham's defense attorney, who still thinks his client was an unambiguously bad guy who got a fair trial.

tales of new media

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:29:41 GMT

To promote his new book, Newt Gingrich is using a few Twitter accounts to put on a "twitternactment" (HIS WORD) of the Battle of Trenton.

Yes, really. TWITTERNACTMENT.

Check out George Washington's Twitter page if you want to follow this inanity.