Xanadu - through caverns measureless to man

For Christmas this year, I got my wife a couple of musicals. And one of them was Xanadu. I saw that back in 1980 when it came out, and it would seem that I had managed to block out much of this movie.

It's somewhat sad that the best part of the DVD are the "Making of" documentary and the fact that the soundtrack is included on a separate CD. The soundtrack is amazing, and, in its late-70's way, fully worth the price of admission (the price of admission, of course, is sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half of this movie).

As the wretched excess and self-inflicted humiliation of the Saturday Night Fever 70s slowly gave way to the wretched excess and self-absorbtion of the Gordon Gekko 80s, Xanadu burst forth upon the public much like a tapeworm might quietly slip through an unpuckered sphincter.

This was not originally planned as a piece of classic cinema. And god knows that, in the end, they succeeded at that.

This had originally been planned as a small roller-disco movie. And the producer realized that there was a lot that was wrong with the film, like the fact that there wasn't a plot. But before they managed to fix that little problem, Olivia Newton John, coming off the success of Grease two years before, expressed an interest in being part of the movie.

Olivia Newton-John was born in 1948 in Cambridge, England, the daughter of a Welshman named Brinley Newton-John, an MI-5 officer on the Enigma project in WWII, and a German mother, Irene Born, the eldest child of the Nobel prize-winning atomic physicist Max Born. (Which brings a certain humor to her 1980's nickname, "Olivia Neutron Bomb.")

She had a career as a squeaky-clean country-pop singer; she'd had a couple of minor hits in the UK, USA and Australia (the chief being 1973's Let Me Be There, which earned her a Grammy as Best Country Female and the number one Country Album for two weeks that year). Then, in 1974, she represented England in the Eurovision song contest, singing a ditty that she later said she hated, called Long Live Love.



She placed #4, behind a little group named ABBA singing Waterloo.

She had a string of hits in the mid-70s, but they started to wane by 1977, so, at the age of 29, she starred as a high-school senior in the film adaptation of the Broadway musical Grease. The movie revived a flagging career, and spurred her to change her image to something a little less virginal. None of which explains her appearance as the slightly ethereal Kira (which doesn't strike me as the perfect nickname for "Terpsichore" - of course, she's a singer playing the muse of dance, so what do you want? Consistency?)

Gene Kelly does a reasonably good job with his part as a former (and soon-to-be-again) nightclub owner. After him, the next best acting job came from Newton-John (whose part consists primarily of smiling and skating out of frame while glowing in various colors), and then the bar is lowered considerably - many of the fine performances in this film are at roughly the "high school play" level. If that good.

The romantic "lead" is turned in by a wooden Michael Beck, also known for the cult film The Warriors (if by "cult film," you mean "almost as bad as Xanadu." He is, in fact, quoted as having said "The Warriors opened a lot of doors in film for me, which Xanadu then closed.")

This film had more wrong with it than it got right. The first time you see Gene Kelly, he's on the beach playing his clarinet as the sun rises over the Pacific Ocean (think about that for a second - here's a hint: "the sun rises in the...").

You occasionally come across a description of this film as an unofficial sequel to 1944's Cover Girl, in that Gene Kelly played a nightclub owner in 1944 named Danny McGuire, and in 1980 played a former nightclub owner named Danny McGuire. But they have to say "unofficial," because that's the extent of the similarity (and, of course, because the makers of Xanadu didn't have the rights to the infinitely better film).

As I mentioned earlier, the director knew that the script had a lot of problems. And after a number of rewrites, he got it back and realized that they still hadn't fixed those same problems. So he decided to make it a series of music videos, loosely strung together with what the porn industry calls "fast-forwards."

(Let me just say here that the "fast-forwards" line is my wife's joke. You all think she's such a nice, quiet, cultured person just because she sings opera. And, admittedly, because she's a really nice person. But there's this dark side that you just don't get to see, and it really isn't that far under the surface, either...)

Easily the best part of the movie is a piece called Dancin', blending songs in the styles of the '40s and the '80s into a gloriously Frankenstinian whole.



(This was a "live" version produced to promote the movie, and doesn't have the visual impact of the actual movie clip; that can be seen here, along with the label "embedding disabled by request.")

The 80's band in Dancin' is played by The Tubes, who were up until then known for lead singer Fee Waybill donning the persona of "Quay Lewd" to fight his way through songs like White Punks on Dope.



The Tubes were some of the only performers whose career wasn't stunted by Xanadu. One of the dancers, for example, an anonymous muse played by the Fosse-trained Sandahl Bergman, would stop dancing entirely, play opposite Arnold Schwarzenegger in the notably-bad Conan the Barbarian (where she had to do her own stunts, because they couldn't find a 5'10" stunt double for her), then play the villain in the infinitely-worse Red Sonja, and finish out her career with a series of B-movies where she gets naked and shot at a lot. (She also appears extensively in the 1983 video by Helix, Heavy Metal Love, if anybody cares.)

What can you say about a movie where the romantic "lead" skates full speed toward a brick wall because he thinks it won't end badly? But on the plus side of the equation, there's a scene with Newton-John dancing with Gene Kelly (which, it turns out, was filmed later on a closed set because everybody was disappointed that they didn't have any musical numbers together) where you can plainly see that Kelly was 100% responsible for the choreography and training of Ms Newton-John. Watching her imitate his dancing style almost makes up for the clumsy transition back to reality at the end.

Having been planned as a roller-disco movie, the last 15 or 20 minutes are an extended dance sequence with a series of forgettable songs, all brightly lit and colorful. It's all eye-candy, with no nutritional value whatsoever.

In fact, with all of the glowing people and bad animation scattered throughout this shiny celluloid turd, this film can be said to be the progenitor of every Skittles ad ever made.

(Understand, when I say "bad animation," I'm not referring to the Don Bluth cartoon in the middle, which is very well animated, if completely insipid and with no reason to be there.)

Remember the old joke that explained that a camel is "a horse made by a committee?" This film stands as a testament to the truth at the heart of that statement. No film should ever be made by committee, and Xanadu is definitely a camel.

Is there a brain in the right wing?

Let me see if I've got this straight. We have a Nigerian man, the son of a rich industrialist (so we'll assume that he was reasonably well-educated), who gets on a plane, fucks up putting together his little bomb, and toasted his own taint.

(Well, to be honest, there's usually a different view point on everything - I believe it was the great philosopher D. Henley who pointed out "There's three sides to every story, babe/There's yours and there's mine and the cold, hard truth." I mean, I live in New Mexico, and I've had the odd bean burrito with red chili sauce that blew out my pants, too. Or I suppose that it's always possible that he was some kind of Nigerian sadomasochist who enjoyed the smell of burning scrotum. I'm not really willing to count on that, though.)

I could say that this incident has caused the right wing to completely lose their tiny little minds, but that's starting to get redundant. Let's be honest: the right wing's hair bursts into flame whenever a traffic light turns red, and they immediately start trying to figure out how they can blame it on Obama.

But once again, as they go completely bugfuck, the accusations about Obama start pouring out into the mainstream media, much like a pig-lagoon overflowing in a hurricane.

We have complete morons suggesting that racial profiling is the way to go: that all men who look Middle Eastern should be given a harder look before they board a plane.

Now, honestly, there are dozens of reasons why that suggestion is so brain-dead that a houseplant would be unwilling to suggest it. I'll get to one or two of those problems later. For the moment, let's just work with the most obvious one.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.



So, let's play a game. This kid looks ________. (Fill in the blank.)
1. Middle Eastern.
2. like a black man.
3. Ooh, look! Shiny thing!

How'd'ja do? Did you get it right?

And then we have retired Lt. General Thomas McInerney, suggesting that all Muslim males between the ages of 18 and 28 should be strip-searched. Which makes you glad that he's a retired general, since his ability to plan ahead is so mind-numbingly small (or his ability to gauge the intelligence of his enemy is so openly retarded) that he thinks that the average al Qaeda terrorist, faced with that policy, would willingly self-identify as Muslim.

Sweet Jesus Christ on a crutch, there would be more religious conversions to Christianity at the airport (at least on paper) than at any tent revival in the history of the world.

I'm going to be generous here, and make the assumption that McInerney is suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers, because it's difficult to see how someone could climb up through the ranks of any branch of the military, and not have learned, at some remedial class he took along the way, that around 22% of the world's population is Muslim. It's the fastest-growing religion on the planet. Roughly one out of every five people you will ever meet, if you travel a little, will turn out to be Muslim. And that includes whites, blacks, Asians, and every shade in between.

But then we find out that a recent Rasmussen poll (and we won't even get into the fact that Rasmussen polls can be relied on to slant right harder than Fox "News") tells us that 58% of US voters want to waterboard our boy Umar. Well, that's fine. 58% of Americans probably want a pony, too.

Let's ignore the fact that Abdulmutallab was answering questions already. And then let's also ignore the fact that, really, do you want to get rid of the terrorist groups who are incompetent enough to teach their followers to blow up their own pants? (I mean, can we just concentrate on the talented terrorists for a while? Can't we just ignore the ones who chase roadrunners and order their supplies from the Acme Catalog?)

But the fact is, anybody who wants to torture prisoners wasn't properly socialized by their parents and aren't ready to live in a civilized society. I'd even be willing to point out the blatant stupidity and probable inbreeding of most of the parents involved.

The problem with torturing people to gain information is that, when someone is tortured, they'll say whatever they they think will make the torture stop. Whether it's true or not. That's why, in 1998, Qin Yanhong, a Chinese villager, confessed to the rape and murder of a woman he'd never met. Because he was tortured, and he wanted to make the torture stop.

But how to solve this problem? Well, GOP Representative J. Gresham Barrett from (where else?) South Carolina, seems to think that barring entry to all immigrants from a list of "terrorist" countries will do the trick. Mostly, of course, because Representative J. Gresham Barrett is so overwhelmingly stupid that when you stand next to him, you hear the ocean. Part of his statement includes the phrase "Twice in the past two months, radical Islamic terrorists have attacked our nation."

Really, Congressman? You haven't thought this one out well, have you? Let me see if I can help you.

The State Department has indentified the following states as sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Given recent reports of increased levels of terrorist activities in Yemen, Congressman Barrett has requested that its citizens not be allowed to enter the United States.

So, where did these last two Islamic terrorists come from? Well, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, MD (who was, by all appearances, a lone lunatic, but let's ignore that) was of Palestinian descent, but born in America. Neither Palestine nor America seem to be on that list, now, do they?

And Abdulmutallab? Did you catch that he was from Nigeria, Congressman? And to be honest, how many terrorist attacks have actually originated in Cuba? Or for that matter, Iran? And, you know, I hate to go over the same ground over and over, but remember those nineteen guys who did the plane thing on 9/11? One Egyptian, one Lebanese, two from the United Arab Emirates, and fifteen Saudi Arabians - would even one of them have been pulled aside if your ignorant little bill went through?

And looking at the origins of those hijackers, why isn't Saudi Arabia on that list, Congressman?

So, yeah. I think it's relatively obvious that Rep. Barrett is of such limited mental capacity that he probably craps himself regularly. And, considering his South Carolinian background, I'm willing to say that inbreeding is involved here, too.

And as for the likelihood that Barrett's ignorant little idea, or profiling in general, is likely to work, can I remind all of you of a little incident called the Lod Airport massacre? Japanese terrorists, working for Palestinians, went into an Israeli airport and killed Puerto Rican tourists. Try fitting that into your brain-dead profiling plans.

The last few weeks has given us the usual collection of idiots and liars, pushing the usual litany of bullshit. Dick Cheney and his Panting Puppies of Doom keep claiming this meme that Obama is weak on terror (a claim easily refuted), and we actually have congenital idiots like Mary Matalin and Rudy Giuliani (and, for that matter, Dana Perino) trying to say that there were no terror attacks under Bush... I mean, after 9/11... and if you don't look at the Shoe Bomber, or the anthrax attacks, or any of the dozens of other terrorist acts that occurred under Bush (Bob Cesca even has graphs for you, if you prefer the evidence presented visually).

So, in general, I think that the only thing that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeeded in doing was highlight the ignorance and dishonesty of the Republican party. Again.

Oh, and toast his scrotum.

It Shouldn't Surprise Us that Some Ex-Gitmo Detainees Want to Fuck Us Up:

From the Rude Pundit

Let us say, and why not, that you were Hani Abdul Muslih al Shulan, late of Yemen. And let us say, and, indeed, why not, that in late 2001, the Pakistani military, to which you claim you turned yourself in back in August when you realized shit was going down on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, gave you to the United States, who then sent you down to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility because you were carrying an AK-47 and you were wearing a kind of watch that al-Qaeda has used in bombs and you stayed at some Taliban safehouses along your travels from Yemen to a town just north of Kabul. You say you were looking for a job and were offered one. You say you were a chef's assistant and, no shit, you had a gun. Everyone in the barbaric mountains around you had one.

Maybe this is too specific. Let's make this a bit more abstract. Instead, let's say that you were held without charge or ability to contact your family for six years in, oh, hell, Belgium. There, you were beaten and placed in solitary confinement and forced to endure interrogations that involved blaring music and extreme temperatures and fear-up techniques, and you knew about jackshit about anything your captors wanted to know. Six years of your life, man, and you didn't do a goddamn thing. And the only chance you had to challenge your detention was in a hearing where you couldn't see all the evidence against you. Then, after that six years, you're returned back to your home country, and the people who do want to blow up some Belgians (because their delicious waffles are too tempting) get in touch with you and say, "Hey, man, those Belgians fucked up your world. You wanna fight 'em? We'll call it a job and pay you." Well, what the hell else are you gonna do?

Shit, in our movies, we get off on the protagonist going back and killing the people who tortured them. It's pretty much the plot of every other American action flick. More poignantly, the visceral rush of the South Korean film Oldboy, where a man is kept confined for 15 years and never told why, is subverted by its last act, when the price of vengeance is revealed to be so much higher than simply going on. But when Oh Dae-Su is beating his former captors with a hammer? That's catharsis.

Hani al-Shulan seems like the classic case of a loser being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Repeatedly, it seems, since he was killed last month in an airstrike. There's others, like Ibrahim Sulayman Muhammad Arbaysh, who was sent to Saudi Arabia for anti-jihad re-education after five years at Gitmo. One imagines that it involved book work and electrodes on the balls. He escaped and went to Yemen to get his jihad on. This is not to pronounce guilt or innocence on any of the men. It is to say that guilt or innocence should have been pronounced.

The idea that some released Gitmo detainees might actually be pissed off at the United States, no matter how radical they were before their imprisonment without charge, has provoked huffy, self-righteous outrage from conservative commentators and politicians, especially in the wake of the Christmas taint bomber. David Limbaugh, Rush's vestigial tail, calls for Obama to stop sending detainees back to their homes. With its dying breaths, the Washington Times says the same thing, offering that "Obama sends reinforcements to al Qaeda."

We are incapable of dealing with the notion that whether you're the good guy or the bad guy is a matter of perception. And that sometimes the United States is the bad guy. Unless we're willing to confront that and do something about it (like, at minimum, apologize and offer compensation), then we shouldn't be surprised that Yemeni Mel Gibsons will seek to go all Lethal Weapon on us.

Sometimes there's just nothing to add

After days of essentially unanswered Republican political attacks against the Obama administration, finally, today, we got the big kahuna. The white whale of Republican politics, former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, involved in this.

After five days of Republicans owning the airwaves on this issue, doubling and then tripling down on politicizing this thwarted terrorist attack, with almost no opposition from the Democrats, the maestro of terror politics, Mr. Cheney, gave a statement to Politico.com today. Not decrying the terrorist incident itself, but instead using that attack as an opportunity to bash the president, to accuse the president of not keeping America safe.

Now, as is often the case in politics, when attacks from one side go unanswered for a long time, when one side gets the platform all to themselves, that side can sometimes get over-exuberant. They can overplay their hand. Republicans, left to their own devices, have in this case excitedly launched a series of obviously baseless, factually incorrect, demonstrably untrue and hypocritical attacks.

Dick Cheney`s comments today probably the worst among them. He said, quote, "He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won`t be at war."

Remember Richard Reid, the so-called "shoe bomber"? Richard Reid was arrested December 2001, when a man named Dick Cheney was vice president. The Bush Justice Department let him, as they say, "lawyer up," and Mr. Reid later pled guilty in federal court.

Remember 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui? Same deal. Given American rights, tried in the federal courts and convicted, all while a man named Dick Cheney was vice president.

What President Obama is doing right now with this case is the same thing that was done with the same type of cases while Dick Cheney was vice president. But Dick Cheney isn`t letting anything like that hold him back, saying, quote, "Why doesn`t he want to admit we`re at war? President Obama`s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

According to Dick Cheney, see, this has to be seen as a military issue. This has to be seen as a war. This can`t be seen as law enforcement. This is something -- according to Dick Cheney -- this is something that you handle with the Department of Defense, right? Like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld did.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, do you have any insights you can share with us about Richard Reid, the American Airlines shoe bomber?

DONALD RUMSFELD, THEN-U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That`s a matter that`s in the hands of the law enforcement people and not the Department of Defense.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Nothing you can share?

RUMSFELD: And I don`t have anything I would want to add.

Where was Dick Cheney and his outrage when his administration was treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue?

But, wait, there`s more. Quote, "He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won`t be at war."

Like, for example, do you mean the Guantanamo prisoners your administration released to go to Saudi Arabia to be put in art therapy? The guys who then became leaders of the al Qaeda chapter in Yemen that is reportedly behind the plot to blow up that flight on Christmas Day? Did Mr. Cheney think that we weren`t at war when that decision was made by his administration? Where was his outrage over his own decision then?

We`re hearing over and over and over again from Republicans how President Obama waited too long to comment on the Christmas bombing.

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: Disappointed it`s taken the president 72 hours to even address this issue.

REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R), MICHIGAN: The president has decided to stay silent for 72 hours. That -- he needs to explain that.

KARL ROVE, FMR. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: It`s over 72 hours from the time from the incident until the time the president spoke today.

Seventy-two hours. How could President Obama possibly wait so long to comment?

For the record, after the Richard Reid shoe bombing incident in 2001, President Bush was not seen or heard from for six days. Count `em, six days.

Like President Obama, Mr. Bush was on vacation at the time of that incident. He apparently did not see fit to comment on the situation until almost a full week after it happened.

GEORGE W. BUSH, THEN-U.S. PRESIDENT: The shoe bomber was a case in point where the country has been on alert. I`m grateful for the flight attendant`s response, as I`m sure the passengers on that airplane, but we`ve got to be aware that there are still enemies to the country. And our government is responding accordingly.

Where was the Republican criticism of President Bush back then, for taking so long to make those comments? Perhaps President Bush dodged criticism on matters of terrorism, because of the language he used to talk about the war on terror. Remember, smoke `em out of their caves, bring `em on. That was the type of language that President Bush chose to use when talking about terrorism.

Mr. Obama does it differently. He has a distinctly non-cowboy rhetorical approach to this issue. And that is one of the things that`s also most rankling Republicans right now.

SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The important thing now, Harry, is that the president has downplayed the threat of terrorists since he took office. He doesn`t even use the word anymore.

He doesn`t even use the word anymore. That is true, only in Jim DeMint`s mind.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Terror and extremism that threatens the world`s stability. Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world. Suffering and civil wars that breed instability and terror. New acts of terror.

He never says the word "terror."

Why let a 30-second Google search get in the way of your good sound bite, Senator?

But, you know, Senator DeMint is doing the country a service here -- at least by clarifying things, by getting at the core of the conservative attack on President Obama. It was the whole point of Dick Cheney`s opportunistic statement today. The whole point was that President Obama ought to talk more about war.

Vice President Cheney said, quote, "He seems to think if he gets rid of the words "war on terror," we won`t be at war. Why doesn`t he want to admit we`re at war?"

Keep in mind -- this is coming from the former vice president of the administration whose record of talking about war includes dandies like these.

BUSH: Thanks to the United States and our fine allies. Afghanistan is no longer a haven for terror. The Taliban is history. And the Afghan people are free!

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

DICK CHENEY, THEN-U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think they`re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.

You know, talking about war incessantly, beating your chest about it, acting like a cowboy, making premature declarations of victory over and over and over again might feel good, but those things don`t actually translate into effectively waging war, Mr. Chatty Cathy former vice president.

For the most part, Democrats are letting these charges from Dick Cheney and the rest of the Republicans go unanswered, even though these are charges that collapse very quickly in the face of even rudimentary fact- checking.

But even if you step back from the specific, ridiculous claims that they are making, consider what Republicans are trying to do here. Republicans apparently think they can survive the fact-checking problems they will have here if anybody ever decides to look into these things they`re saying. They think they can survive the fact-checking because they imagine they have this transcendent credibility on national security matters. A credibility on national security that, what, transcends the facts of their record?

The Bush/Cheney administration created the terror watch list system that theoretically should have flagged the Christmas bomber this past Friday. As has been noted, this is a list that has more than 500,000 names on it. That`s handy.

It`s a list that`s full of so much noise, so much useless, incoherent junk that random people like the late Senator Ted Kennedy and the former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens` wife would get hassled at airports all the time because of their position on the list, even though that list could not function properly to keep actual terrorists off of actual planes.

That`s their list. It hasn`t been changed since then. Maybe the problem is that we haven`t cleaned up after the Bush/Cheney administration fast enough.

The Bush-Cheney administration is, inconveniently enough, also on whose watch 9/11 happened -- unless, of course, you ask them about that.

DANA PERINO, FMR. BUSH PRESS SECRETARY: You know, we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush`s term.

MARY MATALIN, FMR. BUSH ASSISTANT: I was there. We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation`s history.

Yes, remember how no terrorist attacks happened when Bush and Cheney were in office? Remember when the nation inherited 9/11 from that incompetent Democratic administration that was in place in September in 2001 -- in the Bush administration`s own minds?

The rallying cry now from Republicans is that we shouldn`t try the Christmas bomber in civilian court -- that, instead, he should be tried in a military tribunal, declared an enemy combatant. I mean, what`s the value of a military tribunal here, other than trying to make political hay out of this case? Really, what`s the justice, anti-terrorist, counterterrorist value on this?

You really think this kid can`t be convicted? You really think we don`t have enough evidence beyond the -- beyond the, I don`t know, 300 or so eyewitnesses who were on the plane? The fact that we have the weapon that he tried to use? The fact that he confessed? You think that`s not enough to get this kid convicted?

You have that little faith in our criminal justice system? That little faith in the rule of law? You don`t believe that a supermax federal American prison is capable of holding this kid? You think it might be cool, instead, to martyr this kid as some impressive soldier, instead of some idiot confused rich kid who couldn`t even handle blowing up his own junk with a bomb that was secreted in his own underpants?

We`re supposed to take national security advice from you guys? Really?

Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra is still the captain of the team on this one, now raising money off of a terrorist attack on Americans, the attempted murder of 300 Americans -- politicizing this issue by soliciting campaign donations for his run for governor of Michigan on the occasion of this terrorist attack.

We contacted Pete Hoekstra`s campaign today. They told us, we should expect to see more of this type of exploitive solicitation from them. They told us that Congressman Hoekstra himself personally signed of on the "using a terrorist attack on Americans to raise money" effort, proudly saying they think they`ve gotten a significant spike in donations as a result of it. Though it`s too early to tell, fingers crossed, maybe something else horrible will happen.

This is the Republican response to this terrorist attack at the end of 2009.

Again, my friends and colleagues in the media have two choices in covering this. You can just copy down what the Republicans and Vice President Cheney are saying, and click "send," call it journalism, or you can actually fact-check those comments and put them into context. Your choice. It`s your country.

U.S. Patriot Act: 'Tea Baggers' are Domestic Terrorists!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Tea Baggers and on-air personalities who have threatened President Barack Obama with death are 'Domestic Terrorists' as defined by the U.S. Patriot Act. Threats against Obama are up 400% over those against Bush and according to many sources, the Secret Service is not able to keep up.

A recent exchange on YouTube convinces me that it is time to to deal with lawless tea baggers while making a point about the rule of law. Those threatening the life of the President have, in fact, sought to '(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion'. That means that threatening the life of the President is an act of terrorism.

Section 802 (Pub. L. No. 107-52) which expands the definition to cover "domestic". terrorism " ...if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion ..."

-- U. S. Patriot Act

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that the U.S. has seen a 35 percent rise in hate groups in recent years, and few doubt that the discontent stirred up over the election of an African-American president is fueling the rise in threats. But, could the influx of modern technology also be to blame?

As the cost of computer technology has fallen (and accessibility to high-speed Internet service has spread), more and more people are spending more and more time online. Accordingly, these people are doing what people often do on the Internet: sending emails, communicating in chat rooms and on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace, watching YouTube videos, etc. According to results of a recent study by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, these activities seem to be enhancing the scope of extremist groups' reach:

-- Report: Secret Service strained to protect Obama

America is as divided now as was England between Protestants and Catholics during the reign of Elizabeth I and, later, James I. James had promised a crackdown after Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliament, an act of terrorism. Overt threats to Obama are, in fact, acts of terrorism as defined in the U.S. Patriot Act.

True to form, just like I called it, even before the New Year could began in earnest three more Black men were lynched in America. Somehow, just saying I told you so doesn’t really do it for me. On New Year’s Eve, Johannes Mehserle a White police officer shot Oscar Grant Jr. a 22 year old Black man in his back, killing him instantly as he lay prone and unarmed on a train platform in Oakland California. The incident was caught on tape. It became just the latest public lynching of a Black man in the United States, and it sparked several days of angry rebellion.1

On that very same day, in Bellaire Texas a police officer shot the 23 year old son of Bobby Tolan, a once famous professional baseball player. Robbie Tolan ended up with a bullet lodged in his liver, only because as he stood in the driveway of his own home, a White police officer simply assumed that the car he actually owned was a stolen vehicle.2 Then, hours later on New Year’s Day, nine police officers in New Orleans discharged their weapons 48 times and put 12 bullets into the back of yet another young unarmed African American man; 22-year-old Adolph Grimes was shot dead in a hail of gunfire just a few feet away from his grandmother’s home. A total of 14 bullets pierced violently through his body. ...

All that it requires is the will and the means to take someone’s life. Now, with the election of the first Black man to the highest office in the land, it appears as if some White people across the country have simply lost their minds.

-- Death Threats Against Obama - Racist Atrocities Soar As America Regurgitates Its Soul

Everyone threatening the life of President Barack Obama is a terrorist as defined clearly and unambiguously in the U.S. Patriot Act!


A Summary of 'Terrorist' Threats Against President Obama

Anyone making threats against Obama, be they Beck, Billo or Limbaugh should be prosecuted under the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act!

The "War on Christmas" 2009

The first shot fired in the War on Christmas in 2009 was heard in California in early November. It seems that in San Francisco, a woman with the unfortunate name of Merry Hyatt, a 61-year-old substitute teacher, felt that children were being deprived of their childhood (or some crap) if they couldn't sing Christmas carols in public schools. Even the relatively balanced story showed her to be too mentally deficient to teach anyone not in a coma, since it closed out with her explaining her own mental blind spots:

But she added that in her experience as a substitute teacher in schools in largely Latino, largely Christian neighborhoods in Southern California, she had not often encountered people who do not celebrate Christmas.

"I don’t think I’ve ever had a Jewish child in one of my classes," she said. "If so they never said anything."

If you don't believe in Jews, does that make you an atheist?

The rightards, of course, don't get it. They, living in their dream of victimization, like to make factually incorrect claims:

The month of December has arrived and with it comes the annual attacks on Christmas by the atheist movement and their legal/political arm, the ACLU. For some reason, the Nativity, songs of joy and the celebration of the Christ Child’s birth bring out the rage and open hatred of many people across the United States.

While the truth is, it's only when government money is being spent pimping out Mary and her kid that the activists feel a need to make noise; private celebrations of whatever faith you practice aren't an issue.

And then you've got people who make so many justifications for their belief that there is a "War on Christmas" that they manage to make the term even more meaningless.

So, a quick disclaimer: I'm sure if you search long and hard enough, you'll find somebody who gets cranky and shouty about any religious display. Don't worry, True Believer, that's a significant minority. Less of a percentage than the number of Christians who are so fervently pro-life that they think it's OK to kill people.

Of course, it's possible that available merchandise like this won't make them any happier. (I think it's pretty cool, though.)

But just like in years past, you can find websites dedicated to telling you which retailers are "Christmas-Friendly" and which are "Christmas-Offensive."

Of course, you can always use that same website to tell you which retailers you should go to, because they don't kiss the butt of the theocrats and religious loons. So maybe they do serve some kind of purpose.

The soldiers in the War on Christmas apparently feel that they can put words in their Savior's mouth. There'a a billboard in Ohio reading:

I miss hearing you say "Merry Christmas." - Jesus

Ignoring the fact that... well, shouldn't Jesus be able to speak for Himself? I mean, really now, "Son of God" should probably mean something, shouldn't it?

Now, sometimes the whole "Battleground: Christmas" thing morphs into something so twisted that it gives you a headache roughly the size of the township of Waterbury, Connecticut.

See, what's happening in Waterbury is that the principal of Walsh Elementary School decided to downplay the use of Christmas symbols. It got more publicity when a member of the school board tried to promote a policy allowing each teacher the freedom to decide for themselves whether to hang icons to Santa Claus in their classroom.

The right wing, of course, completely lost their shit over this, with comments like:

"so for a few many must suffer.... you ar in a senses teaching religion....by not allowing these CHRISTMAS celebrations you are teaching the children that there is something wrong with them , so in effect you are teaching the Atheist beliefs..... whats next you going to remove the American flag because that offends someone "

"Another example of why this country is destined to fail"

"What the hell is this country coming to???
We have Christmas, like it or not! And if you are of the faith that does not celebrate it, too bad for you."

Of course, as it turns out, the problem was not the atheists trying to drive God out of the classroom, but the faithful Christians getting upset.

See, that particular school district has a very large community of Pentecostal and Jehovah's Witness families, and they objected to secular decorations causing damage to the Jesus-lobes in their children's brains.

So that particular battle in the "War on Christmas" involved Christians demanding that less-faithful Christians stop interfering with their worship of Christ (or, at least, their particular flavor of Christ). Am I getting this right?

And then you have Taunton, Massachusetts. According to initial reports, a young boy was sent home from school for drawing a crucifix when a teacher asked the students to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas.

This, of course, caused the testicles of much of the right wing to suck up inside their body cavities, causing them to make annoyingly high pitched shrieks of anger. Michell Malkin's testicles, for example, sent her voice to E over high C, as she compared this to murder and alleged child molesters.

Of course, the problem was that the newspaper got the story completely wrong. In reality, the kid drew a crucified stick figure entirely on his own, and then labeled it with his own name. The teacher, reasonably enough, saw this as something to be concerned about. But the rightards were too wrapped up in finding the next Great Liberal Atheist Conspiracy to pay attention to little things like "facts."

Of course, if they even listened to their own wide-eyed rantings once in a while, they might have picked up on the fact that it's unlikely that the teacher would have asked her students to draw any kind of Christmas picture. ("War on Christmas," remember?)

A better clue, though, was unavailable in initial reports. The father came right out and made the following statement.

“It hurts me that they did this to my kid,’’ Chester Johnson, the boy’s father, said in an interview with the Globe. “They can’t mess with our religion. They owe us a small lump sum for this."

I'm thinking that statement explains exactly what this is about. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, does it?

But generally, I think that even Jesus would agree with the following statements:

1. If you want to worship Christ, go ahead.

2. If you want a whole manger scene erected, showing the Wise Men coming to Bethlehem to worship the Baby Jesus in the manger, set one up. In your own front lawn. With your own money.

3. If you want the state to pay for it, what the hell is the matter with you?

Is that clear enough?
_________________

Update (12/29): And it looks like I missed one: Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) has introduced congressional resolution 951, to condemn people who say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."

Of course, Rep. Brown's head is so far up his ass that he's licking his own taint.

Indeed, Brown has even attempted to use his resolution as a jab against President Obama. Declaring that the Obamas’ holiday card doesn’t mention Christmas, Brown said, "I believe that sending a Christmas card without referencing a holiday and its purpose limits the Christmas celebration in favor of a more 'politically correct' holiday." Brown’s fight to preserve Christmas and shun "happy holidays" has earned him the title of "patriot" from noted culture warrior Bill O’Reilly.

However, Brown’s 2008 December newsletter wished a "happy holiday" to his constituents for the "holiday season." Although the newsletter had a link to the White House Christmas tree website, it made no other mention of Christ or Christmas. (Click here for a screenshot) And as Slate’s Chris Beam has observed, Brown didn’t introduce his resolution last year, even though President Bush’s 2008 holiday card didn’t mention Christmas either.

So obviously, Henry is doing his best to uphold the fine tradition of inbreeding in South Carolina.

A reflection on the season

As we fight our way toward the end of this holiday season, it’s time to remember what they used to teach us in civics class: America is the Great Melting Pot. And let’s consider this last couple of weeks at the end of December 2009, leading into January 2010.

Yes, you know about Christmas, but are you aware that it’s supposed to go for 12 days? Remember the carol, with all the lords leaping and stuff? Yeah, it runs through January 7th (also known, conveniently, as Twelfth Night). And every one of those days is actually a holiday in its own right: don’t forget the Feast of the Holy Innocents on December 28, for example.

(For the record, Christmas was banned by the Puritans in early America, and our Founding Fathers disapproved of it because they thought it was a British custom. It wasn’t made an official holiday in America until President Ulysses S. Grant signed it into law in 1870. Just so you know.)

Some of you (at least 1.5% of you, by most estimates) are aware that Hanukkah started December 12 this year, and ran for 8 days. (If this is the first you’re hearing of it, you missed out.)

The first day of winter 2009, or the Winter Solstice (see also Yule) was December 21. (Yes, Yule. As in "Troll the ancient Yuletide carol" – work with me here, people!).

Festivus (for the rest of us) is set on December 23. Enough on that.

While many of you think of December 24 as Christmas Eve, among Tibetan Buddhists in 2009, this is a day to meditate on Red Tara, one aspect of the Holy Mother.

Large portions of the world celebrate Boxing Day on 26 December (also called St Stephen’s Day, except where the Feast of St Stephen is celebrated on the 27th, or sometimes January 9th). Our Zoroastrian friends mark that day as Zarathosht Diso (Death of Prophet Zarathushtra) this year, and Tantric Buddhists (primarily initiates) celebrate Dakas’ Day by making offerings to Father Tantra.

Kwanzaa also starts on December 26 and runs through January 1, which also happens to be New Years Day if you’re a big fan of the Gregorian calendar. On the other hand, Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) was back in September this year, Islamic New Year (al-Hijra/Muharram) was December 18, and Chinese New Year will be February 14 next year.

December 27 marks Ashura for the Islamic peoples, and December 31 brings Hogmanay to our Scottish brethren (it’s mostly like New Years, but runs two days – sometimes three, since January 2 is a Scottish Bank Holiday).

And this is barely scratching the surface; I’ve probably left out more than I mentioned.

So, as we enter the first of our two four-day weekends (for those of us fortunate enough to get that), remember to greet each other in the way that seems most appropriate.

Happy Holidays!

Harry Reid and the Sad Facts of American Compromises

An essay by the Rude Pundit

For two minutes, the Rude Pundit listened to Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas talk about the "back room deals" and "pay-offs" that got the straggling members of the Democratic caucus to go along with the compromise of the compromise of the compromise of the already-compromised-from-the-start health care reform bill. And then within another minute, he found this on Cornyn's Senate website, which says that Cornyn "Helped create a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit for Seniors: Senator Cornyn was a strong supporter of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, which, for the first time, provided Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug benefit and expanded health plan options."

And then it took less than another minute to find out some of what it cost to get that 2003 bill passed, with the vote of Cornyn, the proud conservative with a voice that sounds like he's been kicked in the taint by a nervous mule he was standing behind.

To pass the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, there was the $25 billion "rural package," which profited hospitals in southern and western states, with "rural" meaning cities like Corpus Christi, Texas, with a quarter million people. Hell, Chuck Grassley got $151 million for hospitals in Iowa. That's $151 million just for the hospitals, not for, say, a natural disaster fucking up the state's infrastructure. So compare that with the uproar over the $300 million that Democrat Mary Landrieu secured for Katrina-buggered Louisiana in exchange for her vote on 2009's health care reform.

The Bush administration also got $900 million put into the bill essentially so that the White House could reward the districts of loyal Republicans with hospital funds. You wanna talk about bribes? Here's some motherfucking bribes: "Among them were two hospitals in the Texas district of Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a member of the conference committee on the Medicare bill. Ten hospitals in Connecticut, home of US Representative Nancy Johnson, another Republican member of the conference committee, also benefited. Pennsylvania, represented by Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who had crusaded for health care money, had 13 institutions in the victory column."

By the way, Democrats got their states paid, too. Max Baucus of Montana and Kent Conrad of South Dakota got funds for their states' hospitals, as did Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Harry Reid of Nevada. What did Republicans get for these (to put it politely) fund allocations? All of those Democrats voted for cloture on the conference report. All but Reid voted for the bill.

Let's not forget America's great wilderness welfare state. As an aide to Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski said, "They were counting votes, and the Alaska delegation was pretty set on it." Which meant that Alaska got $53 million over two years for that state's doctors. Goddamn, they must miss Ted Stevens.

While giving money to rural hospitals generally ought to be a good thing, you can be sure that what the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act did, beyond rewarding pharmaceutical companies for being total dickheads, was enrich corporate, for-profit hospital chains. Bitches gots to get paid. And John Cornyn had no problem with it then.

So, now, with the current Senate Health Care Reform bill, where, for instance, Michelle Malkin is screeching about bribes in that brain-damaged ferret way she has, Harry Reid is absolutely right when he says, dismissively, "There are a hundred senators here, and I don’t know if there is a senator who doesn’t have something in this bill that is important to them, and if they don’t have something in it important to them, then that doesn’t speak well of them." Or, in other words, "Suck my balls."

Sure, sure, this is a ludicrous system, where one nutzoid's "bribe" is another Congress member's bread and butter, where every compromise comes down to dollars (or abortion, but that's for another discussion), where compromise in DC simply seems like the art of sacrificing on the left until almost nothing we hold dear remains. Yet it behooves us to remember that we are a nation founded on the most heartbreaking compromise in our history. The Constitution almost didn't come into being, and therefore the United States itself, until abolition of slavery was compromised away, until the horror was actually put into the document.

Why bring this up? For one of those hyperbolic comparisons that blogs are mocked for (even if the breathless rhetoric coming from the GOP and Michael Steele puts bloggery to shame)? No. It's that every compromise, even the most vicious, must leave the lingering question, which will not be answered here: is it better than the alternative, which is failure?

7 Reasons for Atheists to Celebrate the Holidays

By Greta Christina, AlterNet
I have to argue with #2, though. I've been done with Chrismas songs for about a month now...

It's often assumed that the atheist position on what is politely termed "the holiday season" is one of disregard at best, contempt and annoyance at worst. After all, the reasons for most of the standard winter holidays are supposedly religious -- the birth of the Savior, eight days of miraculous light, yada yada yada. Why would atheists want anything to do with that?

But atheists' reactions to the holidays are wildly varied. Yes, some atheists despise them: the enforced jollity, the shameless twisting of genuine human emotion to sell useless consumer crap, the tyrannical forcing of mawkish piety down everyone's throats. (Some believers loathe the holidays for the exact same reasons.)

But some of us love the holidays. We love the parties, the decorations, the smell of evergreen trees in people's houses, the excuse to eat ourselves sick, the reminder that we do in fact love our families and friends. We're cognizant of the shameless twisting and mawkish piety and whatnot -- but we can deal with it. It's worth it for an excuse to drink eggnog with our loved ones and bellow out "Angels We Have Heard On High" in half-assed four-part harmony. (In fact, when it comes to the holidays, atheists are damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we scorn the holidays, we're called Scroogy killjoys. If we embrace them, we're called hypocrites. Oh, well. Whaddya gonna do.)

So today, I want to talk about some of the reasons some atheists love the holidays, in hopes that believers might better understand who we are and where we're coming from ... and in hopes that a few Scroogy killjoys, atheist and otherwise, might be tempted to join the party. (If not -- no big. I recognize and validate your entirely reasonable annoyance at the holidays. And besides, Scroogy killjoys are an important holiday tradition.)

Speaking of which:

Reason #7: Holiday traditions are comforting. The human need for tradition and ritual seems to be deeply ingrained. It's comforting to do things at the same time every day or every year: things we did as children, things our parents and grandparents did. It gives us a sense of continuity, of being part of a pattern that's larger than ourselves, of passing along ideas and customs that we hope will live on after we die. For those of us who don't believe in an afterlife, that last bit can be extra important. And when those customs and rituals are about joy and celebration and people we love and so on, that makes it extra nifty.

#6: The holidays connect us with our ancestors...and with the earth and the seasons. In modern civilized culture, we tend to treat the changing seasons largely as a fashion challenge and an excuse to complain. (Even in San Francisco, where the temperature rarely gets above 80 or below 40, we still gripe about the weather.)

But the changing seasons were a critically important part of our ancestors' lives; a matter of life and death, watched and marked with great and careful attention. The winter solstice holidays rose up as a way to mark those changes...and to celebrate the all-important imminent return of the sun, warmth and longer days. Celebrating the holidays reminds us of what life was like for the people who came before us -- the people who are responsible for us being here.

#5: Presents. 'Nuff said.

#4: The War on the War on Christmas. Watching Bill O'Reilly and the Christian Right work themselves into an annual lather over the fact that (a) not everyone in America celebrates Christmas; and (b) some well-mannered businesses choose to recognize this fact by using ecumenical or secular holiday greetings...is some of the best free entertainment we could ask for.

Sure, it's theocratic. Sure, it's bigoted. Sure, it has its roots in anti-Semitism and white supremacy. But it's also freaking hilarious. Watching these hypocrites twist themselves into knots explaining why America is a Christian nation and it's the grossest insult to acknowledge the existence of other religions by saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"... and why this stance somehow isn't shameless religious bigotry? It's the best contortionist act in town. And like the circus, it comes around every year.

#3: The holidays connect us with the universe. Axial tilt is the reason for the season! For many atheists, one of the greatest joys of atheism is that it opens up an awe-inspiring world of science. It's not that believers don't care about science: many of them do. But the passionate love of science is a defining feature of the atheist movement, and many of us will take any opportunity to gush about the topic ad nauseam, usually in embarrassing, Carl Sagan-esque, "billions and billions of stars" purple prose.

And the holidays are another excuse to go gaga over the wonders of science. They're another way to celebrate the fact that we're living on a tilty rock whizzing through frigid space around a white-hot ball of incandescent plasma. Neat!

#2: The music. You heard me right. I actually like holiday music.

Not the gloppy shopping-mall Muzak that gets forced into our bleeding eardrums every year, despite our cries of pain and pathetic pleas for mercy. I hate that stuff as much as anyone. But some holiday music is seriously pretty. The soaring eerieness of "The Angel Gabriel"; the strangely haunting cheeriness -- or cheery hauntingness? -- of "Chanukah, Oh Chanukah"; the lilting saunter of "Walking in a Winter Wonderland"; the majestic transcendence of "Angels We Have Heard On High" (especially when sung in half-assed, eggnog-addled four-part harmony). Some of this stuff is freaking gorgeous. The really old stuff, especially. If you like the tunes but can't stomach the lyrics... well, there's a wide world of holiday song parodies at your disposal. (My personal faves: the H.P. Lovecraft ones, and the Christmas-themed parody of "Bohemian Rhapsody.")

And as I discovered when I was digging up lyrics for a Christmas party songbook, a lot of holiday music is entertainingly grotesque and surreal. You don't have to dip into the Lovecraft Solstice Songbook to find holiday songs about blood, suffering, torment and death. I mean, "Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume/ Breathes a life of gathering gloom/Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying/ Sealed in a stone cold tomb"? What's not to like?

And the number one reason for atheists to celebrate the holidays:

#1: For the same damn reason everyone else does. Because it's dark and cold, and it's going to be dark and cold for a while...so it's a perfect time to decorate and light lights and celebrate the fact that we're alive. Because we're all going to be cooped up inside together for a while...so it's a perfect time to have parties and give presents and eat big festive dinners and otherwise remind ourselves of why we love each other. Because this time of year can truly suck...so it's a perfect time to remember that the cold and dark won't be here forever, and that the warmth and light are coming back.

Any day now.

Lieberman and Obama: An Egotist and a Moderate

The Senate has placed Joe Lieberman in charge, and scuttled any kind of actual healthcare reform that they might have passed.

The beginning of the end came last month, when Harry Reid handed Lieberman the reins, by openly saying “I’m not using reconciliation.” Once Reid did that, Little Joe knew that everything hinged on his vote, and he could do whatever he wanted.

And what he wanted was to be the most important person around. Well, the Democrats gave him that, so he should be happy now.

Lieberman has always been driven by his ego. We saw that in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary, and decided to run as an independent, because he couldn’t stand the thought that Connecticut might run without him. In fact, here’s what somebody relatively smart said about him back then.

Let’s be clear on what we have here. Joe Lieberman, a man who once said, while talking about the 2004 elections, "Senator Kerry got a lot of votes, 56 million votes, more than any Democratic candidate for president in history, but there's no prizes for second place in American politics."

Suddenly, because he doesn’t like how things turned out, that idea is out the window. Where he once wanted people to accept the results of an election, now he wants to ignore it completely. He wants to be handed the prize for coming in second...

It's simple human nature on Lieberman's part. He likes to claim that he's one of the "common people," but he's more of a child of privilege. He was born in Stamford, Connecticut, which isn't exactly Compton or South Philly. And he went to Yale, not the local community college.

Every time anybody mentions Ned Lamont, they like to add the adjective "millionaire" in front of his name, in the same place that the word "Senator" gets place in front of Lieberman. But that ignores the fact that Joe Lieberman, in his 2003 financial disclosure form, showed that he had a net worth of somewhere between $482,000 to $1.8 million. The man isn't exactly worrying about whether he can make the rent this month.

That's how I see it. Joe Lieberman thinks that he deserves to be a Senator. It's his right. He feels that he was elected three times, so he's entitled to the job now. He earned it. This attitude, of course, ignores the fact that he wasn't elected this time, but Joe isn't paying attention to that little fact now. He's like a sulky two-year-old - if reality doesn't fit with what he wants, that reality must be wrong.

And once he knew that there was nothing to stop him from being a roadblock, he could reverse himself on everything he’s ever said. After all, it was just three months ago that Lieberman said that he supported an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid to people as young as "post-50... maybe more like post-55."



In fact, in 2000, Lieberman was openly running on a campaign that included expanding Medicare to include more Americans.

But that's OK. We understand that Lieberman is a self-absorbed, lying sack of rotting pig carcasses. That's not the question. The question is, why isn't Obama pushing harder for real healthcare reform?

That one's easy. Barack Obama is a politician, and understands that he needs to get something into law. Whether he works to improve it later will be the question.

Obama isn't just a politician, though. He's a damned sight better, as both a leader and as a human being, than the previous administration, but there's something that he is not and never has been: a leftist.

He is, in fact, a fairly centrist politician.

That statement may very well come as a surprise to some people. If brought to the attention of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, there is a distinct possibility that it would cause either or both of them to have an abrupt coronary occlusion.

But it's true. He's, at best, a moderate. Which is a shame: after the disaster of the Bush/Cheney years, America had it's best chance of electing an actual liberal. But that chance was shelved.

This is not to say that Obama is some massive failure as president. He was handed a basketful of challenges when he was elected, and he's working his way through them. The economy is improving, unemployment is falling, we're scaling back in Iraq and Afghanistan (although we aren't doing it as quickly as I'd like).

But it would be nice if Obama could figure out that bipartisanship is a myth, and Joe Lieberman is a self-centered GOP tool.

The Cool Flat Earth

By Author Bob (Robert Charest), over on Whammer's Blog

“We live in an age where truth is no longer held in high regard.” Hank Hanegraaff, during his segment on WTBN Christian Radio, Monday, December 14, 2009.

Nowhere is that more evident than on WTBN.

The way God guides my mind to answer my prayers for wisdom and understanding of scripture amazes me continually. Last night before bed I was pondering how to address WTBN’s latest crusade AGAINST truth—this time global warming, and WTBN’s public stance that it is not a real phenomenon, and that scientists are lying. Emboldened by the recent release of emails hacked from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the voices of WTBN are screaming that this proves global warming is a hoax fabricated by fudged science. I fell asleep with WTBN playing softly in the background and when I awoke this morning that statement from Mr. Hanegraaff were the very first words I heard. I couldn’t have phrased it more succinctly.

And thus does WTBN bear witness against itself.

Here are some excerpts of Cal Thomas’ commentaries that were aired on WTBN December 3rd and December 8th. “The global warming fiction is unraveling…the president of the Czech Republic says global warming is a politician’s myth…in Denmark, where the climate conference is being held this week, a local newspaper reports the country is ‘rife with CO2 fraud and the entire global warming myth is a comprehensive tax scam’…look at the people pushing global warming; they are mostly control freaks who want more power and money for themselves and less freedom for you…this is the left’s religion. While denying God, the left is committed to saving the planet. Why? If there is no God, we might just as well eat, drink, pollute and be merry for tomorrow we die. For what are we trying to save the planet?”

Those notions are muddled, weird and frankly, nonsense. If I love Christ, how does it reason that I deny God? Nor am I a control freak interested in power and money and depriving others’ freedoms. But I do believe in saving the planet. Exactly how am I wrong in respecting God’s creation? Dominion over the earth is a not license to destroy.

The Associated Press analyzed the 1073 hacked emails totaling approximately one million words, and said that ‘they show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.’

Maybe a little parable will wipe the paste from your eyes and melt the wax in your ears. There was a landowner who lived in a mansion and had a couple of smaller homes he let out to tenants. One of the tenants trimmed the gardens, touched up the paint and maintained beautiful grounds. The other chopped the flowers, watered the weeds, sledgehammered the walls and burned the place down. When the landowner goes on vacation, which tenant will be trusted to house sit the mansion?

For many centuries the church held to the false belief that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. This adherence to an untruth was as it is written in Matthew 15:9 ‘In vain do they worship me, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.’ The famous Polish astronomer Copernicus advanced the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, but did not publish his work until late in life, in part because he feared the church would brand him a heretic, and after destroying his reputation would sentence him to imprisonment or death.

So goes it today, with global warming scientific fact and WTBN as they represent the belligerent, self-righteous right wing deniers of that truth. There is a massive, expanding hole in the ozone layer. FACT. Once snow-capped mountains are barren. FACT. The polar ice caps are melting. FACT. Arctic and Antarctic wildlife is dying as their natural habitats and feeding grounds are vanishing beneath their feet. FACT. Average temperatures and water levels around the world are rising rapidly. FACT. WTBN’s stand on the issue? WRONG. On this matter WTBN clings to FALSEHOODS and LIES.

Let us take a little stroll down scripture lane and drink in some truth. The teachers and preachers on WTBN are in consistent agreement that these are the latter days as described by biblical prophecy, notably but not limited to the wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes in various places foretold by Christ in The Olivet Discourse, which is the twenty fourth chapter of Matthew.

Now let us move along to a description of the end of the world. “But the day of the LORD will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up.” 2 Peter 3:10.

And finally, on into the Revelation of our Lord and Savior, where the seven angels are pouring out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth in these latter days. “And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues; and repented not to give him glory.” Revelation 16: 9-10.

Back in the sixteenth century it turned out that Copernicus, in the far corner, representing science, was right, and the church, in the near corner, representing the false doctrine of hardheaded men, was wrong. So who are we to believe today: WTBN, or scientific truth as it corroborates the VERY WORD OF GOD?

I will say WTBN is right about one thing: we live in an age where truth is no longer held in high regard.

Friends don't let friends post drunk

OK, so I think that my mind is now blown. Here's where I am at the moment.

I started moderating comments a few weeks ago, because Uncle Slam (or Pat Riot, or whatever incarnation you might choose) started to get racist and ignorant; I threw it up for a vote, and the couple of commenters who weighed in said to vote him off the island.

OK, fine. I'm there. Since then, he's been weighing in several times a week, and I've taken to just deleting him without looking. No problem, that's the way blogspot does it.

But, just last night, I get a comment from the ever-entertaining Eric Graff (eMan), where he says:

You say I should try it… venting as you just did Bill, so here goes.

You may be wondering why I took aim at Diogenes recently. He said things about my mother and about me after I had told people on my blog that my mother was near death. The things he said were vile and filled with hate. He commented repeatedly and I was pushed to anger, and I said some things I now regret. Diogenes never regrets anything. He has taken back none of his terrible remarks. I just read how you even wonder why he spends time on my blog. He does so to spread his detestation and ire at me.

I had a little fun with your words in one of my posts but it was in jest and if you have no humor in your life then you obviously would be prone to taking it personally and incorrectly. I’m not easily offended. Diogenes is an exception. He attacked my mother and me personally and repeatedly when I was vulnerable and deeply hurt by his words.

If Diogenes continues this, I cannot be responsible for what happens: He will have brought my anger and rage on himself. Each instance I have posted is in RESPONSE to him, not vice versa. The strange thing is he posts anonymously and not under the Diogenes name, but I know it’s him because my live feed tells me his IP address each time he is there and the time corresponds with his comments.

I realize you have no control over him, but he is making you look bad by association. Your ways and thoughts are 180 degrees out of phase with mine. That’s just the way it is. But you don’t do what he does either. Not even close. And to be associated with one like him is at the least damaging and at most, alarming to anyone who knows you.

If he continues I will find him. My pursuit will be relentless and painful. I am in no way making fun or kidding you: If he continues it will happen. And when found I will exact the pain on him X 10. You are asked here to do what you can to get him to stop. I do this because what he is doing and the things he has said have cause another great pain and anguish. If you are decent, you will do this. If not, then I shall do what I need to do with prejudice.

Post this if you wish, I don’t care. You are human, as am I. What this person is doing, is not.

Um... wow...

OK. Let me get this straight... I'm being asked to be the adult in the room?

What the fuck?!?!?!

OK, here. Let's see...

Diogenes, please don't fuck with Eric any more. It's like being in the Special Olympics. Maybe you win, but still...

Crap, I can't do this. This is just stupid.

Dio, go ahead. Fuck with him all you want. Assuming he's got some live feed tracker on you, he'll get about a ten-mile by ten-mile area where you might be, assuming that your internet server is placing you properly, as opposed to reading you wherever the fuck it wants, like most of them do. (And if you're on one of the major all-inclusive servers, like AOL or Compuserve, you'll be listed as being in the nearest hub, which could be hundreds of miles away.)

And Eric, grow the fuck up. There's no reason to even open his comments, much less get your panties all knotted up about it. "Uncle Slam" still throws comments my way, and they just go into the trash unread.

Speaking of Slammy, at least a couple of weeks ago - last time I went by your site - he was a regular poster for you. I've got somebody who hurt your tender feelings posting here, you've got a racist homophobe posting on yours. You're judged by the company you keep, Eric.

Oh, plus, your words are all out in the open, big fella. Threats, especially against somebody you have no way to find, are stupid. Even if you could find him, anything you did is now tagged "malice aforethought." Christ, but you aren't a bright man, are you?

("My pursuit will be relentless and painful"? Really? You're going to go barefoot over broken glass or something?)

So, what would Jesus do?
_______________

Update (12/16/09): I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough.

Eric, I have no control or influence on Diogenes. He posts responses here, and I've never had a problem with him. I'm done with you and your weirdly failing mental state, though. I would suggest that you get some counseling to deal with this odd concatentation of neuroses and phobias that afflict you, but you probably can't afford that particularly intensive level of psychological help. And since you're opposed to health care (after all, Lazarus and the lepers did all right without government intervention, right?), I guess you're just duty-bound to end up chained in the basement gibbering and crying in a pool of your own waste.

Shoo, now. Go away. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.

My annual rant

You know, the guiding principles of several Eastern schools of thought, such as Zen Buddhism or the writings of the Taoist philosophers, lead people to strive for balance. Of course, in order to achieve this balance, sometimes you have to lock away those black thoughts that man is prone to. Having done that, you have a choice: you can either let this poison out every so often, or you can allow the darkness to pool inside your gut and eat you up from the inside.

Personally, I prefer to let it out every so often.

Now, you understand that everything that follows is my own opinion. Bolstered, perhaps, by easily-checked facts, but entirely my own opinion, and thus not subject to any silly charges of "libel" or "slander."

But Dick Cheney, for the last year or so, has been vocal about his opposition to everything Barack Obama does and stands for. Just this last week, he went on the Fox "News" channel with the eternally-vacuous Sean ("Greatest, Best Talking Point the GOP Gave Man") Hannity, to reiterate pretty much the same things he's been saying since he was evicted from his cushy job of destroying the country.

Over the course of the hour-long tongue-bath Hannity gave to the flaccid, wrinkled tool and sagging nutsack of the former Vice President, Cheney vomited up his usual litany of opinions: that Obama consistently apologizes for America (a country which has never done anything wrong), is weak and indecisive, shouldn't offer fair trials to criminals, and "doesn't fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism."

Now, is it just me, or would it be fair to say that, when your legacy (such as it is) will be that you played Vice to the single worst President in United States history (and I firmly believe that you could even factor the Emperor Norton into this equation), perhaps your opinion really doesn't matter as much as Sean Hannity thinks it does?

Should we be taking foreign policy advice from the man who played first chair (if not puppetmaster) to an administration who consistently fucked up every foreign policy decision they encountered? His philosophies are the smallpox blanket of the political landscape.

Cheney doesn't even have Rush Limbaugh's excuse of raging addiction to prescription drugs. Although, to be fair, at this point Dick Cheney's metabolism has probably been subtly altered to a state where it demands both Lipitor and stool softeners on an hourly basis, but there are very few people who would include that condition in their definition of "addiction." It's not like he takes them for pleasure (except, perhaps, the simple joy of an unencumbered crap); there has been no pleasure in the Cheney household since the Harding administration.

Dick Cheney is the dung beetle who walks like a man. He is such an openly counterfeit shell of humanity that growing up in the same household put his daughter Mary off of men entirely.

This is the man who was still taking several million dollars every year from Halliburton, while steering billions of no-bid contracts their way; but even given that fact, there are still people who believe that he can even write the word "honor" without his hand bursting into flame.

He is an open, pustulant sore on the face of humanity, oozing a slimetrail of misery in his wake, and there can be no benefit to him walking freely and unshackled among the good peoples of this great nation.

Dick Cheney is a coward who took five deferments to avoid going to Vietnam (a lovely vacation spot where my father had the opportunity to spend not one, but two tours).

Who believes that the best military advice comes from a man who mismanaged the two wars he had a chance to help lead, and ran screaming like a little girl from the one he had a chance to participate in?

There is a political faction in this country who believes that America would be best served if Dick Cheney were to run for President in 2012; there is even a portion of them (including his daughter) who have suggested Sarah Palin as his running mate.

That would be a nightmare scenario that even Stephen King would balk at writing: Dick Cheney destroying America, and then dying so that Sarah Palin could skullfuck the twitching remains of the country with her Alaskan strap-on.

You do remember Sarah Palin, right? (I'd like to say that I don't, but the media won't let me forget about her.) A woman so hypocritical that she called Barack Obama a socialist, even as she was signing the checks sending the profits of Exxon-Mobil to the citizens of Alaska.

Sarah Palin is a raging narcissist so self-deluded that she accused Obama of being inexperienced, while her résumé consisted of:
- Beauty contestant who could barely manage the title of "Miss Congeniality,"
- sportscaster,
- mayor of a town roughly the size of a Super Walmart,
- a partial term as governor of Alaska (a job she wasn't competent enough to complete, incidentally).

Perhaps I'll discuss Sarah Palin some other time. For the moment, fuck her, fuck her useless husband who can't hold down a job, and fuck the political props she calls "her family."

I'm not even positive that Cheney is qualified to be President now. He is, after all, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton. So when that company moved their headquarters to the now-struggling Dubai (fleeing the Justice Department and Securities Exchange Commission), wouldn't that have changed Cheney to a citizen of the United Arab Emirates?

Dick Cheney is the rectal polyp who would be king. There is no joy in his heart - there is, in fact, some question about whether the shriveled black lump in his chest qualifies as a "heart"; it definitely doesn't perform any primary cardiac functions well.

I would say that Dick Cheney could suck my balls, if I wasn't positive that the sight of this bloated slug kneeling in front of me laving my testicles with his tongue would cause me to wake up screaming every night for the rest of my life.

Dick Cheney is a shambling undead corpse, screaming for the blood of our servicemen to be shed at the altar of his false, evil gods of war and despair.

When Dick Cheney dies, there will be more light in the world. And it is entirely possible that when the combination of massive doses of pharmaceuticals and a daily regimen of cardiac stimulation finally fails him and his heart stops for the last time, the faint singing of angels will be heard throughout the land.
_________

And having said all of that, I feel better already. I'm happy, relaxed, and at peace with the world around me. You should try it sometime.

Here we come a'wassailing

Well, Thanksgiving is over. And as the Christmas season starts to spark into full, capitalist-driven life, let's consider some of the older traditions that accompany it.

Wassail, for example.

Now, the average American, for a number of good reasons, has no idea what "wassail" might be. The closest they might come to it is the old carol from which this post takes its name, Here We Come A'Wassailing.

Now, traditionally, "wassailing" was based in the Anglo-Saxon habit where a group of peasants went to the lord's manor and sang badly until they were given something, usually food or drink, just to make them shut up. We can see this reflected in the lyrics to We Wish You a Merry Christmas, where they end up begging for "figgy pudding." (Somehow, I doubt that a box of Fig Newtons would cover it for them, but what do I know?)

Etymologically, "wassail" apparently traces back to the Anglo-Saxon phrase wæs þu hæl ("be thou hale," or "be in good health"). This was shortened at some point to Wæs hal! ("Be healthy!"), and thus to "wassail." And wassail was the liquid equivalent of the figgy pudding, a drink that the master could keep on hand for the servants to ladle out to whoever came around singing.

If you look around, you'll find an abundance of recipes claiming to be wassail. Some of them are fruit punches, some are based on tea, but none of them are likely to be accurate - many are based on various formulations of mulled cider.

Now, Alton Brown (our cooking lord and savior, blessed be his name) did a little research, and came up with a recipe for wassail that may be entirely accurate.

Alton Brown's Wassail Recipe

6 small Fuji apples, cored
1 cup brown sugar
1 cup water
72 ounces ale
750 ml Madeira
10 whole cloves
10 whole allspice berries
1 cinnamon stick, 2-inches long
1 teaspoon ground ginger
1 teaspoon ground nutmeg
6 large eggs, separated

Directions

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.

Put the apples into an 8 by 8-inch glass baking dish. Spoon the brown sugar into the center of each apple, dividing the sugar evenly among them. Pour the water into the bottom of the dish and bake until tender, about 45 minutes.

Pour the ale and Madeira into a large slow cooker. Put the cloves, allspice, and cinnamon into a small muslin bag or cheesecloth, tied with kitchen twine, and add to the slow cooker along with the ginger and nutmeg. Set the slow cooker to medium heat and bring the mixture to at least 120 degrees F. Do not boil.

Add the egg whites to a medium bowl and using a hand mixer, beat until stiff peaks form. Put the egg yolks into a separate bowl and beat until lightened in color and frothy, approximately 2 minutes. Add the egg whites to the yolks and using the hand mixer, beat, just until combined. Slowly add 4 to 6 ounces of the alcohol mixture from the slow cooker to the egg mixture, beating with the hand mixer on low speed. Return this mixture to the slow cooker and whisk to combine.

Add the apples and the liquid from the baking dish to the wassail and stir to combine. Ladle into cups and serve.

The only really unusual ingredient there is Madeira, which is basically a fortified wine - historically, the vintner would just stop the fermentation of a batch of wine by adding enough distilled alcohol (usually brandy) to kill off the yeast before it ate up all the sugar. Madeira, Marsala, port, sherry, vermouth - they're all considered "fortified wines." They tend to be more alcoholic than most wines, but less than most liquors.

We made a batch of Alton Brown's wassail tonight, just in support of that whole Christmas tradition, and while I have to admit that it isn't the most disgusting thing I've ever put in my mouth... oh, lord, it isn't good.

You know how some things are greater than the sum of the parts? Yeah, this isn't one of them. If anything, this takes some of the less appealing parts of the ingredients and amplifies them: the slight bitterness of the ale doesn't really match well with the sugar in the baked apple and the sweet bite of the Madeira wine. (And, incidentally, if you don't temper the eggs well before adding them in, you end up with some slightly boiled scrambled eggs on top, which isn't what a normal person might consider good eats...)

If you don't believe me and want to make it for yourself, let me help you out a little: here's the cut-down version of the recipe. Try it and see for yourself.

1 small Fuji apple, cored
2 2/3 teaspoons brown sugar
Enough water to give you about 1 cm on the top of your smallest baking dish
A 12 ounce bottle of ale
1/2 cup Madeira
2 whole cloves
2 whole allspice berries
Half of a cinnamon stick
Dash ground ginger
Dash ground nutmeg
1 large egg, separated

Treat them as above. But don't say I didn't warn you.

We've used a crockpot recipe for years, involving apple cider, cranberry juice, brown sugar, a cloved orange, some spices and time to heat. (Personally, I think it works best with a shot of rum added - that's just me.)

I think we'll stick with that one.

Colbert Conservatism

by David Sirota (Creator's Syndicate)

Pop quiz -- name the political leader who said the following:

"We must be willing to pull the plug before sinking more dollars into weapons that do not provide what our warriors need."

Now name the leader who said this:

"(W)e cannot track $2.3 trillion in (Pentagon spending) ... We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion ... There are those who will oppose every effort to save taxpayers' money ... Well, fine, if there's to be a struggle, so be it."

I'm willing to bet many self-described "conservatives" guessed Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I would make that wager based on the enraged response to my recent column about government data showing that our waste-ridden, $600-billion-a-year defense budget will cost about seven times more than the health care legislation currently before Congress.

In e-mails, letters and Web site comments, right-wingers didn't vent anger at Pentagon profligacy, but at the criticism of Pentagon profligacy -- as if brazenly throwing away billions on outdated weapons systems and obsolete military programs is now a "conservative" value. Notably, the vitriol didn't include contrary numbers disproving the figures I referenced (none exists) -- the responses just used Fox News-ish slogans like the cost of freedom to deride all criticism of Pentagon spending as unpatriotic ultraliberalism.

Of course, if that's true, then Stephen Colbert's refrain that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is now less a laugh line than a devastatingly accurate commentary on the deranged terms of America's political discourse. I say that because here are some objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological facts:

-- The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

-- "(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike," reports Hearst Newspapers.

-- "President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II," reports National Journal's Government Executive magazine.

-- In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal health care for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal health care plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

Obviously -- obviously! -- these points are no cause for alarm and certainly no cause for defense spending reductions, right? All they must prove is that the archconservative Cato Institute, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper chain, National Journal employees and Pentagon officials are secretly America-hating liberals. And -- obviously! -- so are two of the most aggressive neoconservative hawks ever to hold government office, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. After all, they're the ones who issued those scathing statements about wasteful defense spending in the pop quiz above. That means they're actually terrorist-appeasing lefties, right?

Really, how could anyone other than traitorous communists see the data and then consider backing the mildest Pentagon spending cuts? I mean, come on -- in a country whose paranoid conservative movement now makes a dead-serious ideology out of Stephen Colbert wisecracks, how dare any red-blooded American even think of pondering basic budgetary facts?

Demonization of "the Other"

It's a sad day when I godwin up a post, so I'll let Nicole Belle do it, in a piece exerpted from Crooks and Liars.

David Neiwert has written about this institutionalized fear of the other, and if I may be so lazy as to co-opt his (and Orcinus blogging partner Sara Robinson's) breakdown of the construct to make some group the feared "Other". Read and see how familiar this sounds:

1. Untrustworthy, unethical with money, prone to cheat in business dealings;

2. Clannish and unwilling to assimilate into the larger culture;

3. No respect at all for the rule of law. The only way to control them is through brute force;

4. Dim-witted, lazy, fit only for physical labor -- but you have to threaten them to get off their butts, because they won't work otherwise;

5. Constitutionally weaker than members of the dominant culture;

6. Complete lack of moral self-control;

7. Bent on world domination. These plans always involve secret conspiracies and special skills known only to the clan;

8. Despite their minority status, they are thought to have far more power than their numbers, and an inordinate influence over the running of the country;

9. Heirs to an inhumanly bloody history that cannot be forgiven, and which they have never moved past (they're "bloodthirsty savages" with no redeeming qualities); and which never created anything meaningful in the way of art, music, science, or architecture (writing them out of history);

10. Congenitally to understand the subtleties of the "superior" race they live among, and thus forever brutish and inferior;

11. Inadequate personal and domestic hygiene (they smell, and their houses and businesses aren't clean). Carriers of strange diseases that threaten the dominant culture;

12. "Breeding like flies" and attendant fears that they're going to out-breed the dominant culture (this one will be tossed around regardless of actual comparative birth rates);

13. The men are out-of-control sex fiends who will sexually terrorize the dominant culture's women if not firmly restrained;

14. The women are appropriate targets for sexual abuse by men of the dominant culture. They probably even enjoy the chance to finally experience a "real man."

Take a look at any one of the right wing sites and you'll see variations on these themes over and over. I'm happy that Charles Johnson has started to speak out over the blind hatred and eliminationist rhetoric, although he too is not above wading in those waters when it comes to Muslims.