War-enabler endorses Obama, will take part in his administration

As someone who vehemently opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, it irks me that Obama claims the anti-war mantle so easily. Hillary's much-derided criticism that all he has going for him in that department is a speech from 2002 is looking more accurate by the day. That speech was virtually a foregone conclusion given his Hyde Park constituency, and since then what has he done to burnish his anti-war credentials?

Obama never challenges the assumption that the surge worked, although there is ample evidence to the contrary. He never challenges McCain's and Palin's assertion that stopping funding for the war is the same as betraying the troops. What do they think will happen if there is no more money for the war? Will President Bush order soldiers to fight without bullets and food, or will he bring them home? Which represents a greater betrayal, asking troops to deploy again and again in an open-ended conflict with no realistic objectives, or bringing them home?

Add to this list Obama's rapturous response to the Powell endorsement:

"This morning, a great soldier, a great statesman, and a great American has endorsed our campaign to change America. I have been honored to have the benefit of his wisdom and counsel from time to time over the last few years, but today, I am beyond honored and deeply humbled to have the support of General Colin Powell."

Exactly how short is our collective memory? Six years ago Powell was the spokesman for the war, and his spurious U.N. speech was instrumental in convincing Americans that military action was necessary.

Whatever resignations Powell had about invading Iraq, he did nothing until he was pushed out by the same cadre that ruined his credibility. Least-evil member of the Bush administration is still a pretty poor distinction, and now the Obama administration is set to benefit from his "wisdom and council." Pardon me if I don't fall all over myself about the power of change-you-can-believe-in to inspire transformative inclusive yadda yadda yadda.

Of course this is good politics for Obama, who I do in fact support over McCain. Based on the aggregate of remarks made by Obama and his advisers, versus the general thrust of the McCain campaign, plus guessing, plus my in-grown Democratic bias, I think that Obama is less likely to lead us to ruination. Besides, Obama is only cavorting with war-enablers. McCain is endorsed by war-criminals.

Nuclear Pintos, the McCain/Obama energy plan

Isn't it great how bipartisan everyone's being this election season? I'm so relieved that we don't have to put up with a lot of bickering over trivial issues like gay marriage, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the surge, Afghanistan, single-payer healthcare, and the $700B bailout.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Gays should not be allowed to marry.
• If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government spies on you/pours water into your lungs?
• The surge worked.
• We can and must win in Afghanistan.
• Single-payer is not realistic.
• The only cure for our financial woes is to give several hundred billion to those at the center of the crisis.
  

Gore Vidal

Mussolini

So now I get to practice my right as an American to choose between purple and violet on the above scale. Yippee.

To the above list of crucial, politically irrelevant issues facing the country, add energy independence. Here's McCain in the 1st Presidential debate:

"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power."

Damn right. We have got to stop paying Iran and Venezuela for their precious wind and sunshine and tides. It's time to start producing some American wind and sunshine where it will do the workers in Ohio and other swing states some good!

What's that, Obama? We're not paying them for sunshine?

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States."

It's the oil, stupid, and the problem with both statements is that McCain and Obama apparently think that all forms of energy are drop-in replacements for oil.

Which they are, if your car runs on plutonium and has a sail, like my modified 72' Pinto:

(sail not pictured)

Those of you who do not have a nuclear car and house like me are probably still going to want some gasoline and home heating oil, but you cannot create gasoline from nuclear fuel. You cannot create home heating oil from wind. (You can, theoretically, create both from bio-fuels, but this is only a win if your farm equipment runs on wind, solar, or nuclear. Or if you're the corn lobby. Then it's a big win either way.)

Even better, you could create the infrastructure to convert electricity into hydrogen, which you can then use to generate more electricity, or drive a car, or heat a house, or fly a blimp.

But no one's talking about that, because unlike bio-fuels, solar, and wind, overhauling our energy infrastructure might actually threaten the windfall profits of oil & gas companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates.

If you read the above quotes and you're thinking that Obama didn't say anything about nuclear and therefore isn't in favor of Nuclear Pintos, here's an Obama quote from last night's debate:

"Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."

No explanation of why nuclear power is a good idea. I assume it's for more Nuclear Pintos.

Obama seems to be pulling away in the stretch. Good, I'll be happier if I don't have to vote for purple over violet. Nader's on the ballot in more states than ever. If you're not in a swing state, think about it. He's incredible. Wherever you are, you could just thumb your nose at the plurality system and vote your conscience--what a concept!

Stunning defiance for GOP, stunning compliance from Dems

NYT: "The House of Representatives voted on Monday to reject a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry ... in stunning defiance of President Bush and Congressional leaders"

Ah, finally! The Democrats in Congress have found their collective spine and stood up to Bush. They didn't have the nerve to stop him on warrantless wiretapping or torture, but this was a bridge too far. Seven-hundred billion in corporate welfare for reckless Wall St. firms? Finally the populist soul of the Democratic party was awakened.

Or not.

	Yea	Nay
Democrat	60% (140)	40% (95)
Republican	33% (65)	67% (133)

I don't know why I'm so surprised. I mean, it takes effort to get your approval rating down to 14%. You'd have to be deliberately unpopular, which is a good theoretical framework for understanding Reid's and Pelosi's actions.

Why stop there, Democrats? You're only 4 points shy of the record-high disapproval rating. If you keep this up you could hold both records at once.

September Trip, Part 1: Zion

We've been back for a week now, but I finally got around to uploading our pictures. Zion is just a beautiful place, which I think everyone should see at some point. We were only there for two days and two nights but we went on some amazing hikes, had beautiful weather and took in more scenic vistas than you can shake a stick at. It was amazing, but not nearly enough time. We were planning our next trip before we left.

The one thing we couldn't figure out was where to buy groceries on the way to Zion National Park. (Are you listening, GoogleBot?) This, here, is the answer. This is where you buy groceries on the way into Zion:

View Larger Map
Okay, I hope that helps someone.

The whole region is kind of a geographic marvel. Basically, several hundred million years ago, about half the continent was an immense desert. The sand dunes were up to 3,000 feet deep. However, being 3,000 feet tall did not prevent them from later becoming the bottom of an ocean. The ocean was full sea monkeys and other aquatic creatures who died over the years, and saturated the sand below with organic material. The dead sea monkeys acted as cement and the sand dunes became layers of sandstone.

Later, for reasons not explained in my hiking guidebook, the whole area was raised up by thousands of feet. In the midst of all this the Virgin River formed. Gradually it cut its way down through the sandstone, forming Zion Canyon.

Interesting note: At one point Zion Canyon tried to stop the river by dumping a big rockslide on it. It only took the Virgin River a few tens of thousands of years to break through. A mere hiccup on the geological scale.

Seeing something so unbelievably awesome has a way of putting things in perspective. It's easy to get caught up with a lot of stuff that seems important at the time. Water the plants, make money, send thank-you notes, don't forget to stretch before exercising, etc. Yet on the other hand, the most significant thing you can possibly do will not exist for one millionth of the time it took to make Zion, and even that used to be a sand dune.

Check out the pictures. I hope it inspires you to plan a trip there. Plus, when you're in the neighborhood you can do like us and hit the slots. Stay tuned for September Trip, Part 2: Las Vegas.

Befriend me on last.fm

I've been using this last.fm site for awhile now, and I must say it's pretty cool.

Basically it keeps track of what you're listening to, on the site and otherwise, and then takes that information and gives it to the NSA to determine whether or not you're a terrorist.

In addition to that it also lets your friends know what you're listening to, recommends music, and lets you listen to an ungodly amount of music legally for free. There are no ads, and you can fast-forward through the tracks, or ban them outright.

There was a time (college) when I would wantonly download every album by any artist I had remotely heard of. Thus I became fairly well versed in musicology. However since my conscience caught up with me a few years back, my exposure to new music has dwindled.

Along with KEXP and WUFM, last.fm is my solution for staying hip. Bonus, it turns out I'm still pretty much with it. I know a good 75% of the tracks on the Hiphopatitis B playlist.

So check it out, add me as a friend, check out my profile and I'll do the same.

Final note, last.fm can show you all kinds of reports, top artists, top albums, et cetera. I think my list of top artists since I joined last.fm proves that I have nothing to worry about in the hipness department:

1. Randy Newman ~ 473 plays
2. Steely Dan ~ 376 plays
3. Beastie Boys ~ 287 plays

And yes, those really are my top three artists. Join last.fm and see for yourself.

This is what a gay Republican looks like

Thank you, CNN.

Not that there's anything wrong with David Valkema. He looks like a nice fellow, and it must take a lot of guts to be a Log Cabin Republican. I just have this feeling that CNN went out of their way to find a picture of someone who "looks gay," and who they can stereotype. "Oooh, he's the director of a fine-arts institute!"

So far balance, here's a picture of gay rights supporter and masculine icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger, having a sit down with the Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.

Take that, homophobes!

New leadership

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq,"

Barack Obama, January 11, 2008

Funny, I don't remember Obama going on about Biden's "judgement" during the primary campaign.

I know they'll say anything to get elected. Really, what kind of politician are you if you won't? It's just so much more cathartic to take the piss out of Obama. Partly because he won, and partly because he can be so sanctimonious.

He's like the Doors. I don't give a rip about most terrible bands, but Barack Obama and the Doors give "overrated" new meaning. Therefore I'm justified in holding my grudge.

Anniversary Trip: Seaplanes & Orcas

Actually, our anniversary isn't for a couple of weeks, but last weekend was good weather for a day trip, and I've been plotting this for a while. Jenny knew that Saturday was a surprise day-trip, but otherwise I played my cards close to the vest.

Me: You should wear long pants, and bring a raincoat. It might be cold. Bring your camera. It's not dress up, but there is a meal involved. Oh, and it might be slippery. And we're not going to exercise at all. Oh no--I've said too much!

Jenny: ??

Luckily that was not enough information to go on, and my secret was safe until we rolled up to the Kenmore Air terminal at South Lake Union. Needless to say, the flight was amazing. We were about a hundred feet off the water the whole time.

Below is the route we took. The squiggle out by Friday Harbor is our jaunt in the whale-watching ship.


That picture pretty much sums up why I love the Northwest. We are surrounded by mountains.

Right when we got to Friday Harbor we passed the Ferry from Anacortes and I caught the fly-by on video.


We had a nice brunch in town, sipped mimosas by the water, and then headed back out on the water. We caught up with L pod, one of three resident pods, on the other side of San Juan Island. The whales were very close at times, and we saw several of them breach.

While we were checking them out, L pod headed offshore to meet up with K pod. (The naturalist thought there may have been some inter-pod mating going on.) Based on the sizes of the pods, there may have been more than 60 animals in the water. They put a hydrophone in to listen and it sounded like an Orca cocktail party.

Apparently pods don't meet up all that much, so we were really lucky to see that. The flight back was at higher elevation so not as thrilling, but we had great views of Mt. Baker and Mt. Rainier. Like any good Seattlite I salivate at the sight of Rainier, so this more or less put me in a Northwest-loving coma. A perfect sight to come home to.


All told, it was a perfect day. I can't think of a better way to celebrate a great two years together, or a better person to spend it with.

Shi Shi Beach

Memorial-day weekend Bob, Joy, John, Jenny and I hit up the Olympic Peninsula for some beach camping.

Three months later, I uploaded the pictures:

It's a short hike, but when we got there a ranger hassled us about not having a bear barrel. (He also carded us because we brought wine.) John volunteered to go back to town and get one as long as someone came with him, so we did the hike three times that day. We're basically world-experts on the Shi Shi Beach trail now. (It's pronounced shy shy.)

So that was an important lesson, bring something to keep out bears, like this fine TrueValue paint bucket, pictured here.

I think the bucket would have slowed the bear down by maybe two minutes, but it seemed to make the ranger happy.

The other thing we learned was that Bob hasn't figured out s'mores yet:Hang in there, buddy!

On our way out we went to Cape Flattery, one of the Northwesternmost points of the continental U.S. It's about a 10-minute "hike," and very pretty. If you're in the neighborhood, definitely check it out.

HSBC sounding kind of desperate

It might just be me, but I'm starting to think that HSBC would like me to deposit some money, and soon. Today I got an email from them regarding my online savings account.

• Deposit more now to take full advantage of our great rate extension.

Now’s the time to watch your savings grow. So deposit more today.

Deposit more now Sincerely, Kevin Martin
Executive Vice President,
Head of HSBC Direct U.S.

He sent me a video too:



Okay, I'll deposit! Just don't... awww, not on the rug, man!

Feingold excoriates new FISA bill, threatens filibuster

Last week I wrote about the FISA "compromise" that just passed the house. Two days ago Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave an interview to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on that same topic, and spoke with the clarity and moral conviction that Democratic Party leaders and Presidential candidates are so desperately lacking.

The full transcript is available from Democracy Now, but here are some of the more devastating quotes:

"This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.

And unfortunately, it’s going to go through with the help of some Democrats. So this is a very, very sad day for our Constitution and for our rights, and it’s not justified by the terrorism issue, because we do not have any problem at all with going after anybody that we have reasonable suspicions about."

"The President takes the position that under Article II of the Constitution he can ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We believe that that’s absolutely wrong. I have pointed out that I think it is not only against the law, but I think it’s a pretty plain impeachable offense that the President created this program, and yet this immunity provision may have the effect not only of giving immunity to the telephone companies, but it may also allow the administration to block legal accountability for this crime, which I believe it is."

"[Democrats] are doing nothing. They’re giving in. Senator Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri, is basically giggling at the fact that the Republicans and the administration got essentially everything they want on this. It’s sadly a great failure on the part of the Democratic majority that was elected in 2006 primarily to get us out of Iraq, but also significantly to protect the Constitution of the United States. This is not a proud moment."

As of this morning, Chris Dodd and Feingold have succeeded in delaying the vote until after the July 4th weekend, but long term prospects remain dim. Feingold has pledged to do everything in his power, but his tone is more than a little resigned.

"We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped."

Not only can the Democrats not get 51 votes to strip telecom amnesty from the bill, they likely can't even get 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. The Democrats are the nominal majority party, but they divide so often that Republicans get virtually whatever they want. At this point the idea that Reid and Pelosi are opposition leaders doesn't even pass the straight face test. Reid even honors holds (a procedural measure) from Republicans while ignoring multiple holds from Senate Democrats. It's no wonder that the Democratic congress now has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Democrats.

Still, the Democratic party is the only game in town for pragmatists like Dodd and Feingold, which is no doubt why Dodd is kowtowing to Reid, even as Reid undermines him. This is what he had to say about Reid today:

"I want the record to reflect the deep appreciation I have for the majority leader -- I know others do as well -- for the way in which he and his office have allowed us to achieve the results we have up to this point,"

It's pretty disturbing that Dodd feels he has to thank the majority leader for allowing him to take a few ineffective measures. These are steps the Democratic majority should be taking, except more forcefully. Even sadder, I don't see this changing anytime soon. If a majority in both houses can't do anything against the least popular President in history, what hope is there? Barack Obama, Democratic wunderkind and star of many liberal fantasies, once promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom amnesty. He's now singing Harry Reid's tune ("Happy Birthday, Mr. President") and looking less inspiring by the day.

David Sedaris at Amazon

One of the perks of working at Amazon is this thing called "Amazon Fishbowl." Basically, visiting authors and musicians come by to talk or perform and sign stuff. A lot of people come through but so far I've only seen They Might Be Giants, and Lewis Black. (Also, Russell Simmons.) Today was David Sedaris. The line to the big conference room was out the door , around the lobby, and down the hall. Jenny and I were near the front of the line, and we barely got seats.

Seeing him in person was a bit surreal. I've heard his voice so many times on NPR that it's impossible to imagine him as an actual person, and having him there didn't help that much. Surreal or not, he was hilarious. A lot of his humor is in the delivery, and it's even better in person.

I've never been sure how much to believe of his stories, so when he told us that he works with a charity that provides helper monkeys to quadriplegics I was skeptical, but maybe it's for real. Anyway, this is what he looks like:Some of the authors who speak at Fishbowl are very effusive about how great Amazon has been for them, but not David Sedaris:

"I have never been on Amazon. I have no idea what it looks like. I know that people order stuff on there but I have no idea how."

He also mocked authors who are obsessed with their Amazon ranking, and who write reviews of their own books. He offered up this review of his latest:

"The type is so small. I coudln't hardly read it! The author's picture is so ugly!"

Then he took questions from the audience. There was a lull so I asked about the promo for his interview on KUOW this morning, which described him as "one of the most humane writers alive." He hadn't heard it, and he was kind of puzzled. He said I must have misheard.

A better question was about writing about his family, and whether that causes problems. His response,

"People will come up to [my older sister] and say 'I know all about you.' They don't know anything about her. Except she has a parrot... and she had her first period on a golf course."

Hopefully that's funny to someone reading this who wasn't there. Like most of his writing, you have to picture him saying it.

By the way, this is my first post where I explicitly mention my employer, Amazon.com. This means I'm now operating under the External Communications guidelines which state that I must:

make it clear to your readers that the views you express are yours alone and that they do not necessarily reflect the views of Amazon.com.

Since I have to do that, I might as well express an opinion which does not necessarily reflect that of Amazon.com. Hmm... let's see here... Okay, here goes:

• The title of Russel Simmons' new book, Do You!, sounds kinda filthy.

Please note that Amazon.com does not necessarily agree with the above--but they might!

Obama supports compromise FISA bill

Hey, I know it's been a while since I posted here, but something happened today that made me sick. The house passed a bill that includes amnesty for telecoms that illegally spied on Americans. If you haven't been following the issue, this means that there will be no investigation into illegal acts committed by and on behalf of this administration, much less punishment.

The bill was supported by Democratic House leadership and, in an after-the-fact announcement, by Barack Obama. Obama basically concedes to every spurious Republican argument for passing the bill. He doesn't even address the issue of telecom amnesty:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. . . .It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

Not that I'm terribly surprised. I've been arguing for a long time with people who think that Obama is somehow different from other politicians when he plainly isn't. Still, I would be lying if I said that I'm not sad that the Democratic nominee for President would support such odious legislation.

I don't want to be sour grapes about this, but right now the thought of voting for Obama isn't particularly appealing. Luckily for me, it's winner-take-all, and Seattle is about 95% Democratic, so I can do whatever I want on November 3rd without possibly affecting the outcome of the Presidential election. Way to go, Democracy.

Emacs error in setenv, Wrong type argument: stringp

Hey, this isn't a regular blog post, just a contribution to the Emacs community. Hopefully this will get picked up by Google and help out a fellow Emacs user.

I started getting this error whenever I ran M-x grep-find:

Wrong type argument: stringp, 70

Here's the important part of the stack trace:

Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument stringp 70)
string-match("\\`GREP_OPTIONS=" 70)
setenv("GREP_OPTIONS" " --color=always")

Eventually I figured out to look at the process-environment variable, which holds all the variables set by setenv.

process-environment is a variable defined in `C source code'.
Its value is
(70 79 79 61 98 97 114 "TERM=dumb" "TERMCAP="...

So there it is. string-match is choking on the non-string value 70 in the process environment. And where was that coming from? I searched my .emacs file only to find the following line, left over from some failed experiment:

(setq compilation-environment "FOO=bar")

This would execute without an error but leave the process-environment in a bad state.

Moral of the Story

If you're having a problem with setenv or getenv, or any compilation process, check process-environment and make sure it's properly formed.

"It goes from the Cheesecake Factory to Hooters"

--Seattle Post Intelligencer's D. Parvaz on the eminent usefulness of the new streetcar.

Storybook minute: Dube vs. Dube

A few weeks ago I got to see my good buddy Matt "Doobie" Dube in Seattle and Whistler. There were a lot of highlights, but by far the most-photographed was his run-in with Dave "Doobie" Dube at the Japanese Steakhouse.

Dave took it upon himself to steal Matt's wallet just before we left, and string him along all through dinner until the bill came, when he sneakily paid for Matt's dinner using Matt's credit card. Matt stared at the card in disbelief, and then went and sat by himself for a while to show his appreciation for his older brother's trickery.

After we left, Matt challenged Dave to a fight.

Actually he pretty much just went for it--

--and was subdued by his less-intoxicated bro.

All-in all it was a great weekend--wish you were back here already Doob.

Obama/McCain voters, bane of Democracy

Jenny and I have a long-running conversation where we try to place blame for the failed state of our Democracy. I'm constantly tempted to blame it on those in power: politicians who manipulate the public into voting against their interests; corporations who warp elections with their outsized pocketbooks; and the mainstream media who ensure that the level of discourse never threatens to become substantial.

I don't want to paraphrase Jenny too much, but her point, which I've never successfully argued against, is that these situations persist because most people are just willfully ignorant. I think there's a lot of truth to that. Most people would rather watch Tila Tequila than read even a little. Even if we expose ourselves to more sources of information, we won't have an informed public until we can think critically, too.

Anyway, nothing makes me angrier and sadder than when I overhear the following sentiment (which I do frequently) from a loyal Obamaniac:

"If Hillary wins the nomination, I might vote for McCain, or just sit this one out."

There's so much idiocy inherent in that statement that I'm not even sure where to begin with it, but I'll try to translate it into something that looks like a coherent (though still idiotic) thought. Here is my approximation:

"I don't really know much about the issues. I'm not very informed, but hey, don't blame me. The mainstream media keeps feeding all this personality-based drivel. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, so I'm just going to decide based on that. So anyway, I'm supporting Obama. He doesn't have any serious policy differences with Hillary, but I like him better for vague reasons. However, if Obama doesn't make it, I'll pick someone totally different. If the so-called issues mattered very much to me, then obviously I would vote for Hillary, but since they don't, I'll vote for McCain. He's very popular with the media too, so he must be a really swell guy."

That's what I imagine these people are thinking. This article in Salon does a nice job of describing the phenomenon, although it fails to identify it as a serious problem.

Anyway, here are some other things such an Obamanatic might say:

• I really want a steak, but if they don't have that I'll fast.
  
• What movie should we watch, Requiem for a Dream or Bambi?
  
• I'm going to ask her to marry me, but if she says "no" I'll become a homosexual.

Special Bill Kristol Sub-commandment VI a

Nice clip from Gary Kamiya's Ten commandments of Iraq:

Commandment VI
Do not allow neoconservatives anywhere near Middle East policy.

Neoconservative ideology, the pea-size brain that drove the Bush administration Stegosaurus, is a weird amalgam of Wilsonian idealism, historical ignorance, American triumphalism and an Israeli-centric worldview. In practice, what these ideas amounted to was "America must hit the Arabs in the face to teach them a lesson." This was not a good idea.

Special Bill Kristol Sub-commandment VI a
Stop giving these buffoons prestigious jobs on newspaper-of-record Op-Ed pages, top magazines and television shows. They have been completely and consistently wrong about everything. Must we continue to be subjected to their pontifications?

True, I'd rather live in a world where neocon screeds existed only in The National Review and The Weekly Standard-- but then what would I blog about?

Gold's Gym is shady

Jenny and I recently signed up for 24-Hour Fitness, so I had to cancel my membership with Gold's. I went to the gym and told them I wanted to cancel, only to find that in order to do so, I needed to place a call to a descriptively-named company, ABC Financial.

I figured this was a bit of a hassle, but not a big deal. However when I called ABC Financial they wanted me to send a cancellation notice via certified mail. I talked to the supervisor long enough to figure out that she couldn't or wouldn't help me, so I guess there's going to be some certified mail in my future. My only hope is that my membership actually gets canceled when I do this. Others in my situation have not been so lucky.

The reasons for ABC Financial's shady practices are fairly obvious, but if you are naive, stupid, or your name is Sheila and you just spoke to me on the phone for 10 minutes, you can see ABC's mission statement on their website:

"Our company mission is two-fold: to be the resource for cutting edge technology in the health and fitness industry, and to collect the most money from the most members, every day."

Frankly, Sheila, I am shocked. You said this was for my protection! You said that only by raising the specter of Federal mail fraud charges could we deter the evildoers from surreptitiously canceling my Gold's Gym membership and depriving me of my God-given Freedom to bounce on the elliptical machine! But it was always about the money, wasn't it, Sheila? You never really cared about Freedom. (She really did say it was for my protection.)

Anyway, besides the fact that ABC Financial/Gold's Gym hate Freedom, and would probably give terrorists a nuclear weapon as long as they signed a two-year contract, it's not a great gym.

Specifically, the Seattle Gold's Gym in Capitol Hill is a mediocre little gym. There is no free parking. There are only a few treadmills and ellipticals. Most of them are in less than stellar shape, and a lot of them are broken outright. Some of the weight machines are broken. A new membership there is more expensive than 24-Hour Fitness which has none of these problems. (24-Hour Fitness is a bit crowded, but otherwise a superior gym.)

So yeah, if you're thinking of signing a contract at a Gold's Gym anywhere, be very careful, and if you're thinking about the Seattle Gold's Gym in Capitol Hill, that's my two cents.

Charles Krauthammer, demagogue for peace

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer proposes a strategy for containing Iran which is as meaningless as it is ignorant. His bold idea: to declare that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, then we will respond in kind. That is his stated purpose anyway. The real agenda is to recite history-as-narrative, casting America as the unsullied hero and Iran as the irredeemable villain.

The first unstated assumption (of this piece and so many others) is that Iran is the wild-eyed aggressor. The mullahs, or at least some of them, are "apocalyptic and messianic." Unlike our former enemies the Soviets they are not rational actors. Ahmadinejad is a jihadist. The second assumption, which is so ubiquitous that it is barely stated, is that America is merely the defender of peace in the Middle East. Our motives are selfless, and our actions are righteous by definition. Unless you accept these assumptions, the piece is laughable at face value.

Krauthammer states that a nuclear Iran will "deeply destabilize" the Middle East. The idea that a pro-U.S. commentator is accusing another country of destabilizing the region is downright absurd. And one of his reasons is that it will leave Israel's nukes on hair-trigger alert. So Iran's theoretical nukes are dangerous because they increase the chance that the actual nukes that we gave to Israel will be used.

In order to make his "contribution to nuclear peace," Krauthammer would like Bush to use John Kennedy as his role-model. His reference to the Cuban missile crisis is more accurate than he realizes. Following the America-as-hero model, Kennedy was merely the victim of unprovoked Soviet aggression. The idea that the United States provoked the Soviet Union by basing nuclear missiles in nearby Turkey is not admissible as evidence because it runs counter to the prevailing narrative. Similarly, it would be unthinkable to mention that the United States' past aggression against Iran might in any way have led to the current state of affairs.

As a side-note, I think it's cute when advocates of unchecked American power cite the U.N. as justification for anything, as Krauthammer does here. For reference, here are forty-some UN Resolutions critical of Israel which the US vetoed.

All this talk of deterrence is amusing, because it comes so close to acknowledging the real use of Iranian nukes: to deter the U.S. from attacking Iran. Instead of admitting that there might be some rational reason that Iran wants nuclear weapons, Krauthammer plays the Holocaust card:

"As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

No matter that the U.S. knowingly permitted the first Holocaust against the Jewish people. This should in no way infringe upon our status as "the nation that has liberated more peoples than any other." Krauthammer paints his opponents as "those who see no moral principle underlying American foreign policy."

It should be obvious that this is propaganda--uncritical, jingoistic, pro-U.S. propaganda. There is no moral principle underlying foreign policy, ours or any other country's. Whenever someone says that there is, we're being lied to and sold something we don't want (see: Operation Iraqi Freedom.) The fact that people like Krauthammer, William Kristol, and David Brooks have any credibility, and are regularly published in our most respected newspapers should tell us something about our level of awareness as a society.

Nobody is pregnant, pen spinning is real

I was had this morning. Jenny IM'ed me to say that her sister is pregnant and wants to come live with us. I jumped into action in my role as supportive boyfriend, only to have her laugh at me, a lot, when we went out for coffee.

I'm definitely gullible, but in other ways, I'm too not-gullible. I was ready for the NPR April Fool's fakeout this morning. When I heard that the Pen Spinning Association of Japan had crowned a new champion, I thought I was in on the joke.

Pen spinning is real, nobody is pregnant, and I am 0-for-2. Happy April Fool's everyone!

NPR leaves out crucial information in wiretapping story

This morning David Welna did a story on NPR's Morning Edition about Tash Hepting, the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against AT&T over warrantless wiretapping. The segment ended with this response from Jay Rockefeller, who has been championing retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

David Welna: But the Democratic chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Jay Rockefeller, agrees with President Bush. The phone companies need immunity if they're to be counted on for future cooperation. He predicts that a plaintiff like Hepting will not have his day in court.

Jay Rockefeller: There's no way they can do it because of the state secrets act. The plaintiff will never get to find out anything.

DW, to JR: Even if there's not immunity?

JR: Oh, if there's not immunity it may be different.

DW: But Rockefeller is confident that ultimately there will be immunity.

Rockefeller is exactly right: if there's immunity then neither the plaintiff, nor anybody else, will get to find out anything. All we know now is that Attorney General John Ashcroft, his deputy, and the Director of the FBI were all ready to resign if the program continued. Notice that Rockefeller doesn't give any reason why immunity is a good thing, and this is where NPR really drops the ball.

AT&T is Jay Rockefeller's number-one campaign contributor.

Not only that. Jay Rockefeller is the #3 recipient in the Senate of donations from telecom services & equipment, excluding Presidential candidates. Rockefeller got more money from telephone utilities than any other senator excluding Presidential candidates.

This is just sloppy journalism on NPR's part. I don't expect a campaign financing report every time a politician speaks, but we need to know when the politician in question is defending his top contributor. If the media did perform due diligence and report these conflicts of interest, maybe our so-called representatives wouldn't be so blatant about who they're really serving.

Good news for Clinton, Slate-style

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, there's no argument that Clinton has gotten a raw deal. We'll have to wait until after the election for the Columbia Journalism Review to do a study like this one, showing that the MSM skewered Gore in 2000, and by then it will be too late.

Luckily for lazy bloggers such as myself, sometimes you don't need exhaustive analysis to prove media bias. Today's Slate frontpage, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island:

She Lives!
(Now What?)

John Dickerson on whether
Clinton's comeback is
too little, too late.

Mickey Kaus on how
momentum hurts her.

For more examples of Slate's pro-Obama, anti-Clinton bias, see every other Slate article on the subject.

Valentine's Pics

We've been doing quite a bit of salsa lately. We went out dancing both New Year's and Valentines day at the Century Ballroom. I have to say, I'm getting way more mileage out of my suit than I ever imagined. Salsa is tons of fun, all the more so now that I know more than 3 moves. I highly recommend it. You can see more of Jenny and me in all my besuited glory here.

The Obama fundraising myth

Barack Obama is a great candidate. I mostly agree with him most of the time. He's smart and likeable, and I look forward to voting for him if he's our party's nominee. The thing that bugs me about Obama is that he's running as a different kind of candidate. His only tangible claim to being a different kind of candidate is that he doesn't take PAC or lobbyist monies.

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."

He often uses this line to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton, implying that she is beholden to lobbyists and the industries they represent. So how much PAC money is Hillary taking? According to opensecrets, she's accepted $544,492 from PACs (including organized labor,) amounting to about 0.47% of her total donations.

And how much has she taken from lobbyists? Also from opensecrets, Hillary has raised $823,087, or about 0.71%. I don't think that makes her especially beholden to them. By contrast, Obama raised 8 or 9% of his campaign contributions from PACs and lobbyists when he ran for the Senate two years ago. While in office he introduced legislation totaling $12 million in tax cuts (in the form of tariff suspensions) at the behest of corporate lobbyists.

Even his claim that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists is misleading. He still takes money from employees of companies that earn money from lobbying, lobbyists registered at the state level, and spouses of lobbyists:

"Ben Barnes, a federally registered lobbyist, has given contributions to Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, but not to Obama or John Edwards.

However, Barnes' wife, Melanie Barnes, has given to Obama and Edwards on the same dates and in the same amounts as her husband's contributions to the other candidates. She lists her occupation as homemaker."

All the candidates, including Obama and Clinton, get most of their money from individual contributors. This does not mean that the money comes with no strings attached. Donations above $200 are categorized by the occupation of the donor. So when candidate X says that candidate Y took $43,000 from tobacco companies, it really means candidate Y took $43,000 from employees of tobacco companies in amounts of $200 or greater.

Using this measure, let's take a look at amounts donated to Clinton and Obama from a few industries:

Industry	Clinton	Obama
All	$115,652,361	$102,170,668
Commercial Banks	$1,119,982	$1,017,200
Computers/Internet	$1,283,076	$1,327,738
Health Services/HMOs	$326,456	$216,640
Hedge Funds & Private Equity	$1,266,342	$1,040,185
Insurance	$666,121	$478,494
Lawyers/Law Firms	$11,756,493	$9,521,441
Oil & Gas	$268,562	$132,115
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$349,270	$337,525
Real Estate	$4,800,060	$2,748,535
Securities & Investment	$5,828,999	$5,295,884

In the South Carolina debate, Edwards called out both Clinton and Obama for taking corporate money:

"Barack just spoke, as he does often, eloquently, about taking on the drug companies, the insurance companies, I also think it's important to recognize that Senator Obama has taken more money from the drug companies than anybody. Senator Clinton has taken more money from the insurance companies than anybody."

To which Obama responded,

"A couple of points. John, I think, is aware I don't take PAC money. I don't take money from federal lobbyists. I'm not taking money from their companies.

It is true that there are employees of all sorts of companies that have given to my campaign because, frankly, I've raised a lot of money, and sometimes in $25, $50, $100 donations.

But that does mean that I've gotten a bunch of money from drug lobbyists. And I think it's important to make that distinction, John."

So, point by point:

1. Obama is taking money from those companies in exactly the same way Clinton is, just less of it.
2. Donations under $200 are not classified by industry, so his second point is patently false.
3. Clinton is taking only a fraction of a percent of her contributions from lobbyists of any industry, so I'm not sure why this is such an important distinction.
   

As I said before, I'm not anti-Obama by any stretch. I'm just sick of hearing this line about how he's running a different kind of campaign, and that he can reform the system because he isn't part of it. It's all marketing--I wish people would see it for what it is.

Schadenfreude, Giuliani-style

Thanks to Democracy Now for this jewel:

Giuliani had the worst dollar for delegate record in U.S. history. The former New York mayor spent more than fifty million dollars on his campaign and received just one single delegate. At that rate Giuliani would have needed to spend $60 billion to win the Republican nomination.

That might seem like a bit of kicking the man when he's down, but I don't feel so bad after the way he lied about 9/11 so profusely. I might disagree with just about everything McCain says, but at least he's not a moral monster, or married to one.

Ghost, I copped it on Amazon mp3, I swear

I was going to write about the presidential election, but something much, much more important is happening. No one is copping Ghostface's new album.



In the video Ghost challenges his fans to bring the CD to shows to prove they bought it. He says if we do that, he'll "kick it with [us], get goosed out, whatever [we] want to do." My problem is that I copped it on Amazon mp3.

I actually copped it twice because the first time I accidentally copped the non-explicit version. At first I thought the mp3 was scratched, because it was skipping a lot. Once I bought the swear words to fill in the skipping parts it was all good.

Insanely good. Ghost is on a level all by himself. Anyone can rap about shooting people in the drug game. Ghost raps about how shooting people in the drug game is making him crazy. ("Don't put me in no mental clinics!")

Anyway, I'm going to have a hard time proving I paid for the album and getting my "personal meeting" with Ghost. Now I won't be able to tell him in person that "cop" also means "to steal," so maybe his message is getting mixed up and that he should tell his fans to procure the album instead. I bet that would really help.

Ron Paul is clearly the author of those racist newsletters

Remember when Ron Paul wouldn't give back donations from white supremacists? His explanation was almost plausible, and back then you could imagine that he needed the money:

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

However, earlier this year TNR reported that newsletters bearing Paul's name have regularly been filled with racist, homophobic tirades. We'll get to the weak denial shortly, but first here are some quotes that should keep any half-decent voter far, far away from Ron Paul if he's even remotely associated with them.

"[O]pinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions."

"[I]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."

"I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

"Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

The newsletter reserves special animus for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here, quoted in full, is a passage from his newsletter of December 1990.

"Dr." King

So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that king had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?

Here is the response from Paul's campaign, also reported in TNR:

"A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He [Paul's campaign spokesman] added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

Amazingly, the TNR accepts that there is some possibility that Ron Paul did not write or directly approve these articles, saying only that "many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author." The articles are not merely written in first person. They clearly convey that Paul is the author.

The newsletter containing the "'Dr.' King" passage concludes this way:

"My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year."

Also, in January 1991 "someone" has this to say about Dr. King:

"St. Martin was a world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours ('non-violence' didn't apply in all spheres, I guess). He was a flagrant plagiarist witha phony doctorate. He replaced forced segregation in a few states with forced integration in all all states. And he was a dedicated socialist. What a guy. He probably deserves two holidays.

Why, he often asked, 'is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?' (Forget a PhD. Give this man an IQ test.)"

Later, on the same page of the newsletter, a mysterious "someone" reveals himself to have a personal stake in the matter:

"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday."

Hey, who knows. Could have been anybody.

Just so we don't end on a bad note, I just wanted to reassure all you Ron Paul supporters that he's not one of those fickle "compassionate conservatives." From the Ron Paul Survival Report, January 1994:

"First, these [gay] men dont' really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered around new sexual partners. These conditions do not make one's older years the happiest. Second, because sex is the center of their lives, they want it to be as pleasurable as possible, which means unprotected sex. Third, they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick. Put it all together, and you've got another wave of AIDS infections, that you, dear taxpayer, will be asked to pay for."

Happy Monday

Today I saw this on a t-shirt:

Haiku's are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator

Delightful. Happy Monday, everyone.

Where to look for Jenny and me

Not a lot of fresh powder this week, so tomorrow we're going snowshoeing. Should be a good time. Anyway, when you go hiking/snowshoeing/etc you're supposed to tell people where you went. So here, in the nerdiest possible form, is where I'm going.

It's a Google Earth file. The TWL waypoint is our planned destination. The route should be pretty obvious.

Hope you don't have to rescue us, and I'll post some pics when we get back.

Gunshot update: no gunshots since last post.

I just heard gunshots

I'm just sitting here in my damn room playing with Google Earth. What's up with Capitol Hill these days? I'll keep this space posted, or call 911, or something.

Slate argues for flat taxes, defies logic

This morning at Slate, I was greeted with the following headline: Huckabee's tax plan is brilliant. I'm not generally a fan of advocacy journalism, especially when it comes to politics, but this was especially surprising. (On a side note, I've noticed Slate trending rightward lately. I think Hitchens snuck in on the strength of his accent and since then he's been poisoning the coffee.) I thought Huckabee's plan was a national sales tax (a.k.a. "flat tax") a regressive concept that should have died with the Forbes campaign.

And it is. Huckabee's "FairTax" would replace federal income taxes with a 23% sales tax, with an exemption for those living under the poverty line. The poverty exemption makes this only slightly less regressive, considering that the poverty line for a single person in 2007 was $10,210. It's not rocket science to figure out that if you take the current graduated system and replace it with a single bracket (for those above the poverty line,) that's a tax increase for those at the bottom, and a tax cut for those at the top.

Oddly, Huckabee claims that this would actually mean lower taxes for everyone:

Expert analyses have shown that the FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden of all of us: single or married; working or retired; rich, poor or middle class.

We're left to guess who the experts in question might be. Simply lowering everyone's taxes doesn't even pass the straight-face test.

But I digress, this is not about illogical Presidential candidates. It's about illogical Slate correspondents. Here is the central argument of Landsberg's article:

With an income tax, you pay up front. Earn a dollar in 2008, and you'll pay 20 cents tax in 2008. (Actually, you'll pay more, of course; I'm assuming a 20 percent tax rate for the sake of illustration.) With a sales tax, that 20 cents sits in your bank account earning interest until the day you spend your earnings.

In other words, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to pay tax on all the money we make from interest and capitol gains? Of course it would--if you make most of your money by having money. Landsberg is especially devious here, because he implies that you get more money (by holding onto your money longer so you can invest it) while at the same time implying that this is not a tax cut:

A sales tax is the exact equivalent of an income tax with a provision for unlimited IRA contributions (and no withdrawal penalties.)

But it is a tax cut. The weasel phrase here is "equivalent of an income tax." The sales tax would be equivalent if the sales tax rate was the same as the marginal income tax rate. However the proposal is for a 23% rate when any money earned over $31,850 is already taxed at 25%, and so on up the scale. The more you make, the more you save with a sales tax.

That's not even the real deception. Huckabee is not proposing to replace the income tax with a sales tax. He's proposing to get rid of the capitol gains tax as well. When you figure that in, it's a huge benefit for those who invest their income, rather than spend it.

Some might argue that since a growing proportion of American households now own some form of stock, this would bring the middle class into the investing class. According to this report from the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorites, the top 10% of income earners hold 70% of taxable stock.

Landsberg finishes by saying that we can make this tax rate graduated (which is not what Huckabee proposes) simply by having the government monitor our every transaction.

There might be a way to design a graduated sales tax. Your credit-card providers have a pretty good idea how much you spend each year, and the government could in principle use that information to set your tax rate. Yes, there are a lot of details to be worked out, and yes, it's highly intrusive—but I'm not convinced it's any more intrusive than what we've got now.

Since you're unclear, Yes, it is more intrusive. Right now the government knows how much income you're getting from certain sources. With this plan the government would know where and when you spend that money. It's not even close.