almost forgot

i have a vested interest here, but i loved suzanne garment's reflections on the first debate.

a little bit of a strange time

Today, im a little politically overwhelmed - not that its impeding my ability to absorb new information but more that i feel a little saturated with perspectives and am thus unable to offer any of my own. mostly because ive been inundated with so much press feedback and interpretation of both the bailout saga and the first debate that its a little difficult to express fresh opinions. so in this post, after a few direct thoughts, i'll attempt to highlight a few tangential, yet interesting pieces ive encountered in the last few days.

The Bailout
honestly, im not exactly sure how to react, since responses are all over the place. On one hand, I have come to believe that a bailout is probably necessary - I was roughly convinced of this by a very effective Planey Money podcast, which talked about two very interesting ideas: that the slowing of the economy validates ben bernanke's "financial accelerator" theory, and that the seriousness of the situation is reflected in money market funds "breaking the buck."

So, a bailout is probably helpful. But it has had detractors on two sides. House Republicans oppose what they view as the socialization of America, and Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now articulated a disappointment with the lack of taxpayer and homeowner protection, bankruptcy protection, and ceo income capping. I might be way off here, but it sounds somewhat like Republicans don't want the government getting involved, and Democrats are annoyed that their involvement doesn't seem to be defending taxpayers as much as it should.

The Candidates
How did the candidates react to this? Well, John McCain returned to Washington last week, and attempted to co-opt the bailout proposal that emerged as evidence of his bipartisanship, despite the fact that a proposal had existed before he ever showed up (and temporarily collapsed on his arrival). All weekend, we heard how great John McCain was at bringing Republicans and Democrats together. Yesterday, we saw that that was horseshit, as House GOP members summarily rejected the proposal. So, naturally, after taking credit for encouraging bipartisanship, McCain would recognize his failure to successfully achieve it, right?

Not really - his only response to the failed bill was a hilarious statement in which he blamed Obama for Democratic partisanship. Wow. I loved the analogy (can't remember whose) that compared the hypocrisy of that statement to the guy who murdered his parents, then begged for clemency because "he was an orphan." So, McCain's an idiot, and lets not waste anymore time with that.

(EDIT: This morning, McCain released a statement echoing Obama's FDIC proposal below, so I'll back off of the 'idiot' comment. Of course, he'll probably take credit for this proposal, and I reserve the right to put 'idiot' right back out there when that happens.)

Obama, meanwhile, released a very smart suggestion yesterday, calling for the FDIC limit to be raised to $250,000 in order to protect small businesses. A measured, thoughtful, reasonable response. HOW IS THIS ELECTION CLOSE? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Anyways. The crisis of today raises parallels with the Great Depression and FDR's landmark New Deal legislation. So, should we be looking for Obama to be an FDR-type president? Here are some interesting articles. The first discusses the New Deal and its appropriateness in a modern context. The second discusses a call from progressive Democrats for resurrection of New Deal era legislation. The final one asks how Obama might implement some of FDR's policies. The truth is, though, you're probably not going to see much of this behavior. Obama isn't a proponent of government over-regulation. As has been discussed before, he's a University of Chicago style Democrat, believing largely in the power of markets. I think you will see an increase in government oversight and consumer protection, but other than that, don't expect to see the market in chains. (For the record, I think that this is probably a good thing. So do some dudes from Freakonomics, and they're very smart.)

I guess this stuff isn't as tangential as I thought. Alright, some random other thoughts:

1. Lay off of Bill Clinton, already! Look, Im pretty unashamed with my Clinton homerism, but honestly, why is it the end of the world that his endorsement of Obama is a pragmatic one? There are more than enough people with (justifiable) Obama crushes. I would think that a few people out on the trail whose endorsement seems more subtle and reasoned might play well with independent voters who are sick of over-the-top swooning over his candidacy. Plus, on Meet the Press, you could see him really passionate about his work with the Clinton Global Initiative as he promoted successes in Africa and railed against those who undermined local successes by refusing to look more closely than at the total 'African diaspora.' He's doing honest, important work, and we should cut him some slack.
2. Killer This American Life episode. Called 'Going Big', it talks about people who "take grand, sweeping approaches to solving problems of all sorts." Particularly inspiring is the first story on Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone. I can't wait for next week's piece on the economy.
3. Everyone listens to the Moth podcast, right? I realize not everyone can detach themselves from all social interaction and listen to as many podcasts as I do, but The Moth is once a week for 15 minutes, and is hilarious. Come on, people.
4. Baseball Playoffs!!!!!!! I really need to save this for a separate post, but my beloved Red Sox once again square off with the dreaded Angels! Will we send them to playoff oblivion as we have done en route to our last 2 World Series victories? Alot depends on the health of 3 of our best players: Josh Beckett, J.D. Drew, and Mike Lowell. Yeah. I need a separate post for this. Later.
   

coldplay: lost

coldplay annoys me, but this song is great.

belabor the debate? nope.

instead, today's post, which I hope to get to later in the day, will be on tangential topics, some political, many relating to some really great podcasts I've heard this morning. Until then, I'll wonder outloud what I've wondered to many of my friends already: Is Murakami the book version of David Lynch? I'm 70% through The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, and its starting to sound like a Lois Cook novel. (Anyone get that reference? Anyone? Bueller?)

respect the authority that is colbert/stewart!

the awesomeness speaks for itself. that is all.

l love TNR

they ask the amazing question: uh, what does "suspending your campaign" actually mean?

Suspending Disbelief

"Tomorrow morning I will suspend my campaign." --John McCain, yesterday

Today, Ben Smith:

Readers in Iowa and Wisconsin [and Virginia] emailed to say that they saw seen McCain ads on the air this morning, though he's said he's taking them down.

Jonathan Martin:

What exactly constitutes a "suspended campaign?" Well, Team McCain is still working away this morning. Joe Pounder, the indefatigable press aide, blasted out his morning email of clips and quips to reporters with just a bit of dissonance.

Wonkette:

Go to McCain’s website, and you’ll see he’s still collecting campaign contributions and still running his trashy anti-Obama video spots. He’s still doing interviews (just not Letterman!)...

TPM:

Despite McCain's claim that he's put his campaign on hold, two of [his advisers] directly attacked Barack Obama in political terms on television this morning.

The important thing, of course, is that John McCain will not attend debates until the Republic is saved, or doing so will get his running mate out of her debate, whichever comes first.

traaaiiinnn wreckkkkk

Clips of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. This is painful. Now to be fair, I haven't seen the whole thing to put it in context... but... these seem like fairly direct questions to me...



Gawker has a longer compilation of similar bites from the interview, I just can't figure out how to embed it http://gawker.com/5054523/worst-of-sarah-palins-katie-couric-interview-so-far

mccain bails on letterman + a keith olbermann appearance

in case you missed this last night: letterman straight up harshing on mccain and a wry keith olbermann joins in the fun. the good stuff is 6-7 mins onward.

more shenanigans!!

well, what else would you call mccain's plea for a 'timeout'?? its a shenanigan, plain and simple. (yes, i am enjoying the use of the word 'shenanigan'. both in its singular and plural forms).

So, anyone, what the hell is this all about? Is it just a stopgap to try and piece together a new strategy after the "Palin/Change" combo didn't have the lasting effect the campaign hoped?

By the way, Rachel Maddow is awesome, so it was a nice to read an article that describes how she rose to success by sticking to her political guns instead of turning into a hack. You rock, Maddow.

Blocking Care for Women

is the title of a scintillating Op-Ed by Hillary Clinton. Everyone should read it in full, so I'll just post a few quotes and be done with it. READ THIS. The Bush administration is proposing a new rule that would require any health care entity receiving federal funding to certify that none of its employees are required to assist in ANY MEDICAL SERVICES THEY FIND OBJECTIONABLE.

The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

This is an abomination. Does anyone know how to participate in the 30-day comment period? People at NYU, could we somehow get a comment from higher-ups or something?

the deciders

so, a few podcasts to kick this off:
NPR: Planet Money is a great podcast for people (like me) trying to understand what the whole credit/mortgage crisis means. It's run in part by Alex Blumberg, who did many of the economics segments for This American Life.
I've also been enjoying KCRW's Left, Right, and Center. It's a roundtable discussion, very straightforward, but manages to recruit more interesting voices (read: less partisan TV faces who just vomit talking points) to the discussion.

So.

It seems like there are kind of 2 economics-related debates going on, although they both relate to the central idea of government 'meddling' in the free market. Now, I left all the cool articles I printed out at home, so I can't link to all of them right now, but the gist of it (and feel free to disagree if you want) is that progressive approaches to the market seem to be more successful than supply side approaches. It's still unclear whether a perfectly unfettered market will outperform both of these approaches, but frankly, Ron Paul isn't going to be president, so we don't have to worry about that. I'm sorry to Reaganites, but frontloading the uber-wealthy with money doesn't work. Now, it works if your definition is to increase the GDP over time, but the "trickle down" portion - not so much. I'll leave this with a quote from a recent Times editorial:

For decades, typical Americans have not been rewarded for their increasing productivity with comparably higher pay or better benefits. The disconnect between work and reward has been especially acute during the Bush years, as workers’ incomes fell while corporate profits, which flow to investors and company executives, ballooned. For workers, that is a fundamental flaw in today’s economy. It is grounded in policies like a chronically inadequate minimum wage and an increasingly unprogressive tax system

The other portion of the debate is over the bailout. It's almost impossible for anyone to argue that the bailout is unnecessary. The questions are: who are the true culprits, and how do we protect from what appears to be happening (a reverse Robin Hood situation in which the taxpayers are funding economic relief for CEOs). In discussion of all of this, one of the most insane ideas is a call for some sort of ironclad plan for 'solving' this crisis. This is a talking point that John McCain has been parroting: he came out with a definitive "step to take" (fire Chris Cox) whereas Barack Obama has offered more nuanced responses. (Apparently, 'nuance' has jumped the connotation fence from positive to negative). So, lets take 'stock' (ha!) of our most important "deciders", shall we?

1. Henry Paulson
'King' Henry is trying to pull the exact same BS that we've gotten from the Bush administration before. He has taken a crisis and is attempting to capitalize on its emotional component, proposing a $700 billion bailout plan with no protection for taxpayers and ownership over allocation of said funds with absolute immunity over his decisions. His response to authoring a 2 page plan to outline an enormous investment in what amounts to "toxic waste" loans? He says, "Now is a time for action." With the unspoken, "and later is a time for questions, but never for me."

Does this sound familiar? This type of "we have to do what I say, and there's no time to explain why" attempts at mob hysteria are exactly what got us unto untenable situations with no roadmap in our recent foreign policy blunders. And its what is leading Paulson to promote a plan that (and get ready for a string of NY Times articles here - I told you, I left my bigger, cooler set of articles at home) Paul Krugman calls "cash for trash." William Kristol shares his concern:

I’m doubtful that the only thing standing between us and a financial panic is for Congress to sign this week, on behalf of the American taxpayer, a $700 billion check over to the Treasury...[it] would enable the Treasury, without Congressionally approved guidelines as to pricing or procedure, to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of financial assets, and hire private firms to manage and sell them, presumably at their discretion There are no provisions for — or even promises of — disclosure, accountability or transparency.

Let's also not forget: Henry Paulson used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And while defenders of Paulson suggested that we "not question the firemen who are here to put out the fire," Stephen Colbert awesomely noted that these 'firemen' also happen to be the arsonists, so some questions might not be so bad.

2. John McCain

This brings us to our GOP candidate. McCain is in love with this sort of knee-jerk decisiveness. This recently surfaced with respect to the Russia-Georgia crisis. McCain called it"the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" (forget that whole 'Islamic terrorists' thing he's been hooting about), suggested to pull Russia out of the G8, and threatened military action, while deriding Obama's nuanced approach, which he likened to "voting present." It has continued with this economics discussion. McCain has derided Obama's nuance, while touting his own decisiveness in suggesting the firing of SEC chairman Chris Cox. Decisive!

Too bad its been universally derided. And by universal, i mean "including George Will":

I mean, he says that McCain "once again substituted vehemence for coherence". If there's a more thorough indictment on rash decision-making, I'd like to see it. Well, maybe there is, in Will's followup article:

But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

Yeah, this guy is no Michael Bloomberg. Now, the other issue referenced in Roundtable was McCain's attempt to rebrand himself as a deregulator, something that is categorically opposite to McCain's economic instincts.

3. Phil Gramm

And this is because he is an economic protege of Phil Gramm, the former senator who also used to be McCain's campaign advisor until he made that unwise remark about "a nation of whiners" and was excused officially as a McCain advisor while still traveling with McCain and, frankly, continuing to advise him. Gramm authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act which reduced government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. Gramm and McCain are supply-side deregulators attempting to paint themselves as something else, in an era in which deregulation has been catastrophic, and that's the bottom line. Let's remember this when we wonder if John McCain learned his lesson from the Keating Five scandal, in which he aided the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan during the Savings and Loan crisis.

So what does he do? He specializes in the kind of counterbranding successfully used by Roger Ailes and Fox News. He repaints himself as a regulator and "fresh-blood" in Washington with an unparalleled show of "truthiness". (Read that truthiness article by Frank Rich). He pushes to "otherize" his opponent, playing on bigotry and xenophobia. (Amana should enjoy that Kristof link).

But recent polls have suggested that he pushed too far with this type of propaganda and that his contentions are finally being rejected in favor of the truth. And this brings us to the first presidential debate. New York magazine has a nice article on the challenges facing each candidate. Will Obama tame his tendency to over-ruminate? Will McCain's increasingly innacurate catch-phrases win the day? We'll find out. And I want to extend an invitation to anyone reading: I'm going to attempt to live-blog the debate. If anyone else also wants to live-blog the debate and send me your thoughts, I will pool everyone's comments and publish a presidential debate live megapost next week!!!!! Cool.

2 final thoughts:
1. There was a NYTimes Magazine article that I can't find on how fish are basically disappearing. Well, I heard something very cool on the Takeaway yesterday, called The Blue Ocean Fishphone. Basically, when you're considering ordering fish at a market or restaurant, you can send a text, find out the environmental cost of ordering this fish (based on fishing practices, species population, etc) and get viable alternatives. Sounds awesome.

2. Such a cool Op-Ed that I'm going to post it separately.

good lord.

i go to minneapolis to hang out with a pretty cool cat (i don't mean my ex-roommate, rich. i mean bernie. his cat.) and i come back to find posts tagged with james franco outnumbering posts referencing the huffington post. THIS WILL NOT STAND!!

so its back to basics: RESTORING THE LIBERAL MANIA OF THIS BLOG! Featuring your deregulation architects, Phil Gramm and John McCain (above), with a surprisingly kickass appearance by George Will!!!!

Coming up tonight!!

SNL last night...

..once again had some flashes of humor in an otherwise lame episode, but the presence of one man more than made up for it.

i thought these impressions were pretty zany, though.

I miss the West Wing

Aaron Sorkin may be rolling onto planes with stashes of meth and shrooms, but man, could he write. I loved today's Maureen Dowd column, where he imagines a conversation b/w Obama and West Wing prez Bartlet:

GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!

to read it in its entirety, click here.

joe biden!!

You know, he's really flown below the radar, but I think that's OK. I'm also really starting to like him. I like his "aw, shucks" type demeanor, and how he plays like your really smart uncle who's still cool enough to let you have a beer or stay out past curfew or something. Here are some more things to like:

1. He's a true champion of women's rights. This article details his very personal struggle to classify gender-based violence as hate crimes. It shows how passionate he is despite being a bit of a blowhard.
2. He delivers reliable, affecting, and substantive speeches on the campaign trail (such as this one in Michigan). The Obama campaign seems to focus on directed messages at target populations. This is why they don't seem to be bothered that Palin is receiving lots of national coverage, while Biden is quietly campaigning in swing states. It doesn't hurt that he and Obama can split up and campaign independently, whereas Palin and McCain need to compensate for each other's lack of knowledge and charisma, respectively.
3. People don't know that much about him, yet, but those that do, generally like him. This is reflected in yesterday's New York Times polls, which clearly show: 1) more people are undecided on Biden than Palin (less national exposure), but 2) a higher percentage of decideds are favorable on Biden (he engenders less negative backlash than Palin), and 3) far fewer people view his choice as politically motivated (he represents a more substantive choice than Palin). I think as the VP debates air and we get closer to the election, most of those undecideds are going to shift towards positives, and this previously "safe" pick is going to show itself to be more and more of a smart one.

Dr. Horrible-- more like Dr. Awesome! (Good one, I know.)

Alright, Santosh said that if I didn't blog about this, he would; and since I'm the musical theater nerd of the relationship, here goes...

Everyone-- and that includes you musical theater haters out there-- should watch the internet-release, 45-minute musical, Dr. Horrible (full title: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog). This was created during the television slump of last year's writer's strike when an Office creator got bored and decided to make this (relatively) low-budget musical. It was originally released in three acts, each of which was posted online for a limited time and then taken down; but now you can view the work in its entirety at hulu.com (click here).

Doogie-- I mean, Neil Patrick Harris-- stars in this story about a young man's path to becoming a super villain and the girl he'd like to impress along the way. That's pretty much it. Once you understand that, you can sit back and enjoy: 1) the music (which was REALLY impressive considering that it's a random internet-release musical; one review I read described it as Sondheim-esque, and I totally agree; and the song that starts Act II totally rocks my world), 2) the performances (remember, this is the guy who, according to Santosh, played an awesomely creepy Emcee in Cabaret on Broadway), 3) the jokes (which are peppered throughout-- I've rewatched parts of it and caughts tons of 'throw-aways' that I didn't appreciate the first time around), and *slight spoiler alert* 4) the surprisingly compelling story arc.

What makes this worth blogging about-- other than the fact that it was released in such a unique forum-- is that it doesn't fit into any particular genre. Yes, it's part musical, party comedy. But it's also the first pop musical parody I've ever seen. And what's neat, for lack of a better word, is that it's not over the top, so there were times I felt slightly uncomfortable with the cheesiness of the dialogue until I remembered that this was written as a tongue-in-cheek work. It strikes a delicate balance between mockery and legitimacy that keeps the whole thing feeling very fresh.

Anywho, those are my feelings. It's great. And even if you're skeptical, I recommend you give it a try because, hey, it's only 45 minutes, and you and I both know damn well that you've rewatched that 30 Rock episode seven times already.

best thing i've seen in a week.

THE SARAH PALIN BABY NAME GENERATOR!!!

Santosh Vardhana, if you were born to Sarah Palin, your name would be:
Chap Poach Palin

Water Bears!

That's right, I figured my first official blog post had to be something both scientific and adorable. (Must credit my sister for finding the video...see link in text below, because I'm too slow to figure out how this whole blog posting thing works.)
"Tardigrades — barely visible invertebrates that cling to mosses and lichens — are...virtually indestructible.In recent years, scientists have subjected tardigrades (which are also known as water bears) to extreme temperatures, ranging from 155ºC to –200ºC. They've deprived the creatures of food and water for years at a time and zapped them with incredibly toxic levels of radiation. But, just like a Timex watch, water bears keep on ticking. Earlier this month, scientists reported that a colony of tardigrades had even managed to withstand the vacuum of outer space. (The European Space Agency put the creatures on a satellite and sent them into orbit for ten days.) If our life form manages to destroy the earth as we know it, maybe we can take some solace in knowing which other species will survive us."

- Very Short List, Science Daily

health care: both camps fall short

The policy journal Health Affairs has released profiles on both the Republican and Democratic health care plans. The bad news: both fall short of universal coverage. The worse news: one falls short of increasing coverage at all, and i'll bet you can guess which one.

Yep. The McCain health plan would increase the number of uninsured by 5 million within 5 years. The Obama plan would decrease the number of uninsured by 18 million in 1 year and 34 million in 10 years, an improvement but still short of the 45 million total uninsured.

health affairs article here, new york times article here.

daily show!

daily show is back! and its awesome. find the section on "blinking."

Just because...

...every blog could use a little more <3 james franco <3.





DON'T DELETE THIS SANTOSH. (heehee you are gonna regret letting me post - kidding, i'll get back to pseudo-intellectual topics shortly =P)

a good synopsis on wall street/housing/etc. + tosh haterade ( i kid )

fun fact: i did not like santosh the first time i met him. he was quite the gunner in our intro biology classes at college, what, with the militant reading ahead by 10 chapters and his take-no-prisoners approach to pre-med classes. PLUS, when i officially met him he was, shall we say, under the influence - hi sketchy!!!

in light of lehman bros peace-ing out and all this economy stuff going on for the past year and a half, sometimes it's hard to keep up with what exactly is going on. i can't pretend i really get the full picture, but this episode of "this american life" which aired back in may does a great job of breaking all the connections down.

EPISODE 355 - THE GIANT POOL OF MONEY

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

forgive me if you've already posted this, tosh. you post too much so i can't keep up with what's new and old!

how to rig an election

I knew republicans would find a way to capitalize on the economy issue! The sub-prime mortgage crisis, coupled with increased economic hardships for the middle class has resulted in a striking number of home foreclosures in many battleground states, including Michigan. Many of these potential voters display the following characteristics:

• African-American
• Democrat
• Less than thrilled with supply-side economics

How exactly are Republicans going to deal with this disgrunted demographic? By preventing them from voting, of course!

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Republican party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week.

Now, doing this is probably not legal (J. Gerald Hebert, who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm: “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”), but it certainly is effective, according to Republican activist Allan Raymond:

Raymond said: “It’s a very good tactic. It works. It is actually a very smart thing to do, particularly in this climate with so many foreclosures.”

Raymond explained why it makes sense for Republicans to seek to disqualify people who have lost their homes. “If you look at who is being foreclosed upon, it is going to be sub-prime [borrowers]. Sub-prime [borrowers] are generally going to be low-income people, and low-income people are generally going to be Democratic voters.”

Raymond said that, barring some legislative action, Republicans will be free to challenge people who’ve lost their homes at the polls. “They will get challenged and they will get denied,” he said.

Raymond admitted the practice is not fair to people facing foreclosure. “You can call them a victim or a bad businessperson in terms of their personal finances,” he said. “Whatever you call them, they still should have the right to vote.”

Rights??? Are you kidding me? The GOP proudly mocked support of basic human rights for Guantanomo Bay detainees who hadn't been convicted of anything! Like they're going to give a shit about voter's rights. I mean, you combine voter blocking with McCain's use of push polls of the same ilk that damned him in 2000, and this thing will be locked up in no time.

a variety of politics

Given the recent economic climate, its only reasonable that we begin with

1. John McCain's economic policies, revealed.
This is an absolute must-read on John McCain's economics from The New Republic. It categorically demonstrates the shortcomings of McCain economics:

1. His economic policies - designed to increase tax breaks to the extremely wealthy - will exacerbate the economic downturns of the last 8 years. By proposing massive tax breaks to put the budget surplus into the hands of wealthy Americans, rather than investing it to pay for future economic strains (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), Bush singlehandedly reversed the surpluses of 2000. "It was the same argument conservatives had been advancing for more than two decades, ever since Ronald Reagan first made supply-side economics a cornerstone of Republican Party dogma. But, as in the past, the theory didn't turn out so well in practice. Predictions of self-financing tax cuts proved utterly wrong, as the Clinton-era budget surpluses quickly turned back into the deficits we still have now. The economy grew following a recession that hit during Bush's first term, but it was a notoriously anemic expansion. Wealthy Americans made out like bandits, but the typical American's wages did not grow at all relative to inflation, something that hadn't happened in any expansionary period since World War II. Job creation under Bush has been the worst since Herbert Hoover's time, and the percentage of families living in poverty has actually increased."

   "When history so clearly refutes your economic doctrine, the intelligent response is to reassess your thinking. A case in point is the Democrats. Precisely because the economy is heading in the direction of inequality--and because, absent other forces, the poor and middle-class will struggle--Democrats today are putting more emphasis on aggressive efforts to protect average Americans. But Republicans have reacted differently. Instead of taking the last few years as a cue that maybe it's time to offer something besides more Bush-style tax cuts, they decided that what the country really needs is ... more Bush-style tax cuts! And McCain's agenda indicates that he agrees wholeheartedly. After extending Bush's tax reductions, which are set to expire in 2011, McCain would trim taxes on corporate income and estates."

2. McCain's plans to pay for these exorbitant tax breaks are woefully insufficient and misleading. "Mostly, though, McCain has emphasized his intention to pay for the new tax cuts by slashing wasteful spending. And it's hard to overstate how laughable this is." Even cutting earmarks that everyone considers necessary (secondary school education, veterans' health benefits) would yield less than 15% of the money needed to overcome his tax cuts to fat cats.

3. As a result, McCain's economic plan would drive up federal debt far more than Obama's plan (by more than twofold), in order to pay for his tax cuts to the wealthy. Now try to listen to his campaign managers talk about Obama's plan to raise taxes (despite the fact that he cuts taxes far more than McCain does for anyone making less than $250,000/year) without laughing.

4. McCain's health care plan would make health care MORE expensive for most people, and less subject to state regulation. His health care plan - giving tax credits to families with which to purchase individual health insurance vaporizes the benefits of employer health care coverage (aka, employers typically offer their employees health plans that are more valuable than the equivalent salary compensation). By allowing purchasing across state lines, he would drive migration of health insurance companies to the most lax states, eliminating state mandates to cover any variety of conditions.

5. Read the article. Seriously.

What's the overall point here? Democrats and Republicans have always had divergent views on how to improve the economy (think of the GDP as a pie). Democrats have always been more concerned with dividing the pie up into sufficient slices for everyone. Republicans have felt that as long as the whole pie grows, everyone's slices get bigger, no matter who drives the growth in the short term (free-market economics). Supply side economics suggests that the most efficient way to grow the pie is to put the most money in the hands of the most rich, supposing that the richest people are the ones who drive economic growth. But this has been disproven serially over the last 30 years. In particular, what the last 8 years gave us is a situation in which not only did the pie piece for the richest grow exclusively, but it grew at the expense of the other slices. It's increasingly clear that maximizing productivity of the market requires protection (and economic support) of the middle class. McCain continues to tout supply side economics. It's a failure that we simply can no longer (literally) afford.

2. XX Factor vs. Palin
I love Slate's XX Factor, particularly during the current Palin era. (The XX Factor is Slate's women blogging about politics). I clicked over to it today because the most recent entry purported to explain what 'flurge' meant. I found, to my great joy, a littany of back-and-forth about Palin's Charlie Gibson interview. Here are just some of the striking points:

1. Her casual suggestions of military engagement with Russia betray the same mixture of ignorance and 'pitbull' mentality that characterized our current president. "What troubles me is the utter shallowness of Palin's answers - in this case, a dangerous shallowness. She had obviously learned a few talking points...but she had absolutely no knowledge or judgment underneath that. But saying "perhaps" we'll go to war is the kind of throwaway statement that, when made by a VP candidate, has real world consequences for future United States-Russia relations. It dramatically ups the ante." - Rosa Brooks
2. Forget trying to recruit women: the inclusion of Palin is at least partially an attempt to silence McCain's significant track record of misogyny. "Seriously, I take all my cues on sisterhood from John, because who respects women more? That's why Obama'd have hardly anything to work with if he wanted to make an ad in response. Well, except for the footage of McCain laughing and then saying, "Excellent question'' when asked, "How do we beat the bitch?'' OK, and maybe that clip of the minister asking McCain if he really called his wife the c-word. I'm not sure Obama should rely on the 1986 story in the Tucson Citizen quoting McCain telling a joke about rape—even if it was a lot like the one that drove his buddy Claytie Williams out of politics. I guess if Obama really wanted to get down in the mud, he could reference the stripper McCain dated, or the gentlemanly way he behaved with his first—oh, who are we kidding?—with both of his wives. If Hillary's gotten over that—what's the word I want?—deferential joke he made about Chelsea, then who are we to go there?" - Melinda Henneberger
3. McCain-Palin drawing mythical large crowds from the lands of Narnia! OK, not really, but they've been, shall we say, a little overeager in describing crowd sizes at McCain-Palin rallies. "I love it both because it’s so desperate—like inflating a movie’s box office—but also because the irony of the strategy here is so palpable: 1) Slam the Obama campaign for being a cult of celebrity. 2) Try to create your own celebrity. 3) Fail. 4) Lie." - Dahlia Lithwick
4. You guys are welcome to read the articles carefully documenting Sarah Palin's terrifying track record of secrecy, vendettas, and nepotism while mayor and then governor. There's not much to comment on, though.

3. I, like Nancy Pelosi, find myself folding a little bit on offshore drilling.
This is all Joe's fault. Well, that, and Pelosi's proposal, which dictates that royalties derived from drilling would be directly invested into federal funding for renewable energy. Increased taxes on oil companies, another tenet of the proposal, would also fund investment in renewables. Could it be that this could ease the transition, rather than dampen the incentive to transition? God, I'm a terrible Democrat.

4. The media is not doing its job when it fails to aggressively pursue a hot-button issue that candidates are not as able to broach.
Here I am referring to mounting evidence that not only is victory in Iraq not categorically in sight, but the reasons being touted for success are increasingly questionable. First, Bob Woodward said it, and even Petraeus has said it. The extent to which the "surge" is more or less responsible for stability in Iraq than the voluntary cooperation of tribal leaders in the Anbar province (something Joe Biden has been touting for over a year) is difficult to address for the Obama or McCain campaign, because questioning the surge is a difficult move for either candidate. So, to the media, in the words of fake Hillary Clinton, "I encourage you to grow a pair." Challenge both candidates about the validity of the surge, the reproduceability of cooperation in Anbar, and how this affects the battle plan for Iraq. This is especially significant because not all reports agree on the stability of things in Anbar:

The “Awakening” saw thousands of tribal loyalists—many of them former insurgents—enlist in the Anbar police or local Iraqi army units. US-paid tribal militias, which were initially known as Emergency Response Units, worked alongside them. Islamist radicals were hunted down and slaughtered in their hundreds over the following months...
The much lauded stability, however, rests on fragile foundations. A significant proportion of the Iraqi army units in Anbar and the 28,000-strong provincial police are in reality a thinly-disguised tribal force. The Awakening movement has no loyalty to either the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad or to the current provincial government in Anbar, which is currently controlled by a rival of the tribes, the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP).

So lets not pretend that this stability is a permanent result of a temporary troop increase. Its not.

a variety of topics

Today's nonpolitical entry!

1. Kanye
I like Love Lockdown, the new single from Kanye West, but I'm not sure exactly how much. This was the natural next step for Kanye, who was probably always a little closer to Gnarls Barkley and Andre 3000 than he was to Jay-Z. Love Lockdown features a great hook supported by a phenomenal beat that sounds like its being played by the Blue Man Group or something. The only problem is its repetitiveness; I felt the same thing about Andre's The Love Below (which I felt ultimately was inferior to Big Boi's Speakerboxxx). I kind of feel like people coming from a hip-hop background are much more creative lyrically than singer-songwriters but are lacking melodically and so their songs end up pretty monotonous. Still, I don't think he was going to write a better album than Graduation, so I'm glad to see that he's looking for new challenges.

2. ER Visits
Slate (yes Alex, Slate) has a very interesting article that questions the uninsured as the sole culprits for ER overcrowding. Among the most interesting points: 1) everyone is using the ER more (not just the uninsured), and this can be explained mostly by looking at how the incentives align (aka, economics!). The value of having immediate, reliable treatment is worth the additional cost, not just to those who can't pay, but to those who can. Intriguing.

3. The Value of Blogs in Africa
On the Takeaway today there was a nice story on the Kenyan blogosphere and the emergence of independent reporting in the presence of mainstream media shutdown. I found a nice article on this phenomenon, and on Ushahidi, a site that allows public reconstruction and recording of, for example, post-election violence:

We as Kenyans are guilty of having short-term memories. Yesterday’s villains are today’s heroes. We sweep bad news and difficult decision under the carpet... and get shocked when the country erupts as it did two months ago. Ushahidi gives everybody, anybody, the opportunity to get his or her experience recorded. Through SMS, through email, through the Internet, through meeting an NGO worker who will write down what happened and share it with us. Ushahidi is a project that has to be owned by those who use it; they have to believe in it.

This is something to both admire and to note, as in Zimbabwe some political reconciliation is being attempted. Independent coverage of violent outbreaks will be critical here, especially given Mugabe's history of strongarm tactics.

4. Freakonomics
Finally, as a lead in to tonight's heavily political blog entry, I'll leave you with a tip of the hat to the amazing Freakonomics blog. I'm a huge Freakonomics homer, mostly because I appreciate how they are able to solve problems by constructing questions and experiments in unique ways (rather than using cutting-edge technology or previously unknown methods). A quick perusal of recent freakonomics entries yielded the following interesting questions and answers:

1. Part of what makes people vote? Extrinsic incentives (aka, you don't want your friends to know that you didn't vote)
2. But that's OK, because voting may make you happier. And finally,
3. Rather than asking all the standard questions about Sarah Palin, Steven Levitt asked the most fascinating questions I've seen so far: Why would Sarah Palin get an amniocentesis (threatening the life of her baby) if she planned on having the baby regardless of any medical anomalies?

Stay tuned for political rants, later!

more scientists are about to rock

welcome, new (potential) bloggers! in return, i think its only fair that one of you explains the hadron collider, immediately.

amy poehler and tina fey: im not worthy.

oh yes. its what we've all been waiting for. and it is sooo worth it. tina fey nails that accent. amazing.



ok, and its the other thing we've all been waiting for. just as worth it.

how depressingly true.

"The more the New York Times and the Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska, and she is an insurgent," Republican strategist John Feehery told the Washington Post. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

The View: better journalists than CNN?

Uh, you bet your ass they are. They had John McCain on, and boy, did they let him have it.

Clip 1: Joy Behar flat out asks McCain about his recent campaign ads. McCain offers categorical denials.


Clip 2: Barbara Walters asks specifically what Sarah Palin is going to reform. McCain offers, specifically, everything.


Fun for the whole family! Let's let Joy run the debates! Don't worry, Republicans, McCain got his, releasing yet another negative campaign ad that inspired this response from factcheck.org:

The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception. We've long been a critic of candidates (Obama included) usurping the credibility of independent news organizations and peddling false quotes, and this ad is particularly egregious.

REGISTER TO VOTE!!

if you haven't already...

Expelliaramus!!!!

From The New Republic:

Strangest sighting from yesterday's McCain-Palin event: Included among the numerous buttons being sold was one design with "Bringing Wizardry to the White House" written above a computer-manipulated picture of John McCain decked out like Harry Potter, complete with geeky glasses and waving wand.
I don't pretend to understand what the hell that's about. But when I close my eyes, I can almost picture Joe Lieberman as Ron and Sarah Palin as Hermione.

Now you listen to me, John McCain. You can keep touting yourself as taking on federal earmarks. You can keep spouting the bridge to nowhere line. You can call Obama a sex pervert, and a sexist, and whatever else. BUT YOU WILL NOT CO-OPT THE LEGEND OF HARRY POTTER. You're not taking that from me, pal. And god knows you wouldn't be Harry Potter. You're more of a Cornelius Fudge. And Palin is your Dolores Umbridge!!! (Potter fans, enjoy my literature-citing snarkiness.)

update: fact checking the gibson interview

Excluding the facts that she categorically did not know (the bush doctrine, conflicts initiating russian invasion of georgia), Good Morning America gave us quite an important fact-check from Governor Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.

Nooooot quite. As Good Morning America tells us: "every living VP had met numerous foreign leaders before taking office." See? She's no Washington elitist!

sarah palin + foreign policy = car accident

good god, did anyone watch this charlie gibson interview? jack shafer sums it up better than i do. here's an excerpt:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?
Palin (no clue): In what respect, Charlie?
Gibson (refusing to give her a hint): What do you interpret it to be?
Palin (crickets chirping): His worldview?
Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine, enunciated in September 2002, before the Iraq War.
Palin attempts to fake it for 25 seconds with a swirl of generalities before Gibson, showing all the gentleness of a remedial social studies teacher, interjects.

Later, after that ABSENCE SEIZURE, she weighs in on your favorite subject and mine (how being from alaska qualifies her on having foreign policy experience):

Palin: We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
Gibson: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
Palin: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Gibson: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
Palin: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is.

Seriously. These are fucking verbatim. Our potential vice president. And finally, after yet another nonsensical exchange in which Palin attempts to duck answer a question about US troops unilaterally entering Pakistan:

Gibson: I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes?

i miss 30 rock

Jack: Look at this video of a baby panda sneezing.
Liz Lemon: Oh, it's the cutest thing I've ever seen!
Jack: I need you to fire 10% of our workforce.

dude.

...yeah.

Barackonomics

Congrats, Bill O'Reilly. Your Obama interview made me think. So, here are 2 articles on economics:

1. Barack Obama's economic plan reveals a candidate more fiscally conservative than you might think (from the New York Times Magazine) - This is an absolute must-read, particularly in an election that features economic policy at its forefront. I look forward to a similar profile on McCain, but its Obama's policy that requires a closer read:

John McCain’s economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.

2. McCain vs. Obama on economics (from the Economist). A shallower wade into economic policy, but good for comparing the 2 candidates and assessing the challenges that each will face.

I think, thanks to Joe for the former and Young for the latter.

i cannot believe im writing this

i thoroughly enjoyed bill o'reilly's interview with obama! i actually think that in this scenario o'reilly's blowhardiness (and yes, occassional untruths that obama corrected) really forced obama to argue his case specifically and forcefully. parts 1 (where he chastizes obama about the surge) and 3 (where he goes after obama's 'shady affiliates') are pretty much a waste, but parts 2 (where they have a spirited debate about conservative vs. liberal economics) and 4 (where they talk about foreign policy) were really illuminating, and alot of fun.
It's by far the best interview with him that I have seen, and it really begs the question of whether Obama needs to be poked a little to stop delivering his "the glory of the american promise!" platitudes that, no offense, are putting everyone to sleep at this point. o'reilly really prods him, and you can see him get sharper as the interview goes on. Maybe we need to have Hannity moderate the debates! No, I didn't say that.

Parts 2 and 4 below.

the glory of radio lab, the missteps in pakistan

Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich give scientists everywhere hope. You know, hope that its possible that as a scientist, your friends won't, someday, exhaust every possible other conversation thread before, haltingly, delivering a "and how's work going for you?" with a heavy undertone of "don't you dare slip in some sort of name for a protein that's made out of numbers and capital letters." which eventually leads to the thousand yard stare, leading you to summarize with a "you know, ups and downs," and leaving your poor conversation-mate to breathe an (often audible!) sigh of relief and return to more human conversation.

don't think we can escape blame for this, scientists. we invariably respond to this snub by describing our jobs as solving the hidden secrets of the universe, one (incomprehensibly named) molecule at a time. this allows us to compartmentalize the rest of the world into people who are either a) too dumb to understand what we're saying, or b) too self-absorbed to care. (note: we also generally feel that group b) is too dumb to understand what we are saying). get real. we do some pipetting, drag and drop some stuff into analysis software, make an excel table, and get back to crafting the perfect Facebook status update (what's just snarky enough to say that my life is way too busy for Facebook?)

it's ok. Jad and Robert are here to show us the way. Robert alluded to this in a speech he gave at Caltech's commencement, entitled, Tell Me a Story. In it he implores scientists to find a way to make our work relatable. Tell a story, he says, and make people care. But why do we shoulder this burden? Simply put, the Sarah Palins of the world see scientific progress as antithetical to the religious beliefs that govern their value system. Learning about synaptic transmission takes away the wonder of God's work, apparently.

What these cats need is their own scientific experience. Anyone in science can tell you that new discoveries usually serve to show us the immense complexities and interplay within all living (and frankly, nonliving) things. The myriads of landmark discoveries haven't brought us much closer to *solving* the human experience, but they have helped us appreciate it. And within those complexities there is space for believers and nonbelievers. Whether the whole kit and caboodle is God's work or Darwin's work, solving a few mysteries isn't going to hurt anyone.

But Intelligent Design will. Teaching something like creationism in schools encourages kids to smother the curiosity that creates great scientists. Meanwhile, precipitous cuts to NIH funding stifle the perseverant scholars that keep the scientific dream alive. Opposing stem cell research is just another way of telling us that there's a limit to how high we can climb.

The point here, that Robert and Jad outright tell us (eloquently in this week's Radio Lab, "Making the Hippo Dance"), but also demonstrate with their weekly program, is that we have an opportunity to stem the tide. So. Don't hesitate. Talk about actin treadmilling over beers. You may get a few converts.

Random Aside: The amazing McSweeneys did a retelling of Hamlet with Facebook status updates. Ha.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the war in Pakistan. Does anyone doubt that the Bush Administration is going to screw the pooch on this one? The New York Times Magazine, as I mentioned before, delivered a stunning piece on the growth of Taliban influence in the Pashtun dominated northwest region. Now, reports have revealed that the National Intelligence Council warned Bush sometime ago that sending troops into Pakistan would be counterproductive. To quote:

The intelligence community believes U.S. military incursions into Pakistan will benefit the political-military organizations allied with the Taliban that are seeking to destabilize the national government in Islamabad.

Patrick Lang, former defense intelligence officer for the Middle East at the Defense Intelligence Agency, told IPS he understands the intelligence community issued a "pretty clear warning" against the commando raid. "They said, in effect, if you want to see the Pakistani government collapse, go right ahead," Lang said.

Another dead end military scenario. I think we get the next one free!

mark halperin is a HERO.

Thank god, someone had the intestinal fortitude to say it. From the Huffington Post:

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, listen, you can say all you want, John McCain said this about Hillary's health care proposal. But it was still foolish for Barack Obama to say because every night is precious for him, Anderson, in terms of getting his message out. This is one night lost on your program where his message got muffled by this silliness over lipstick on a pig.

COOPER: Mark, you're shaking your head.

MARK HALPERIN, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Stop the madness. I think, with all due respect to the program's focus on, listen to David just said. I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears.

COOPER: Crocodile tears.

HALPERIN: Yes.

COOPER: They knew exactly what it is.

HALPERIN: They knew exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign in the sense that every day they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more. But I think this is a low point in the day and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. To spend even a minute on this expression, I think, is amazing and outrageous.

COOPER: Let's move on. David Gergen, what do you make of the McCain campaign's continuing use of Sarah Palin's line about the "bridge to nowhere," that she said thanks, but no thanks when clearly she supported it initially, then later on she changed her position, though she still took all the tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars that was supposed to go to the bridge and used it on other pet projects around Alaska?

GERGEN: Well, I'm surprised they're doing that. You know, and they've got enormous momentum. They still -- Ohio has changed over in her direction, as John King will soon report. But I'm surprised that they're continuing on that. I'm surprised that they're not letting her speak to the public. She's not taking public questions as she's moved about. She goes on her airplane and it's off the record for the press. You can't quote her there. They still haven't talked to the press. At the end of this week on 9/11 and very conveniently the day her son is going off to Iraq she's going to have her first press interview. I'm surprised by all of that. And I just tell you -- where I traveled -- I was in Washington today and Boston today talking to people, and there are just a lot of people now getting on both sides of this who are getting really angry or upset on both sides. Getting upset at the other side for what they think are -- I think Mark is right. There's a lot of lowness in all of this.

COOPER: Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

HALPERIN: No. It's another thing that, again, I'm embarrassed about our profession for. She should be held more accountable for that. The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on it, they'll fall because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're staying it on the stump as a core part of their message, it's in their advertising. I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist -- journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.

COOPER: And yet, we're getting tons of e-mails from people saying that we're attacking Palin by looking at her record. It's fascinating to see how polarized people are.

HALPERIN: The other three people who are on the national ticket have been scrutinized for months and in cases, years. We've got less than 60 days to do this. We'd better get about doing it. And if she doesn't cooperate in that more than she has, the public should be told that clearly.

Obama on LGBT rights

This is an illuminating read. There's been a lot of static in the past 12 days (named Sarah Palin), to the extent that the core participants' values have been obscured. Read this interview and remind yourselves. It's a nice read. He doesn't go as far as I'd like him to go, but you read it and can remember, "Oh yeah, I'm supporting a guy who, to co-opt his own phrase, gets it."

lipstick fallout

ive got a blog on the amazing radio lab of yesterday coming, but of course, something wonderful has come out of the mccain campaign. the dreaded "lipstick" fallout.



now, obviously its taken out of context, and obviously, this represents yet another misappropriation of facts and statements, but come on, barack. stop saying "lipstick". Stop saying "pig". Stop saying "stupid". And good god, Joe Biden, start going after Sarah Palin so Barack Obama can recenter this election on the issues.

lightening it up. A LITTLE

this is so annie doesn't think im the biggest debbie downer ever.

michelle obama was on ellen (!!) and she's a good dancer. vogues. brushes her shoulder off. HOW CAN YOU NOT WANT HER TO BE THE FIRST LADY? also, her moves? way better than barack's. seriously. observe.

the future

with recent polls showing a marked bump from the RNC resulting in a national lead for mccain, its time to envision a potential mccain-palin administration! we should all really start thinking about this, particularly because the GOP ticket doesn't seem particularly interested in wading into issue-based discussions.

Abortion - I think we can all be sure that Palin's inclusion on the ticket indicates a strong pro-life stance. In addition, the party supports cutting funding on any family planning programs and exclusively supports abstinence-only education. birth control access? a thing of the past!
verdict: no abortions, no condoms, no birth control, but its ok, because, no sex before marriage! (and no sex during marriage except for all-important procreation)

Education - Well, we certainly won't be learning any evolution (and say goodbye to its ridiculous counterpart, genetics!). And prepare for your precipitous nosedive, public school systems! Especially because McCain-Palin would allow dissatisfied parents to opt out of their public school system and use their taxes towards charter schools, creating a spectacular brain drain in low SES areas! Plus, the abomination known as No Child Left Behind will be continued under the stark aegis of our new administration, continuing to penalize (rather than, and here's an insane thought, HELP) teachers and students that perform poorly. What's that you say? Your kid cares about the arts? Well fuck him! (Or her! Especially her! What is a girl doing in school anyway?) Schools need money, and they're only going to GET money in a palin-mccain administration if their kids do well on tests! So what will they learn? How to pass the test! and what will teachers learn? How to cheat for their students, so they get raises!
verdict: Goodbye Mendel, goodbye Darwin, Hello Adam, hello Eve. Goodbye choir, hello scantron sheets. Goodbye creative learning techniques, hello test-oriented teaching. Goodbye upward mobility for kids in poor educational systems, hello penalization of poor educational systems that give kids in ghettos the extra push towards crime that they really don't need.

Energy: drill, baby, drill! forget about being competitive in the rapidly emerging green technology market, a market that is guaranteed to synthesize new, sustainable jobs while being environmentally friendly. Our 2 pals of big oil aren't going to let Exxon Mobil suffer any monetary losses!
verdict: fuck you, prius.

Oh fuck this, time to streamline my tirade.
health care: bogus tax credits for people to "buy their own health insurance." Yeah, that's the problem of the 45 million uninsured. The taxes. So, get used to those crowded emergency rooms. What's the quote? Oh yeah. John McCain "supports a free market based health care system." How does that NOT mean "Rich people deserve better access to health care than poor people"? The reality is actually much, much worse. It's more like "Rich people deserve so much health care that poor people generally don't deserve it at all."

Foreign Policy: Get ready for military engagements in Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. How, exactly, are we going to get the soliders for all these engagements? By reinstating the draft, of course.

Losing steam. They also suck ass when it comes to the housing crisis, ideas for stimulating the economy (where at least one of them doesn't understand how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae work), and taxes. They don't think global warming is real. And Scalia is going to have a few new pals on the supreme court.

I know very few rational humans who are excited by the promise of what is aforementioned. yet, I watch coverage of this election season, and i start to think that I'm losing my mind. Why is the GOP so effective? Well, we know that. They brainwash you with repetition. They denigrate the opposition, and they protect themselves by demonizing the news media that would dare report on their lies and smear tactics. They call this "liberal media bias." Just once, I would love to see news media outlets come out and outline the following:

1. The function of the news media is to provide factual analysis. This is often dominated by the need to shed light on misleading statements by candidates. It is not 'liberal bias' to have to continually correct all of the contradictions and bullshit that emanate from the GOP.
2. Another significant function of the news media is to comment on the current state of affairs. Reporting our getting fucked over and left for dead by the Bush/Cheney administration isn't bias. It's fact.
3. Karl Rove is like the great equalizer. If he's a member of the news media, there's no such thing as liberal media bias. By the way, how in gods name does Bill O'Reilly get away with referring to NBC news as "liberal media fascists"????
3. Whether you like it or not, the private affairs of public officials are legitimate news items. In fact, they directly influence executive judgment, right, Monica Lewinsky?

Of course, the media hasn't done this. They've put their tail between their legs, clammed up, and conveniently removed the few reporters willing to speak out against explotative propaganda. as a result, today CNN viewers were treated to fascinating insights on what Sarah Palin's biographer and priest think of her abilities, rather than the monumental Bob Woodward story. I mean, Bob Woodward tells us that the surge, one of the wedge issues of the election, was a sham and had little if anything to do with the success in Iraq, and we care more what some biographer looking to capitalize on the newest GOP star has to say about her executive abilities? Jesus.

Honestly, I thought I had a much more fiery rant in me, but I don't. I'm tired of watching intelligent, thoughtful candidates lose out to sneering, dismissive, divisive, pandering smear tactics. I'm tired of watching terrified media veterans like Tom Brokaw championing the factless, soulless speech of Sarah Palin. I'm tired of watching McCain hold a white blanket over his pathetic sellout to the neoconservative Right, deliver a hollow speech on reform, and have everyone believe him. I'm tired. I can't imagine how Barack Obama and Joe Biden feel. I watch Biden struggle on Meet the Press to do battle with the issue-less rhetoric being put forth by Republicans and shamefully parroted by Tom Brokaw. I watch Barack Obama bravely face down a condescending Bill O'Reilly, delivering thought provoking responses that are sure to fall upon deaf ears. Their continued ability to maintain hope that the public is still interested in making an informed decision despite countless demonstrations that they have no interest in knowledge, only perception? Impressive, and certainly beyond my pay grade.

One more thing, on a personal note. The current administration has slashed NIH funding precipitously. The impact in science has resonated, and resulted in an exodus of legitimate talent from the field. I'm truly terrifed for the future of science in the hands of another Republican administration. This is an area of "American ingenuity" that nobody seems to give a shit about. And its dying.

A few final reads that I highly, highly recommend.
1. The New Yorker's piece on General Petraeus.
2. The New York Times Magazine on the emerging Taliban dominance of northwest Pakistan (amana, can you shed some light on this?)