Blog Title: Sub Lumen

Another One

The fleshing out continues apace of an administration that with each passing week resembles more a third term for The Clintons than a new one for Barack Obama.

Monday it was announced that former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, has been tapped to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is change in which I do not want to believe.

Obama's people [now there's an endangered species!] pitched Panetta as a non-controversial choice, a man respected by both sides of the isle in the body responsible for his approval.

It was argued that as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Panetta learned how a president receives and digests intelligence on a daily basis and that this was a qualification for the job. This surreal portrait of DCIA as an intelligence caterer is something I cannot, will not buy. There is so, so much more responsibility called for in this position in an agency (as the NYT observed) that has been notoriously unwelcoming to directors perceived as outsiders.

Also, Panetta is a former Republican. It seems fair to wonder just how many GOP senators have much love for a turncoat.

The only other qualification I've heard mentioned is that Panetta has been an opponent of torture. Hell, so have I, yet I have received no call from the transition team.

All I can see through the harsh lens of political reality is that the real reason for his appointment is that he was and is a loyal Clintonite... or Clintonista, whichever is correct.

Ron Paul on the Invasion of Gaza

Speaking Saturday, Congressman Paul made this statement regarding the invasion of Gaza by Israel, and its implications for this country.

Top 5 Israeli Lies

Make no mistake -- I do not regard Hamas as having clean hands as to what's happening in Gaza currently, but neither do I subscribe to what has been the standard American outlook... best expressed by the mantra, "Israel is our friend and they can do no wrong."

With that preface, here are the top five lies about Israel's assault on Gaza, as expressed by Jeremy Hammond:

Lie #1. Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

Lie #2. Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Lie #3. Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.

Lie #4. Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.

Lie #5. Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

This Is How You Do It

Tuesday night Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former GOP presidential candidate, appeared for the Nth time as a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

As I've mentioned here various times previously, I kind of like Mike. He was not a bad governor and is a very personable individual. There always have been issues upon which I disagreed with him wholeheartedly, and it seems that I've noticed more of those now that he has his own show on Fox News ...Fox Noise ...Faux News ...whatever. Nonetheless, he is intelligent (if narrow-minded on certain things), articulate, quick-witted and generally possessing a high degree of good humor. All of these attributes make him relatively attractive as a talk show guest, and he makes the rounds of most all of them... even when not formally running for office.

As any regular reader here can attest, I also kind of like Jon. For that matter, the casual observer might think that this blog is a virtual Daily Show fan-site. The truth is that, thanks to the efforts of Jon and the writers, the program regularly delivers some of the most on-target, pithy political commentary around. It's the most consistent source of high quality political satire that's been on U.S. television in decades.

Tuesday night, though, it seemed as though Stewart elevated his game to a new, even higher level. The time he spent with Huckabee (who was there ostensibly to plug his latest book, Do The Right Thing) was truly a thing of beauty to watch. It was half interview, half debate and half intellectual sparing match.

I have never seen anyone interview Mike Huckabee so well, and I cannot recall any interview done by Jon Stewart that would equal this one. Jon's questions were pointed, probing and relentless yet both men seemed to be having a great time. Nobody yelled, nobody got mad, but canned responses were not accepted as payment in full for direct interrogatories.

One of my favorite lines, coming in a discussion about limiting the size and scope of government, was when Stewart said something to this effect:
So you're o.k. with government having tanks and nukes, but you don't want to entrust them with giving cheese to poor people?
A few minutes into this interview, the program ceased for a while to be a "comedy show," and became instead something that would have made the likes of the late Tim Russert proud. Yes, I was proud of Jon Stewart, and only somewhat less so of Mike Huckabee.

Below is the video in two parts. Please watch it and enjoy. I promise that these are the last Daily Show clips I will post this year.

Why I Still Watch Some Television - Part 0011

What does it mean when satire program, a comedy show that throws in the occasional fart joke, is the source for some of the most down-to-earth, explain-it-to-everyman analysis of and commentary upon our current financial crisis. I don't know. I just know that my mental (and probably physical) health is better for Jon Stewart and his crew do.

This clip is about six minutes long and it's all good, but it gets really good at about the four and a half minutes mark. Enjoy.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Three - Revisited

Guess who sounds a bit like Michael Moore?

The Reverend, Revealed

Remember the "Saddleback Civil Forum" back in August? It wasn't a debate, but it was the first post-convention match up for McCain and Obama -- organized by the head of the southern California mega-church where it was staged, Rev. Rick Warren.

Coming into the event, Pastor Warren was portrayed a benevolent, moderate, centrist, non-partisan type. That's not the vibe that I picked up when watching it, however. It felt very much like McCain was the home team and Obama the visitor. Maybe that had something to do with the way the pastor addressed the GOP nominee as "John," while his opponent was "Senator Obama."

Fast forward to November 4th. Obama wins the election.

Fast forward to December 3rd. Pastor Warren appears on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes, ostensibly to promote his latest book The Purpose of Christmas.

Sounds innocent enough, right? Somehow, though, things went in a decidedly un-warm, un-holiday direction. Via Steve Benen:

Hannity insisted that United States needs to "take out" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Warren said he agreed. Hannity asked, "Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?" Warren responded, "Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe....

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.

Does Warren really consider it part of his ministry to sanctify the inch-deep theologizing-cum-warmongering of thugs like Sean Hannity? If so, who else does Warren think Jesus would bomb?

I contacted Pastor Warren's office for clarification, specifically to find out where, exactly, the Bible says that "God puts government on earth to punish evildoers" like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said they'd get back to me. I'll update if and when they do. I suspect Warren was referring to Romans 13, in which the Apostle Paul admonished Christians to submit to governing authorities (Hear that Hannity? Submit!), and also addressed the power of civil government to punish criminals. This has nothing to do, as far as I know, with invading foreign countries and killing their leaders, which is the context in which Warren is speaking.

Promote Reconciliation
Equip Servant Leaders
Assist the Poor
Care for the Sick
Educate the Next Generation

Oh, Canada

We tend to think of you as our nicer, saner neighbor to the north, so WTF?

Canadian PM Shuts Down Parliament to Avoid No-Confidence Vote

Very recently re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a completely unprecedented maneuver in Canada, has suspended parliament, locking the doors to block an opposition attempt by a majority coalition to topple his minority government.

It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It can't happen here. It ca....

The Perfect Metaphor

In crystallizing the nature of the current financial crisis, The Onion so nails it, as they are wont to do.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Three?

The Chief Executive Officers of the "Big 3" U.S. automakers were back in Washington today (having actually driven from Detroit in cars this time), more humble and more hungry. This time they were asking the Senate Banking Committee for $34 billion in federal loans, up from their request two weeks ago for $25 billion.

They were selling both the magnitude of the need and its urgency, getting help on that point from UAW President, Ron Gettelfinger, who said: "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month."

The auto exec's new tone of contrition mitigated the amount of hostility from the senate panel, but they found few prospective buyers for their sales pitch. Ranking minority member, Sen. Richard Shelby, said: "If you made this presentation to get a bank loan I suspect that any sensible banker would summarily reject your request." However, committee chair Chris Dodd, said, "We're not going to leave town without trying" to help, and that without help "we're looking at a death sentence." [AP]

The Big 3 will try to make their case at a House hearing on Friday, and Congress could take up rescue legislation next week in an emergency session. My suspicion is that they'll meet an equally chilly reception in the House, and at this point I'm not even going to guess at the final outcome.

I've been back and forth on this issue in my own mind. The Hammerin' Hank Paulson $700 Billion Extravaganza has left me with a wee bit of discomfort concerning the whole concept of our government giving away billions of dollars that they don't have in order to reward incompetence. But at the same time, I'm more than a little pissed off at the disparity between the treatment the banks and financial services people received from Congress and the way the mental pygmies on Capitol Hill are dealing with the car companies.

It seems that if you're in the manufacturing sector, if you actually make usable, physical, tangible products, then you get a very public [and in this case, mostly very deserved] whipping... and you may or may not get the money you need to survive.

If, on the other hand, you're in the financial sector, if you lost godawful sums of money buying and selling derivatives and other instruments so exotic you had to hire physicists to create them, then Uncle Sam doesn't even ask you how much you need... he just hands you his wallet on faith. I swear there have been times I've looked at Treasury Secretary Paulson and thought for a moment I was seeing Jack Nicholson's "The Joker" in the first Batman movie, cackling:

"And now, folks, it's time for 'Who do you trust.' Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust? Me? I'm giving away free money!!"

They're in the spot they're in and they've been in this spot for some time because they haven't listened to the consumer, they haven't been building the right cars ... in fact, they've not only hurt themselves, they've helped to provide some of the fodder for this economic collapse that we're facing because of the arrogant and wrong decisions that they've made over the years. Those people should be removed.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used to be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.

Chicken Choking

The number one chicken producer in the U.S. is bankrupt. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. is currently the world leader in chicken production and has approximately 25% of the domestic market. The company filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code on Monday after heavy debt and low chicken prices put them in a squeeze.

O.K., so maybe this doesn't sound like THE big story of the week, and frankly I haven't seen this on any TV news network. But it's kind of a big deal here in my backyard, which happens to be just a few miles from the headquarters of the number two producer, Tyson Foods, who just may be the reason Pilgrim's Pride went over the cliff.

Pilgrim's suffered a triple whammy of large debt, high feed prices and lower prices for chicken amid weakening demand in the U.S. and abroad. USA Today reports:

The economics facing the industry have been brutal. Corn prices were more than triple their five-year average in June, Steiner says. Meanwhile, wholesale chicken prices were off their five-year average by 16.2%. Corn prices have fallen 55% since then, and producers, except for Tyson, have cut production.

Tyson actually boosted chicken production in the latest quarter by 6 percent, thus worsening the problem. And the company has vowed not to cut chicken production going forward.

Why? Barclays Capital analyst Christopher Bledsoe thinks he has an answer: Tyson is intentionally taking losses in its chicken segment to "force other chicken processors to carry a disproportionate burden of this cycle's necessary production cuts."

The Pilgrim [sic] Pride's bankruptcy is among the most dramatic financial fallout yet from the economic slowdown spreading across the Farm Belt. Ethanol producer VeraSun Energy Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October. Like Pilgrim's Pride, VeraSun made an expensive acquisition -- the $700 million purchase of rival US BioEnergy Corp. -- just as soaring grain prices inflated its costs of doing business, and then made some grain trades that turned sour.

Pilgrim's Pride reached out to dozens of hedge funds and private-equity funds in recent weeks for rescue financing, but found little interest in providing new money for the company, said two people familiar with the matter. Some hedge funds told Pilgrim's Pride they needed to maintain liquidity to repay their own investors by the end of the year.

What 15 Minutes?

It's bad enough that my cringe reflex is going to be overworked by the perpetual prospect of being treated to Sarah Palin's grinning visage at any moment for the foreseeable future. You betcha it is, but there's another character from the recently failed McC-P campaign who is trying every bit as hard as is she to extend those 15 golden minutes of fame.

I speak of none other than Joe the Plumber™.

Woe be unto the faucets and toilets of Holland, Ohio. Joe has no time for you now.

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who isn't actually a plumber, apparently did not land the Nashville recording contract he wanted, but he does have a book coming out.

Temples of Convenience—and Chambers of Delight (Lucinda Lambton): "It shed a great deal of light on the development of the lavatory, or as we say over home, 'the hutch.'" Most of the privies in the book are "the product of non-union labor." A plus!

Flushed with Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper (Wallace Reyburn): "Just when you think you know everything about plumbing, this book comes along."

Plumber's Handbook (Howard C. Massey): Particularly useful "on the topics of greasy waste systems, outside waste interceptors, and what for me has been a longtime conndrum, local gas codes." It's also water-resistant.

Bad Touch

O.K., Saxby Chambliss won... again. And again won by playing hard on the fears of his constituents. In 2002 he did his best to make them believe that every man, woman and child in Georgia were going to be murdered by terrorists at any moment unless they voted Republican.

This time around he replaced the image of Osama bin Laden with the specter of President Obama being able to benefit from a true working majority in the Senate. Saxby's message was that heaven only knows what horrors might result from a Republican inability to keep things in perpetual partisan gridlock... or something like that.

Well, it worked, as usual in Georgia. I suspect only the most extremely optimistic Martin supporters actually expected a result to the contrary, and surely Chambliss had to have been pretty confident that he had the election in the bag. Why, then, did he do this?? [Hint: watch his right hand about 24 seconds in]

Have Mouth Will Travel

In the past I've referred to Ralph Nader as an athlete's-foot-like fungus that keeps coming back. Be it known that I am still searching for a metaphor adequate to describe Sarah Palin's perpetual ubiquitousness.

She and her mouth were in Georgia on Monday, ostensibly at the behest of Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss who faced a runoff vote today against Democratic challenger James Martin. But as usual, she managed to make a good deal of each of her four campaign appearances more than a little bit about her.

Chambliss gained his Senate seat in 2002 with the demonic direction of Karl Rove by horribly and utterly falsely slandering highly-decorated veteran, triple amputee and bona fide hero Max Cleland.

Frankly, I would have loved to have seen a Cleland-Chambliss rematch. I believe Cleland would have made a stronger candidate than Martin has been, but given what he endured six years ago I can surely understand why he would be done seeking public office. Georgia's loss, our loss.

As I write this, the polls are closed in Georgia -- have been for about two hours. The race has not yet been "called" by any major news organization of which I'm aware, but CNN is showing Chambliss leading with a substantial 20 point margin and slightly more than half of the vote counted.

It would appear that Palin surely did him no harm. Georgia is a perennially red state, but one in which McCain prevailed in the General Election over Obama by only 5 points. The bottom line is that the GOP hangs on to at least one of the last two senate seats to be determined, and Sarah Palin's stock goes up in the party.

This Alaska Governor who has not governed Alaska since mid-August is addicted to the spotlight, aching for attention, ravenous for power and has pure ambition pulsing through her veins. Far from seeing the last of her, I expect no letup in the endless onslaught of her.

But as long as she continues to inflict herself upon us, there will be talented souls creating little joys like the one below... and I'll keep finding them.

It's a mental health issue.

They Keep Coming

More and more and more Clintonites continue to be tapped for positions in what I originally thought was going to be an Obama administration. Two-thirds of the "Obama" transition team itself is comprised of Clintonistas: "At least 85 of the 135-odd members," according to the Wall Street Journal last week. It should be no surprise that an environment so Clintonian-rich would be conducive to the incubation of a third Clinton administration.

What puzzles me is why Obama seems to be so warmly embracing this development. One need not be afraid of snakes to prefer avoiding sitting waist-deep in a pit of vipers.

Some of these are not too directly connected -- Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security designate), for example, was appointed to a U.S. Attorney position by Bill Clinton in 1993, but launched her own political career by winning the Arizona Attorney General's office in 1998 and ultimately became the state's Governor.

Other recent choices are more directly connected, for example: Susan Rice, Eric Holder (formerly Bill's Deputy AG in charge of for-profit pardon rubber-stamping), and then there's Hillary who is set to become the nation's first un-fire-able Secretary of State.

Add to that Bush administration holdovers and a Marine general who has longer and stronger ties to McCain than to the incoming president, and for me at least it's becoming progressively more difficult to see that much lauded Change™ that's supposed to be just around the corner now.

Be Afraid

Bloomberg has done the heavy lifting. They've crunched the numbers and the bottom line looks very, very scary.

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

[....]

The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Approaching Political Atheism

A half-century is a fair chunk of time. That length of span allows plenty of room for personal meanderings, including those political in nature, or at least that has been true for me.

I was raised in a family that voted Democratic in every election, except presidential ones. The only reason my father and mother would never have self-identified as Republicans was that the Republican party did not exist in Arkansas in those days. It barely does now.

On rare occasions the state elects a Republican governor. The victories of Winthrop Rockefeller in the 1960s and more recently Mike Huckabee represented, however, triumphs for charismatic individuals. They were elected utterly without any coattail effects.

In recent decades the one part of the state that's become anything of a foothold for Republicans [read: Republican Congressman] is, perhaps ironically, the northwestern quadrant where I live. Yet opinion research perpetually shows that the state as a whole remains conservative, very conservative.

In my childhood, I thought I was a Democrat, though I had no idea what that might have meant. We were faithful members of a fundamentalist Christian church, and I vaguely embraced any conservative "principle" that could be simplified enough to fit onto a bumper-sticker.

By the time I was half way through high school, my personal political pendulum had swung completely in the other direction. I felt cheated that I had been denied by my youth participation in the student radical movements of the 1960s, but in homage thereto I wrote pamphlets on "Students Rights" that were banned by my school. I penned well-researched legal memoranda that bolstered other students' challenges to dress codes and hair-length rules. By the time I graduated, I had become the most thoroughly political person on campus.

College had lots of very pleasant distractions that served at least in part to dampen my political zeal, but I remained firmly on the left. Before graduating, though, I had the opportunity to seek (successfully) public office -- Justice of the Peace.

In those days the JPs met annually as the Quorum Court, a county legislature of sorts, to set the county's budget for the coming year. As it happened, in my first year our county was facing a minor funding crisis for what was then typically called "ambulance service" and I was appointed to an ad hoc committee charged with finding the money needed to allow the county to assume emergency medical services in the vacuum created by the cessation of operation of the one local private firm in that business.

To make a long story short: ambulance service continued, I married a few couples and did not seek re-election because I moved out of the county to attend law school. I was elected JP as a Democrat. There was not even a Republican primary in our county that year.

The year I graduated from college, Jimmy Carter was elected president and I was as happy as a pig in sh*t. The very idea of a southerner in the White House was enough to get my vote, though I would have supported any Democratic nominee [hated Nixon, hated Ford more for pardoning him].

Unfortunately, the Carter presidency was... well, the Carter presidency and by the end of it I was utterly disillusioned with all things Democratic and by extension, all things liberal. I voted Republican in the next three presidential elections.

Looking back I can see the spiral I was in with clarity that escaped me at the time. Toward the end of my long "conservative binge" I was reduced to mainlining Rush Limbaugh broadcasts every day, and paying per-minute connect rates to CompuServe in order to download transcripts. At perhaps the lowest point, I procured an autographed photo which I framed and gave as a birthday present to my young son.

I know it's an oversimplification, but I can point to one man and one moment that in tandem reversed my direction politically: George W. Bush and the aftermath of September 11. Evidently the smell of the Constitution being burned snapped me out of it.

Since then I have resisted labeling myself as much as possible. I feel as if I'm some sort of hybrid, a political chimera. On some issues I come down hardcore progressive, while seriously flirting with libertarianism on others and realizing that I have some pretty tenacious fiscal conservative roots.

You'll notice that no party names are mentioned, though. As I grow older, I become ever more convinced of the wisdom in my father's observation that in the end there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Case in point: one of the things I'll always despise about the Bush administration was how they took advantage of the nation following 9/11, using that tragedy to trash the Constitution, discard the rule of law and do horrific things in our names. Damn Republicans.

Fast forward to last Tuesday (per WSJ):

Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking to a Wall Street Journal conclave of business leaders Tuesday, said the economic crisis facing the country is "an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Mr. Emanuel said.

A Mental Health Moment

The work of Julian Beever, street art genius. Enjoy.

That Third Term

In the recent presidential campaign I made no secret of the fact that I was more anti-McCain than pro-Obama. One of the arguments against a McCain presidency that I found persuasive was that in many important ways it would be virtually a third term for George W. Bush [and in some ways potentially worse].

The other side of that coin, the concomitant pro-Obama argument could be summed in one word: change.

I don't want to be premature in my judgment about this, so I'll not say much at this point. I do, however, feel compelled to say that as positions are being filled for the Obama administration, I am being filled more and more with a sense that the only NEW face there will be President Obama's.

How would an administration comprised largely of recycled Clintonites (and quite possibly featuring Hillary as Secretary of State) not be in many ways virtually a third term for William J. Clinton? Why would that be change?

Dennis Miller - Jackass

Bill O'Reilly was John Stewart's guest on The Daily Show Thursday night. I suppose one could say that it was an interesting exchange, though I almost always feel after interviews with people like this that Stewart has been a little too hospitable.

I only get to see Mr. O'Reilly when clips of his show are aired on other programs, or when he appears as a guest with the likes of Stewart, Letterman, et al. I don't watch "The Factor." I can't. It simply would not be a safe thing for me to do from a medical standpoint. I have severe hypertension and a potentially lethal allergy to horsesh*t.

Fortunately for me, there are stalwart souls out there -- like the good folks at Think Progress -- who watch "The Factor" so that I don't have to be exposed. These brave sentinels then sound an alarm when horsesh*t levels on the program hit a precipitous spike.

Such was the case Wednesday night when on The O'Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller proclaimed that liberal women hate Sarah Palin because they envy the quality of her sex life.

She’s a great dame. People are fascinated by her because the Left hate her. I think the Left hate her — mostly women on the Left hate her — because to me from outside in it appears that she has a great sex life, all right? I think she has non-neurotic sex with that Todd Palin guy.

'Tis the Season

It's been about a week since I was in here. Dust is already starting to accumulate. We can't have that.

The past week has been a time of relaxation, honestly. Even though Election '08 is still not over in a few states (Minnesota, Georgia and Alaska), it is finalized enough for me to unwind from the precarious condition in which I kept myself during the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

I thought it might be a time to catch up on what's going on in the rest of the world, and I expected TV news to fill the domestic politics vacuum with some global stories and perhaps a more thorough examination of the big bailout and where all those dollars are going.

I was wrong. Cable news has virtually become Palin-TV: all Palin, all the time. It literally seems this week that I cannot watch any network for more than 45 minutes without that person's face appearing on the screen. Good grief, how she does talk ...and talk and talk and talk.

A nice, but brief, distraction from the perpetual Palin mania was a weekend visit from Florida by my wife's mother (doubtless one of the top ten mothers-in-law of all time). More family will be visiting for Thanksgiving. We'll be seeing my wife's brilliant artist brother and his supermodel girlfriend. I'm hoping on the 27th to be frantically cooking for six -- the other two being my son and his philosopher girlfriend.

This will be the first Thanksgiving my wife and I have faced since adopting the vegan lifestyle earlier this year. The menu is not even in rough draft form yet, but it's being given a considerable amount of thought. Which is beginning to put me into a holiday mood.

Don't misunderstand, "holiday mood" is not necessarily a good thing. Thanksgiving and Christmas occur sufficiently close together as to allow me at this point in time to be getting neurotic about both days.

Yes, Christmas seemingly is just around the corner. If store displays in the major retailers here are any indication, Christmas has been just around the corner since well before Halloween. I cannot imagine why they still continue to wait until after Labor Day.

Ready or not, the holiday season is here. But there is another special time that is almost upon us... something for which I've been watching for quite a while now.

New revelations of the U.S. government's systematic use of torture in the "global war on terror," including communist Chinese "brainwashing" methods from the 1950s, have brought renewed calls from lawmakers and human rights advocates for the prosecution of senior Bush administration officials. While the legal and political obstacles to such prosecutions are steep, those implicated will not want to leave the enjoyment of their retirement years to the mercy of the federal judiciary.

So don't be surprised if some time before Inauguration Day 2009, President George W. Bush issues a blanket presidential pardon to ensure that those who organized and implemented brutal interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding" (a terrifying simulated drowning) are never hauled before the courts. A pardon would prevent future administrations from ever prosecuting those responsible for torture and other mistreatment at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA detention facilities elsewhere overseas.

The president may well want to protect loyalists who designed or oversaw his most secretive tactics in the war on terror, and behind closed doors he may be under some pressure to do so. If in the end Bush pardons the stewards of his interrogation policies it would be a final act of injustice by a president whose legacy includes running roughshod over fundamental freedoms and undermining America's ability to promote human rights abroad.

The Constitution provides the president virtually unlimited power "to grant reprieves and pardons" for federal crimes; only impeachment is excluded. A president need not give reasons for pardons and Congress has no power to reject or otherwise block them.

[P]residents have taken to waiting until the very end of their administration before handing down controversial pardons. George H.W. Bush pardoned six defendants in the Iran-Contra scandal, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, with less than a month to go in his presidency. Bill Clinton issued 140 of his 395 pardons on his final day in office....

What Next?

I can imagine that a lot of sorely disappointed people [Sean Hannity, et al] are sitting around, wondering what's going to happen now that the Worst Possible Thing™ has happened -- i.e., Barack Obama winning.

236.com explores one way to make such people exponentially more miserable.

The End of Ralph Nader

I've called him a virus, an athlete's-foot-like fungus, a professional candidate, a certified egomaniac and a few other things that I prefer not to put in print. Tuesday night, however, he moved himself into a whole new category as far as I'm concerned.

At 11:42 p.m. Central Time, approaching two hours after the election had been called for Obama, Mr. Ralph "Hey Look At Me, I Pulled 1 Percent" Nader was on Fox News live. Why? For Fox it was probably a matter of temporarily running out of Republicans who felt up to speaking on camera. For Nader it was SHOWTIME!

Though he does not deserve it, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt... I'm going to assume that he did not mean what he said. I would rather guess that he was thinking this occasion might be his last chance on national TV until three or so years from now when he announces his next run for president -- his last chance unless he said something so outlandish and so controversial that it might stall his power dive into oblivion. Here's what the twerp came up with, repeating what he had said earlier on Fox Radio:

Will Obama be Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom?

Don't Forget

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I can think of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow
[....]

Arkansas Shame

Most of the time I love living in Arkansas, and I'm proud to have been born and raised here. Occasionally however, I find myself feeling a little ashamed to call myself an Arkansan.

I wrote recently about a University of Arkansas survey that found the electorate here willing to support a Democratic candidate over McCain, so long as that candidate was white.

As it turned out -- to no one's surprise -- the state went heavily for McCain yesterday, giving him 59 percent of the vote (5 percentage points greater than McCain received in his home state). We were among the reddest of the redneck red states, being surpassed only slightly by the likes of Alabama, Oklahoma, Idaho and Alaska.

This, at least, I was expecting.

There was another embarrassment that took be by surprise.

"The Arkansas Poll" last month had indicated that 55 percent of Arkansans were opposed to Proposed Initiated Act 1. The actual vote yesterday was 57 percent in favor.

Here's how it looked on the ballot.

Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 An Act Providing That An Individual Who Is Cohabiting Outside Of A Valid Marriage May Not Adopt Or Be A Foster Parent Of A Child Less Than Eighteen Years Old

Description: A Proposed Act Providing That A Minor May Not Be Adopted Or Placed In A Foster Home If The Individual Seeking To Adopt Or To Serve As A Foster Parent Is Cohabiting With A Sexual Partner Outside Of A Marriage Which Is Valid Under The Constitution And Laws Of This State; Stating That The Foregoing Prohibition Applies Equally To Cohabiting Opposite-sex And Same-sex Individuals; Stating That The Act Will Not Affect The Guardianship Of Minors; Defining “minor” To Mean An Individual Under The Age Of Eighteen (18) Years; Stating That The Public Policy Of The State Is To Favor Marriage, As Defined By The Constitution And Laws Of This State, Over Unmarried Cohabitation With Regard To Adoption And Foster Care; Finding And Declaring On Behalf Of The People Of The State That It Is In The Best Interest Of Children In Need Of Adoption Or Foster Care To Be Reared In Homes In Which Adoptive Or Foster Parents Are Not Cohabiting Outside Of Marriage; Providing That The Director Of The Department Of Human Services Shall Promulgate Regulations Consistent With The Act; And Providing That The Act Applies Prospectively Beginning On January 1, 2009.

The adoption and foster ban, aimed primarily at keeping gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents, received support from nearly 57 percent of voters in unofficial and incomplete returns. [....]

The foster measure's sponsor, the Arkansas Family Council, painted its proposal as a battle against a "gay agenda." The conservative group successfully pushed for an amendment banning same-sex marriage four years ago.

"I think the voters realized that this was about child welfare, rather than the rights of adults," said Jerry Cox, the council's president.

Opponents of the measure argued it would make it harder for the state to find the foster parents it needs to take care of children. Gov. Mike Beebe, who had originally said he supported a foster-care restriction, changed his mind and said an open policy was needed because of a lack of foster homes.

"The biggest thing to take away tonight is that the children in the foster-care system were dealt a pretty serious blow tonight," said Brett Kincaid, director of the campaign that opposed the measure.

The measure came after a 2006 Arkansas Supreme Court decision that struck down a state policy banning gay foster parents.