I just finished reading Peter Singer's The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush. Alternately subtitled "Taking George W. Bush Seriously" (UK) and "Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush", my copy bears the latter caption. While riding the train to work yesterday, a man noticed what I was reading and asked me incredulously, "Is there really any question?" Judging from what I'm hearing in the news, there isn't – or if there is, few seem willing to examine the ethical philosophy(ies) that Bush claims he follows. It was this lack of serious inquiry that prompted me to read the book. When Bush speaks of "Evil", what does he mean? When people claim that Bush possesses "moral clarity", to what are they referring? Singer takes Bush at his word and analyzes, with a calm and quiet dignity, how his actions have squared with his professed beliefs. While Singer's philosophical arguments occasionally veer off course, the reasoning he uses is solid and the conclusions that he draws are incontrovertibly dim (i.e. "Bush's actions cannot fit within a coherent ethic of respecting human life"). As I read one damning chapter after another, I began to feel like Singer was being unfair in one important respect: consistency in the application of ethics is not to be expected in Presidents (or anyone in a position of great responsibility), because the burden of power lies in the decisions that one must make in the face of contradictory moral outcomes. Can a President reasonably be expected to apply the same moral qualifiers to a decision about embryonic stem-cell research that he would apply to the fight against terrorism and/or geopolitical disputes? However, in perhaps the most cogent and critical sections near the end of the book, Singer manages to touch on this as well. Using Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development, he concludes the following:

[David] Frum's account of Bush's appeal to "fixed rules" and his apparent inability to asses the simple rule against lying in terms of larger considerations about why we have such a rule, suggests that Bush has not progressed beyond Kohlberg's conventional level of moral reasoning. This is the stage typically reached by early teenage boys, although Kohlberg notes that many develop no further, and hence it is not unusual for an adult to be at this stage.

It is, however, unusual for an adult to attain a position of such power over the course of human events that their ability (and willingness) to engage in serious moral reflection becomes a subject that concerns us all. Traditionally, conservatives have argued that Bush's lack of intellectual prowess is of secondary importance when weighed against his "moral clarity" and determination to do what is "right". The truth, as it turns out, is that he is no more qualified to lead in that regard than a young teenage boy.

I'll talk about John Kerry's speech probably this afternoon (I know, I'm a bad blogger). I have a busy day today and won't be near an Interweb connection. In the meantime, check out this gigantic early hard drive. Like BoingBoing says, the capacity of this hard drive is no doubt far smaller than my little pen drive.

There's something here for everyone. Enjoy!

Moment of silence for Dr. Francis Crick.

George Will fails to see the gorilla sitting on his face:

Kerry says he would not rule out pre-emptive military action, but Bush probably exhausted his ability to take such action by doing so against a nation that lacked the attribute that could justify it — possession of weapons of mass destruction by a regime likely to use them.  Yes, the world is better off because Bush rid Iraq of the regime that filled the mass graves, but he does not argue that human rights horrors justify pre-emptive war.

The first crisis of the next presidential term probably will be Iran's approaching possession of nuclear weapons.  Bush's policy already is Kerryesque: ask "the world" to help.  It is not working.

It's not working precisely because Bush has "exhausted his ability to take such action" by shredding America's credibility as a moral leader.  That George Will, the most priggish and desperately over-intellectual of all conservative pundits, cannot recognize this – even when the logic of it is glaringly apparent in his own writing – is remarkable.  Furthermore, how can we expect the world to listen to our entreaties to unite behind a cause of common concern after we so blatantly rejected their entreaties to us to respect the rule of law?  That the Kerry campaign is rejecting "negativity" is maddening in this respect – Bush deserves to be pilloried for his profoundly unethical, unlawful, and disastrous actions as president.  Our credibility on the world stage demands not only that we replace him, but that we acknowledge the mistakes that have been made as a result of his incompetence.

UPDATE: Here's a more sophisticated argument for new leadership.

Reader e-mail!

Had to say that I really liked you blog about Obama.  I loved his speech and think he will be our first black president.  Or, at least, I sincerely hope so.

This isn't the first time I've heard promulgations of "Obama for President." I've heard pundits on TV mention it several times. Hey, after that speech, I was ready to offer him my first born for electrifying me even more than when I first heard Howard Dean's "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" speech.

Is the Obama-for-President speechifying a lot of hype, though? Are we jumping the gun a bit?

My girlfriend and I discussed last night the viability for an African American president. We both agree that we may very well see a black president in our lifetime, and probably before we'll see a female president. (Sorry, DNC-ers, Hillary Clinton is far too polarizing to be a viable candidate, unless she's running against Dick Cheney.) In our current political climate, perhaps it wouldn't matter if John Kerry and/or John Edwards was an African American, considering how many people have already made their decision. And an intelligent, well-spoken candidate of color not prone to ridiculous dramatics or possessing a storied past (ahem, Al Sharpton, cough-cough) could motivate minorities, including the much sought-after Latino vote, and connect with young people more effectively than some rich, white Republican ever could. Of the 19 battleground states, 13 have Democratic governors and only 6 have Republican controlled houses; 12 of these states had Republican governors in 2000 (source). The climate is shifting, and quickly, thanks to the warmongering ineptitude of our current administration.

Unfortunately, the time is simply not now. The election is still too close to call, and for an African American to become president, the political climate will have to shift just a wee bit more to the left. There are unfortunately plenty of people in this world whose latent racism will make them unconciously trust an African American less than a white person. As Americans who do vote increasingly make their decisions far earlier and along party lines, though, it won't matter what race or ethnicity the candidate is. Anyone who won't vote for a black president based solely on race isn't voting Democrat in this day and age anyway.

So can someone like Barack Obama become president? Right now, probably not, since he's from the Midwest, from a state that is becoming increasingly Democratic, and from a big city. Things have to shift a little, and I think that's happening. If John and John are elected in November and conditions improve or are percieved to have improved, John Edwards may have a really good running mate choice for 2012.

Though, if my friend Chris is right, Bush will not leave office even if he is defeated in November. Instead, Bush will instate Marshall law and declare himself Emperor. Then it'll require a coup to get him out. Of course, Chris also believed (albeit briefly) that Massod were behind 9/11, so take his theory with a grain of salt, no matter how plausible it seems.

UPDATE: The reader e-mails again

I think you hit the nail right on the head with how much more composed Obama is than past African-American candidates like Sharpton and Jackson, as well.  They don't seem stable.  Passionate and fill the personality code to get books in schools, clean up the streets and fight for equality, but I don't see them being the best choice for sit-downs with foreign leaders or actually filling the role of commander-in-chief.  But when I look at and listen to Obama, I believe that he can.  And I think that he actually can be president now.  Not this instant... he needs to win the senate race first and get some more politics under his belt.  8-16 years down the road, I think we've got a very strong candidate.  Passion still moves people and I don't think we've heard someone with that presence in a long time.  Clinton is a great speaker, but I think Barack exceeds him.&! nbsp; This is the first time that I have heard him speak (aside from question and answer clips).  So, I don't know how he is typically, but there was so much hype for his speech that this cannot be a fluke.  Now, you've got an African-American man who touts great ideals, carries himself like a leader and talks like one in a very eloquent manner.  He also has those little tiny shades of gospel church preaching peaking through his dialogue.  Just enough to draw in the lower to middle-lower class black families to make then feel like he is speaking to them (and not "whitened" black man) and just feint enough to not scare away the semi-conservative middle of the road folk.  I think he can be really broad-reaching in his appeal and draw in a lot of votes.  And personally, he's the first politician I've been excited about in my lifetime right out of the gate.  Anyone I've been excited about in the past in any capacity has been som! eone who I've grown to like and cheer for.  I can't be the only o ne feeling that way.  Mark my words, he will be president.

I guess John Edwards was right last night -- hope is on the way.

I took an Aleve Cold & Sinus this morning, and I swear to God that extended release Pseudoephedrine is is making feel high as Hell.

But not nearly as high as I felt watching Barack Obama's speech last night. I've tried to blog about that speech several times since last night, constantly abandoning posts that I felt contained too much hyperbole, wanting to write about that speech for what it is.

Try as I might, however, there is no way around making a grandiose statement.

Obama's speech was up there with some of the greatest speeches made in the history of our nation, with the Gettysburg address even. Seriously. Look at the way it's constructed, the way he relates his own life to national ideals, the way he addresses everyone and makes specific viewpoints appeal to anyone.

What kils me is the way the right wing is trying to degrade the speech -- by saying the speech was too Conservative. Bullshit. Obama's speech was exactly why I more often than not side with the Democratic party:

...people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.

Since when is that a Conservative viewpoint? How do privatization, deregulation, outsourcing, and tax cuts offer "doors of opportunity" to anyone other than the priviledged few?

I'm damn proud that Barack Obama will be the junior senator from Illinois. It's not like the Republicans can put anyone next to him after that speech. And eventhough none of the networks aired that speech, it's going to be replayed in the news, it's going to land Obama on magazine covers, and juicy pieces of that speech are going to be aired over and over again until election day. In the foggy mist of neck-and-neck poll numbers, Obama is the brightest light. We certainly needed one right now.

Is this the Iraq that Bush intended?  No.  However, the U.S. "mission" was accomplished a long time ago - in the president's mind – when Saddam ceased to control Iraq.  Now that we've done what we set out to do, the Iraqi people are free to fight one another in whatever manner and for whatever purposes they see fit.  Now that is what freedom is all about.  Again, I'm being sarcastic.  Truthfully, we're reverting back to our old ways here in America.  111 Iraqi deaths in suicide attacks is hardly worth mentioning – unless a few American soldiers happened to be killed as well.  Is it ethically compatible to invade a country to (ostensibly) liberate its people, sacrificing our own soldiers for their freedom, and simultaneously devaluing those selfsame lives upon the diminution of value of our own as targets?  Of course it isn't.  However, there's no ethical problem here – because we aren't in Iraq for the sake of its people.  We never were.  Then why are we there?  Good question.

Want to avoid accusations of stealing other people's material?  Just do what Drudge did.  Take a perfectly good picture of Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly and simply post a sloppily inverted version of it – and Presto!  You're not a thief.

ITEM:  Here's a fun factoid about Fox News.

Check out Britney Spears' new move: the "Clutch-N-Consume". 

Kelly says the Dems' will have to go negative soon to win, that the "cultural surrogates" aren't enough. And he's right. But when it comes to advertising, I think this may be the first campaign where a candidate's own advertising never goes negative and never needs to.

Americans, despite responding more clearly to negative campaign ads, claim to despise them. And when you sling mud, you get your own hands dirty. Take this study from 1998, which concludes:

Because negative political advertising that identifies the sponsor and the target hurts both candidates, when a candidate uses such advertising, it would be better not to identify the sponsor. However, it is normally required that by law the sponsor be identified. Garramone also pointed this out and suggested that "independent political action committees sponsoring negative advertising offer the candidates they help this anonymity advantage. Independent sponsors may contribute the additional benefit of greater credibility." [Emphasis added.]

Kerry has released "I'm John Kerry and I approve this message" ads that laud his military service and his positive goals for you and me. In this respect, Kelly's right -- Kerry's building trust with undecided voters in battleground states, making the assertive words sure to come out of his mouth during the debates all that more credible.

With dropping approval ratings and increased criticism of wingnut media (normally the proxy negative campaigners of the GOP), Bush's TV advertising went negative almost from the get-go.

Up to the election, even, Kerry can still release all of the positive advertising he wants. With the Left having a great advantage over the Right by outnumbering their 527s, why would the Kerry campaign make a negative ad when MoveOn.org is happy to oblige?

What I'm saying is not a disagreement with Kelly but more of a corollary. Yes, the campaign will get more negative from the Left. Yes, Kerry will have to confront Bush with some incendiary accusations. But while you're peeing in the middle of CSI, Kerry will take 30 seconds to tell you what's great about this country and how he'll represent it. Kerry's hands stay clean. Then, while peeing again in the middle of Letterman, a 527 ad will remind you of prisoner abuses and increased property taxes and the dangers of living without health insurance.

Dubya's manure bombs will still be "approved" by him, leaving him smelling vaguely of shit.

Us "lib'rals" have had hoisted upon us a reputation for hating America. Kerry/Edwards 2004 is shaping up to be a campaign where the candidates can spend more time proclaiming their love for America.

Atrios' real name is Duncan.  Expect more fascinating and revelatory news from the convention bloggers.  I'm being sarcastic.  Actually, I expect the blogger elite will spend the next few days name-dropping and giving us inside information on completely irrelevant aspects of the convention (like who they spotted at the neighboring urinal).  Sometimes it's distance itself that facilitates an enlightened perspective – let's hope that the bloggers don't get blinded by their newfound proximity to power.

Here we go.  The Democratic National Convention has begun – clearing the way for me to hustle home from work, microwave some chicken wings, curl up on my futon, plunge my fist into my underpants, grind my teeth, and pray that the Dems don't slit their own collective throat.  The major media outfits have already indicated that if they don't consider it a story, they won't bother covering it – and what they consider a story is narrowly defined indeed.  Controversy is a story.  A cohesive plan outlining the future of our country is not.  In this sense, the major networks are attending the convention in the same spirit as an apathetic teenager dragged to a NASCAR race by his parents: it'll only be deemed interesting is there's a crash.

There are, however, certainly some things to watch for.  To begin with, will the platform – either formally or as touched on by the speakers – be defined by the Bush administration's perceived strengths or weaknesses?  So far, the former has been the case.  When Kerry talks about tax policy and the "war on terror", it's largely because these are areas that Bush and his supporters feel are their strengths.  Meanwhile, there are a host of other areas (i.e. environment, energy conservation, foreign alliances) that Bush and his supporters all but admit are huge vulnerabilities.  Also, when (and how strongly) will the Kerry folks go negative?  So far it's been absurdly positive; largely because of the efforts of cultural surrogates like Moveon.org and Michael Moore.  However, unless Kerry goes negative at some point he will surely lose the election.  Why?  Well, here's one reason:

There is ample scientific evidence that, despite widespread public distaste for them, negative ads are the most effective kind, because people are more apt to remember negative information than positive information. Television ads are a particularly cherished vehicle for disseminating such information. As Lynda Lee Kaid, a telecommunications professor at the University of Florida, explains, people tend to expose themselves only to information they agree with, but because political ads fill the airwaves, it's almost impossible to shut them out completely. "The research tends to show that people often are persuaded," she says, "even without cognitively or openly choosing to be."

There's another reason campaigns are so quick to employ, and often abuse, negative ads. Unlike Bud Light, which seeks to maximize its public appeal, political campaigns can afford to alienate the more sensitive members of the electorate and are perfectly happy to drive down turnout—as long as they win votes from a plurality of those who do show up. In fact, one reason campaigns bother running positive ads when a race turns nasty is to ensure that their negative ads remain effective. This is known in the trade as "running a positive and a negative track." Craig Varoga, a Democratic consultant, says, "If people feel somewhat good about you, they're more likely to believe the accusations you make against the other side." No surprise, then, that campaigns are willing to go for blood.

It's my guess that Kerry is probably nursing this "positive track" so that, once he has gained the positive favor of the electorate, his attacks will be credible – or at least more credible than those that have issued from the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd for the last three years.  To this end, it's a fair assumption that the negative stuff will trickle out more and more as we get closer to the close of the Convention.  My other big hope is that the DNC will use their time in the spotlight to remind viewers (however obliquely) of the awesome catalogue of fuck-ups that have disappeared down the memory hole. (i.e., Abu Ghraib, Kyoto Protocol, Stem Cell Research Ban, Estate Tax Repeal, Kissinger on 9/11 Commission, Patriot Act, Federal Death Penalty, Faith Based Initiative, Unfunded Mandates, Constitutional Amendment, Christie Todd Whitman's Career, James Jeffords' Defection, etc.)

Damn, it's a good thing I like veggies on my pizza. (Via BoingBoing.)

Star Wars: Episode III is called "Revenge of the Sith." If it sucks, it'll be more like "Revenge of the Fans."

The article linked above has another interesting bit. The good news is the return of THX-1138 to theaters. The bad news -- it's a Director's Cut. George Lucas doesn't have a very good track record with returning to his movies (Greedo shot first?). Looking at the trailer, there do seem to be a few little CGI bits here and there, which, given the high-speed film used in shooting the movie, seem slightly out of place. Not to mention the shameful use of Arial in the trailer.

THX-1138 is a brilliant piece of work. It's visually stunning, showing George Lucas' clever framing and camera work, his attention to texture, its judicious use of color. And I'm just a sucker for Utopian stories. Most importantly, it's cluttered only when it needs to be, and sparse and desolate when it doesn't. Aside from the script writing abilities which he never had ("But I was going into Toshi Station to pick up some power converters!"), it's this juxtaposition of vacant and dense that George Lucas lost somewhere. The original original Star Wars -- which we may never see again -- made Mos Eisley a desolate place, whereas the Special Edition filled it with droids and people and buildings and random flying things. George Lucas can't stop filling space anymore with incredible CGI and fantastic art direction, making a mediocre story seem dwarfed.

Say what you want about "The Phantom Menace," about Jar-Jar and Anakin's virgin birth and midichlorians. I'll probably agree with you. But shut your piehole about "Attack of the Clones." I like that the Sith takeover begins with a simple political struggle. I love seeing Jedi in their prime. The first clone battle is breathtaking. I think it's brilliant that the downfall of the republic is kickstarted by Jar-Jar. And I don't mind there being an epic love story -- it is a space opera -- though if Romeo & Juliet has taught us anything, concealing a passionate love affair from those who would forbid it is more interesting than the slow, methodical gestation of the love affair.

However, with the exception of the moisture farm, the true travesty of Episode II is the density of the scenery, distracting me from what's important and making banal dialogue even less interesting because I can't pay attention to it. The only scene that comes close is when Anakin admits to slaughtering an entire tribe of Tuskan Raiders, something bleeding-heart Senator Amidala would never have forgiven -- like I said, Lucas' screenwriting ability has never been lauded. Toss in a little conflict with Padme -- oh he killed all those people, oh but he's so cute, oh but he's a Jedi, oh but I bet he has a big cock, oh, but, oh... -- and that scene could have been great.

So I hope revisiting THX-1138 taught George Lucas that it's not about the toys. It's about the actors. Robert Duvall doing what Robert Duvall does best in an empty white room is always going to be more interesting than Ewan MacGregor talking to a four-armed short-order cook while drinking jawa juice -- you can't clutter up good acting (even if the lines suck) with computer-generated crap. Quit crowding your actors. Let's see Hayden Christensen (who isn't a bad actor) wrestle with becoming Darth Vader. Make it hard for him. Let's see Natalie Portman (also not a bad actor) devastated when her children are taken away from her. Place those emotional struggles alongside the epic struggle for control of the galaxy and give each their due visually and narratively. There's the makings of the best Star Wars movie ever.

New York Times article concerning the differences between common knowledge about 9/11 and the commission report. Well, common knowledge to Republicans and hawks:

But in its most contentious effort to set the record straight about the origins of the plot, the bipartisan commission's final report found no evidence of close collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, appearing to undermine a justification for the Iraq war.

To us -- listen for it -- a collective "Well, duh!" To them -- again, listen for it -- a collective "Oh yeah, well, Saddam Hussein was EVIL!"

Follow-up to the entry concerning the airplane security hoax-like deal-y via the king of all bloggers.

Seems as though Annie Jacobson, the bitch who wrote the article (and deserves, as I opined, to have her ear fucked with a shoe bomb) was actually the only threat on the flight:

Air marshals' only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

"They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings," spokesman Adams confirmed, "to make sure it isn't a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover."

There doesn't seem to be a permalink to this article (i.e., the page will change soon), so I made a PDF and put it here.

Courtesy of Wonkette, Bush made an, uh, odd statement today to the Urban League:

Do you remember a guy named Charlie Gaines? Somebody gave me a quote he said, which I think kind of describes the environment we're in today. I think he's a friend of Jesse's. He said, "Blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant."

Hmmm. Perhaps if the elephant wasn't so busy fucking blacks, blacks might be willing to turn around and swallow. Dear God, who writes Dubya's speeches?

Charles Krauthammer, darling of Fox News and Satan, gives his thoughts about what may come next in World War III the conflict in the Middle East:

There are only two things that will stop the Iranian nuclear program: revolution from below or an attack on its nuclear facilities.

The country should be ripe for revolution.  The regime is detested. But the mullahs are very good at police-state tactics. The long-awaited revolution is not happening.

Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent.  Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term. … There may be no deus ex machina.  If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them.  All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.

Both of which, by the way, are far more likely to succeed with 146,000 American troops and highly sophisticated aircraft standing by just a few miles away -- in Iraq.

Anyone want to enlist for that one?  Or better yet, how about giving an enlistment to a friend or family member as a gift?  You can pick from a wide variety of armed services, and enlistments can now be renewed online free of charge.  Not sure?  I understand.  Just wait a few months and we'll fill you in on all the reasons why Iran is a terrific place to die.  You probably weren't aware that Iranians are freedom-hating monsters that, if given the slightest opportunity, would slaughter your family, flatten the statue of liberty, and feast on bald eagle-kabobs while crapping on the American flag.  Worry not, because over the next few months the Bush administration and the sycophantic jackals at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal will fill you in on all the details.

ADDENDUM:  I'm sorry, but "All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike"….what the fuck!?  All the tools of diplomacy are already off the table apparently.  Guys like Krauthammer are the worst forms of vermin on the planet.  This idiot should be exiled…permanently.

With The Motorcycle Diaries opening next month, expect to see a slew of anti-Che "exposés" in the press.  Starting us off is this well-developed but predictably dismissive piece from The Guardian Observer.  A few comments therein:

Che lives! all right, but not in the way he or his fellow revolutionaries could ever have imagined in their worst nightmares.  He has become a global brand.

Apparently the commodification of Che's image and mystique serves to undermine his politics in the most ironic and final way possible.  Not a new idea, and certainly one that Americans with Che paraphernalia (i.e. me) are all too familiar with.  Contrary to popular belief, however, it is exactly this uneasy relationship we have with Che that makes him such an attractive figure.  It is often assumed that those who admire Che either ignore his politics, are communists themselves, or are simply ignorant.  While his appeal largely lies in his power as an individual and as a revolutionary as such, without his politics he would be remembered as nothing more than a good soldier.  Che is the anti-capitalist.  As such, he stirs the conscience of young American capitalists – and this is a good thing, a thing for which I imagine Che would be proud.  In this sense, it is not disingenuous or oddly ironic or ignorant to sport a Che Guevara bumpersticker or T-shirt; it is a declaration that you are both participating in - and dissenting from within - simultaneously.  In short, you're questioning authority.  Onward…

If, as the historian Robert Conquest once claimed, the cult of Che among the young is based on 'one of the unfortunate afflictions to which the human mind is prone... adolescent revolutionary romanticism', ["The Motorcycle Diaries" director, Walter] Salles should have a sure-fire hit on his hands.

Go fuck yourself, dickhead.

'Che's iconic status was assured because he failed,' says [Christopher] Hitchens, 'His story was one of defeat and isolation, and that's why it is so seductive.'

Wow.  Another brilliant analysis from the bottom of a bottle of scotch!  It's the failure that’s so seductive.  Hmmm….  Let me think about that for a minute.  Defeat.  Isolation.  Yeah, that's it.  That must be why I like Native American art.  Hey Hitchens, you know what?  Fuck off.

By the way, I highly recommend Jon Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, as well as Fernando Meirelles' City of God, which was produced by Walter Salles.

Looking adorable and happy, John Edwards went on Larry King last night and presented an irrefutable argument for fundamental change:

I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that.  Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president.

The last time this claim was made, it was made so sloppily that the GOP twisted it (successfully) into an issue of "foreign involvement in domestic affairs" – very scary stuff indeed!  It would appear that Edwards will be able (and willing) to finesse this point with (hopefully) more success.  In my worthless opinion it's the strongest reason for Republicans who are primarily concerned with international affairs (as opposed to domestic social issues and/or fickle economic considerations) to vote for Kerry.

Dennis Kucinich finally gets a clue:

Today I am happy to endorse the Kerry-Edwards ticket. And I look forward to helping to lead the way to elect John Kerry President and John Edwards Vice President of the United States.

Dennis Kucinich -- you're a man with conviction, grand ideas, and balls larger than your frame should allow. Unfortunately, you're deluded, and you look like a ferret. Despite your tardiness, you bowed out the best way possible -- by saying to the world, if you think I'm crazy, take a look at Nader:

John Kerry can win because there is a place within the Democratic party for everyone, including those who may be thinking of supporting Ralph Nader. Most people know I have many of the same commitments Ralph has.

If there is room for me in the party and the Kerry-Edwards campaign, there is certainly room for Ralph and for his supporters.

Dear person who forwarded me this article:

Here's a hypothetical situation to ponder.

Let's say I publish a story about being in a hospital and witnessing a child paying for stitches with a sock full of pennies because his parents don't have insurance. And I overheard a man in a suit laughing, who I assumed was the owner of the hospital laughing at how disadvantaged that poor child is. Therefore, we need universal healthcare.

Is my point worthwhile? Perhaps. But is my story true? No, but at some point in someone's life, a similar situation perhaps could have possibly seen by someone somewhere, so it's true enough.

In an instance, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would all scream HOAX! That Arlo, he thinks rich people hate the poor. And that situation never could have happened. Arlo is a liar.

Well, I could never write that article. It is not forgivable or valid to lie in order to make a conclusion. Any logic and philosophy class will teach you that. Nor can I throw out a generality about guys in suits in hospitals. My boss' boss is in the hospital, he went straight from the office to the hospital, so he was there in a suit. Does that mean he was there to steal insurance from children? I could never make any of these claims, and the right wing, if they knew who I am, would never forgive me.

So this woman brings up a loophole in airline security. A worthy discussion. Pundits can feel free to make the argument that there are still holes in airline security. That's a tangible and important discussion to have. However, you cannot forgive someone because they're point is good if she is being a lying, unethical whore.

The article carries a lot of latent racism and unverifiable claims. It's obviously the work of conservative wingnuttery. It may not be a hoax*, per se, but it's pretty damn close. It is certainly truth stretched super-duper thin to the point of fabrication, and then passed along as spontaneous gonzo journalism to foster support for a particular viewpoint that is based on old-fashioned bigotry.

So fuck this bitch in her ear with a shoe bomb.

I enjoyed this take, despite its scattershot writing style.

Granola may be good for you, but not if you dunk it chocolate and coat it with marshmallows -- stuff that's not good for you. So it goes with the truth.

Yours truly,
Arlo ;->

*UPDATE [7/22/04]: Kelly pointed out this definition of "hoax":

Hoax: -n- (a) An act intended to deceive or trick. (b) Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

I guess it is a hoax, after all. Thanks, Kelly. I hate the bitch even more now.

So much for you're with us or you're with the terrorists, huh?

Krispy Kreme has come up with a drinkable version of the company's signature doughnut.  Think about that for a minute.  A drinkable doughnut.

Originally found on Political Wire, Download For Democracy is the sort of idea that further fulfills the promise of the Internet.

Even Trent Lott thinks this Sandy Berger thing doesn't amount to much:

'I think we need more information,' he said today on Fox News. 'I mean, obviously the timing of it is not good if he is serving as an adviser to a presidential candidate. But from now on until the election, everything like this will have a spotlight put on it and examined very carefully.'

Nice try, GOP, but no cigar in your 'nanni.

I know you like the rock and/or the roll, so go buy Tyrannosaurus Hives right freaking now.

Yes, now. Why are you still sitting there?

From Slashdot, introducing Mindball:

Mindball is an experience product, a game where two players control a ball with their brain waves. The player being most relaxed wins the game. The brain waves are detected by sensors attached to the headbands. The sensors (electrodes) are connected to a biosensor system. The biosensor system, registers the electrical activity in the brain – so called EGG. The brain waves increasing the chance to win Mindball are called Alpha- and Theta waves. They occur when we are calm and relaxed. The player´s brain activity is shown in a diagram on the monitor. The player being most relaxed makes the ball roll over to the opponent´s goal, with his brain waves as only aid, and thereby wins the game.

What I find fascinating -- and ironic -- is that, not counting medical items, the first commercial item on the market that responds to brainwaves actually rewards you for thinking less than your opponent. Isn't this a dream product for a corporation? Buy our product and put yourself into a state of hypnosis. Now you are under our power. The Utopian-novel-like implications of such an item are frightening to me. And considering the 2000 election went to the opponent with less brain power, the Republicans can't refuse the public access to such a game.

On second thought*, the Republicans in the pockets of the corporations may outlaw it nonetheless. After all, it's the first sport where the performance-enhancing drug of choice is marijuana.

*See? I already lost the game.

Why must we never give in to terrorist demands?  The conventional wisdom is that to do so would encourage terrorists.  Sounds like a fair point; if terrorism works, why abandon it?  Refusal to capitulate is especially valid if you're dealing with an imperialistic regime with delusions of grandeur.  However, both terrorism and obstinacy in the face thereof are tactics.  Is the preservation of the integrity of a tactic worth dying for?  I can understand fatal resolve – including the sacrifice of soldiers or self – if the tactic being used (whether a flanking maneuver or the withholding of a ransom) is deemed necessary for a military victory.  But if a maneuver is executed simply because failure to execute it would mean the inability to use such a maneuver in the future – I'm not so sure that that is worth the ultimate sacrifice.  In the case of terrorism, one can easily point to instances where people have capitulated to the demands of terrorists – and then soldiered on to defeat the terrorists in the end.  Similarly, a military force will alternately surrender and vanquish throughout the course of any war.  But what do I know.  We're obviously living in a whole new world and someone hasn't yet taught me the lessons of September 11.  Pardon me while I crawl back in my liberal spider hole and spearhead a circle-jerk with other girly men who hate freedom.

The 9/11 commission has piqued some interest in its evidence that Iran may have been involved in 9/11. Is it all becoming clear? Occupy neighboring Iraq, bring about evidence if Iran ties to 9/11, smack the shit out of Iran.

I have a great idea. The vice president could say that the war on Iraq was a typo. One person had a broken keyboard, entered a Q instead of an N. But aren't you glad we attacked Iraq anyway, now that Hussein is out of power and we're in perfect position to attack Iran? We're gonna take over the Middle East and run it with Saudi Arabia! We'll all be rich, rich as Nazis!

You can run rampant with such conspiracy theories. I'll simply chalk it up to just another embarrassment for the Dubya adminstration.

From the Ask the White House ("an online interactive forum where you can submit questions to Administration officials and friends of the White House") session with Tom Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division:

Reese, from Casper writes: Mr. Sansonetti There are substantive rumors that there are vast coal deposits on the Moon.  Do you believe the discovery of moon-based coal would have a negative affect on Wyoming's economy (as Wyoming is the top coal producer)?

If so, how much of your day is spent on this problem?  Can I, as a Wyoming citizen, assist you in this pending crisis?

Tom Sansonetti: Dear Reese, As I gaze through my telescope at night-I wonder the same thing!  Since your email obviously came from the moon, I think you are in the best position to explore such a rumor.  Truth be told, we are always looking for new sources of energy-please report back!

I attended high school and a couple years of college in Casper, Wyoming, and I can say with a fair degree of authority that it certainly can feel like the moon – but it ain't really.  What I can't figure out is if Sansonetti is poking fun at Casper, or at Reese for speculating about "moon-based coal".  One might be inclined to assume the latter, except that Sansonetti admits that he himself wonders about "moon-based coal" as well.  While he may be joking about this too, it's true that culling resources from the moon is not a new idea.  Given the Bush administration's commitment to outdated, environmentally noxious energy sources (like coal), it wouldn't surprise me if the "new sources of energy" Sansonetti refers to would be new sources of coal, oil and natural gas - exclusively.  Hell, if we're going to eventually be tapping sources beyond our own atmosphere (and we will), why not investigate the possibilities of solar wind?  Now that would be a new source of energy!

After Howard Dean tanked, I lost faith in polls. However, I can tell you now that this site is a new weekly visit. And right now, it looks promising.

Oh dear lord...

Kos has given us this vile little snippet of reportage:

Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."

Now, we know that members of Congress were given the opportunity to review X-TREME!! photos and video from Abu Ghraib. What about the President? I wonder if he had a private screening in the White House bunker. It's quite an image: Dubya nursing an O'Doul's and watching poor little Abdul's tender Arab fanny getting jackhammered by the extended stock of an MP-5N Heckler. I suspect he would've cranked his neck around and hollered out, "Turd Blossom never told me there'd be days like this!"

Wonkette has posted the memos of Fox News chief John Moody. Among the Easter eggs buried therein:

Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers.

While it is no surprise that Fox News is biased beyond belief, the fact that people still consider their product "news" boggles the mind. Fox News is dangerous to journalism in the same way that a lobotomized mental patient performing open heart surgery would be dangerous to medicine. The folks at Fox News are not irresponsible journalists – they're not journalists. Michael Moore's problem with media (prior to the Iraq war) was not so much that media was slanted, but that journalists weren't "asking out loud why are we there". Consequently, he has been lambasting interviewers - not for their failure to parrot his own beliefs - but to do their jobs and to investigate skeptically and thoroughly. Yesterday on CNN some bimbo anchor lady burped out the fact that Bush was getting ready to shovel under our national forests, followed by two talking points (pro and con) and an entreaty to the viewer to "decide for yourself" what it all meant. Giggling like a tickled toddler, she then turned to the next topic. While mildly informative, that ain't journalism – it's press-release mouthpiece hack work. So while the networks scramble to scoop the latest tabloid irrelevancy swirling around Bush's daughters and the non-story of doomed anti-gay legislation, the serious business of ruining our country continues unabated from a White House bunker. Hopefully, someone – somewhere - is thinking about relevant issues; even though television news networks are too busy to notice.

Remember that Rock the Vote debate back in November? Kerry never answered the ridiculous Mac or PC question. Had he, he would have had one point on his side that Dean didn't: Kerry's a Mac user.

Note that while I post about what computer platform candidates prefer, as if that fucking matters one fucking bit about how anyone should fucking vote, Kelly is blogging well developed posts about the extinction of species, and citing books that you would think only tenured university professors would or even could read. Lowly me is reading The DaVinci Code right now only so I would know what all the fuss is about. It's not high-brow literature, but it's not total pulp fiction, either. It's like eating a decent steak, as opposed to eating Beef Carpaccio with Orange-Olive Salsa and Shaved Cheese or a McDonald's cheeseburger.

Kelly -- loan me a book. Please.

Did Dennis Kucinich ever officially drop out of the race?

Question: Who said, “If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad – I don’t think we know enough about how the world works to say that”?

Answer: Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in the U.S. Department of the Interior. [FYI: here’s Manson’s tortured defense of his inability to think]

Extinction “in and of itself”? I just finished reading David Quammen’s The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions (a truly magnificent book by the way), in which he looks quite intently at the causes and consequences of extinction. A prediction therein from Daniel Simberloff - “the current cataclysm of extinctions is indeed likely to stand among the worst half-dozen such events in the history of life on earth”. However, as Quammen points out:

There’s a voice that says so what?

It’s not my voice, it’s probably not yours, but it makes itself heard in the arenas of public opinion, querulous and smug and fortified by just a little knowledge, which as always is a dangerous thing. So what if a bunch of species go extinct? it says. Extinction is a natural process. Darwin himself said so, didn’t he? Extinction is the complement of evolution, making room for new species to evolve. There have always been extinctions. So why worry about these extinctions currently being caused by humanity? And there has always been a pilot light burning in your furnace. So why worry when your house is on fire.

Charles Craig Manson is looking out for our native flora and fauna in the Bush tradition, by telling them “go fuck yourself”.

For a thorough exegesis of pure evil, check out Carl Pope and Paul Rauber’s Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress. I’d quote some choice bits if it wasn’t all so terribly, terribly ugly.

Interested in ignoring another recommendation? Check out Tim Flannery’s The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples.

Is the GOP sure they want Mike Ditka? Looks like he was once on the wrong side of the same-sex marriage debate. (Thanks, Atrios.)

While we're all carrying on about homonuptials and speculating about when (or if) the TERROR ALERT LEVEL will nudge into a new color, the Bush administration has just proposed "the biggest single giveaway to the timber industry in the history of the national forests". Lucky for Bush, nobody really gives a shit – because if they did, the slimy little fucker'd be tossed out of office.

I've added another class to my virtual refrigerator door: Corporate Identity. Enjoy.

Propz to Stigmutha for making Arlo's Terrible Tuesday his Moment of Zen last week.

If some Illinois GOP idiots get their way, Barack Obama's senate opponent may be Mike Ditka. Why?

Because we need him. It's that simple. Coach would lend some much needed mainstream credibility to a rising party. He could allow us to reach out to voters not normally within the GOP spectrum.

After all, who cares about issues. The GOP needs Mike Ditka because Mike Ditka can win.

I can't see Mike Ditka running for senate, though.

First of all, Mike Ditka is a simple restauranteur, the kind of modest businessman that would run for alderman first.

Mike Ditka makes more money with less effort helping men pitch a tent than he would helping the GOP pitch the mythical Big Tent.

Most importantly, Mike Ditka was so successful spearheading the Superbowl Shuffle because he don't take no crap from nobody, no how, no way. As a Senator with no political experience, propped up to run only to prevent Dems from taking a seat, Mike Ditka would be the GOP's lame-duck whipping boy.

Besides, those political candidate draft dealies never work. Right?

Mike, if you're listening, please don't run. Not only because Obama deserves to win, but because you don't deserve to be anyone's bitch. And if you can't turn the New Orleans Saints around, you probably can't turn the ILGOP around.

I've been out of my office for the past few days, so today and tomorrow I'll be playing catch-up, with not much time to 'blog.

I do want to weigh in on the Edwards thing. In experience, Edwards would never be my choice in a million years. In bullet-proof-ability, Edwards has some open gashes in his Kevlar, most in the shape of a ambulance being chased in the distance. In beat-Bush-ability, he's probably the very best choice Kerry could make.

I like Edwards' rhetoric. Rhetoric doesn't run the country, but rhetoric could put John Kerry in the White House, and that's what's important. And if Kerry puts together a good team to help him run the White House, who cares if Edwards is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office -- the President's job is to listen to a battery of advisors and make a decision from there. John Edwards proved on the primary stump that he has compassion, vision, and an understanding of and patience for the political process. I don't see why he couldn't be president.

I'll never get my Dick Cheney/Wesley Clark debate. But I'm looking forward to the Cheney/Edwards tete-a-tete.

Howard Dean for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Think about it.

Amen.

I’m going to be perfectly clear. I know full well that my opinions don’t matter. I understand (and often hope) that I lack the ability to influence the opinion of others. My gaudy tirades are essentially prayers – piping hot content for the Akashic records. Today, my prayer is this: Oh God…please, PLEASE…don’t let Kerry pick Gephardt. The reasons to avoid the Gep are too numerous to go into here. Suffice it to say that he’s political poison.

There. Now that I’ve gotten that off my sunken and pasty chest, here’s another thought: fuck baseball. Yeah, that’s right. You heard me. Let’s take a little trip down memory lane. A couple of months ago Major League Baseball struck a deal with Columbia Pictures to advertise the film Spider-Man 2. Baseball fans across the country went into apoplectic shock at the perceived indignity to their beloved sport. As a direct result of the hue and cry, the deal was dissolved. It ought to have been movie fans that protested. Spider-Man 2 is awesome. Did you hear me? I said “It. Is. Awesome.” Period.

What have we lost with the death of Marlon Brando? His talent was legendary – in his younger days. Then he sold his soul to the highest bidder. Again and again and again. Years ago he turned away from his craft, loudly voicing his contempt for acting and taking roles for the sole purpose of making money; which he promptly gave to the defense attorneys of his murdering progeny. Flabby and broke, he found friendship in the alien confines of Neverland Ranch. Determined to leave this world as a parody of his former self, he spent his final days "alone in a one-bedroom bungalow, surviving with the support of a state pension"; he owed banks over $20 million and had hidden his Oscars so that creditors wouldn't confiscate them. This is only fitting. He has stayed true to the tradition of John Barrymore, the greatest actor of his generation, who shuffled off this mortal coil with all the dignity of a candied ham.

Bill Cosby is still pissed off by young slackers:

I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk... And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth.

But you can become President. Has anyone told Mr. Cosby that we are experiencing a Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism? Did anyone explained to him that there is a crisis in higher education? It would seem as though he thinks that waggling his finger at young black kids is the answer to a trend that's as endemic to the Oval Office as it is to an Appalachian outhouse: stupidity. In launching his angry attacks, Cosby has more in common with bloggers and pundits than with the civil rights leaders he longs to emulate: unable to effect substantive change in decaying systems, our impotent, bleating rage is all that we can profitably offer.

All the more so does punditry diffuse a debased version of intellectual life, cornering intellect in the name of chat, operating by a sort of Gresham's law of discourse. Punditry is concerned with reviewing performances, rating "presidentiality," itemizing themes, relaying and interpreting spin, not thoughtfully assessing politicians' claims, evaluating their evidence, judging their reasoning. To assess the quality of what politicians say would require intellectual work for which the pundits do not demonstrate competency. Pundits are hired, rather, for the facility and pungency of their presentations and the ferocity and acceptability of their opinions.

The most bookish of pundits, George Will, was hired for the Anglophilic elegance of his sneers, not for logical mastery or historical depth. The punditocracy, as Eric Alterman calls it, does not assess either reason or reasons. Its job is simply to declare which issues are discussable, which positions presentable. It makes up for its intellectual deficits by supplying precooked opinion. The point is not to clarify: It is never to be at a loss for words. Surely the English infusion into American journalism -- the premium on corrosive wit, the fusion of intellectual name-dropping with tabloid meanness -- belongs to this trend: the show of intellect without the demanding work.

And so, Mr. Cosby, you can take your latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs. The brainless are here to stay – and we've got the microphones to prove it.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: If God is inside of each of us, like some people say, I sure hope he likes enchiladas, because that's what he's gonna get.

Moment of silence for Marlon Brando.

For a swashbuckling good time, come check out "The Pyrates". And remember, if you're a fan of swordplay – make sure you know (a) where to buy a good sword and (b) why you should avoid cheap swords.