My first thought was "bullshit"

and after giving it further thought, I still think it is bullshit. From Steve Gilliard regarding NYC prohibiting cell phones from schools:

This is going to result in tragedy one day. All you need is a school shooting, forget terrorism, even a fire, and you could create panic which could be avoided if kids could use their phones to call home.

The city is headed for litigation over this, when common sense would suffice. Kisd should have access to cells for emergencies.If they answer them in class, then unless someone died, they should lose the right to use them in school.

But without the ability to communicate, and Mike Daly is not exagurating, you could really create needless tension.

Today is a perfect day, cloudless sky, 67 and sunny. You know what we call those days
in New York. 9/11 days.

The kids need access to phones, for peace of mind if nothing else.

Yeah, like the kids having phones is going to do anything. First, it's not going to prevent something, and then, it's only going to exacerbate things as hundreds of kids are trying to call home, causing a panic among parents. The last thing emergency personnel want is emotional people interfering with their efforts.

The amazing thing is that for decades kids have gone to school without cell phones (myself among them), and there never was a problem. Now all of a sudden there is because cell phones might not be available? Nope.

Tom Watson misses the point

(Note: I came across this through a Steve Gilliard post.)
In Trouble in the Heartland, Tom discusses Springsteen's new homage to Pete Seeger, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions, and gets off-track when he hits Ballad of Jesse James.

Now I won't debate him on the meaning of the song (I agree), but I think he should consider the Boss's intent when putting this album together (and he states it clearly when talking about the album). He wasn't making a statement, he wasn't creating a theme album - he was simply playing songs that were fun to play. I only caught part of his interview played on Sirius, but I think it's available on the flipside (it's a DualDisc format) interviews and making of content. He was asked if he had picked songs to relate to today's situations, if there was an underlying motive to the selection. Nope. Just songs that are fun, tunes that sitting around a campfire might be cool to jam along with. Springsteen stated specifically that he did not consider the context of the songs beforehand, that if he did, he would have picked different songs, and the whole freewheeling creativity of the project would have been lost (my interpretation of the interview).

So, was the Jesse James selection a good one? Not if you're looking for meaning.

Colbert at the WHCD

Nobody survived...except Helen Thomas.

Part 1
Part 2

Courtesy DU

Note: I've pirated the graphic from firedoglake because 1) I like it, and 2) it really adds to the post (and should be spread far and wide).

Yep, this pretty much sums it up

A friend of mine is "disgusted with the selfish, self centered, self serving, imperialistic, Monroe Doctrine, ultra right wing conservative ignorant christian assholes who are in power or influencing those who make decisions for us."

Now these words will live on...

Bloggy synergy

DeweyCounts has a good post over at dailykos on totalitarianism, but I wanted to just pull out the relevant points and supplement it with a post over at SadlyNo! (yes, I'm mixing lefty blogs...kind of like mixing drugs...feel the synergistic effects bitches!)

(the italics are DeweyCounts - I just wanted to demote them to highlight the points)

[George S.] Counts' 8 Elements of Totalitarianism:

1. The organization of a disciplined party: let's call it neoconservative.

2. The formulation of a "grand program": let's call it the "Project for a New American Century."

3. The appeal to idealism and heroism: let's put our dear leader in a flight suit and let's spread freedom.

4. The cultivation of human weakness: Count's explained this as cultivating hatred toward class, race, or religion as a means of social control. Totalitarians, according to Counts "experience pleasure in the torture and suffering off others." Go figure.

5. The undermining of social solidarity: let's hate the immigrants and let's hate the gays.

6. The creation of confusion: Counts: "the apostles of totalitarianism assiduously propagate half-truths and falsehoods in unqualified praise of their particular form of dictatorship." Can you say Mcllelan? How about Snow?

7. The arousing and spreading of terror: heh, listen to Counts: "...people are persuaded to believe the most fantastic tales about the savage and bloody actions or intentions of some adversary...that a small neighboring state is bent on aggression and conquest..."

8. The exploitation of the very processes and virtues of democracy: again, Counts: "...all totalitarian movements, whether of foreign or domestic origin, bend their energies to the overthrow of free institutions." Have you taken a moment to say goodbye to the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments? To FEMA? To public schools? I'll give you a minute...

I say all 8 elements of totalitarianism are present in the current administration. Is it time for my tinfoil, or was Counts, back in 1941, onto something? Please take the poll.

I'll finish with Counts:

"If the American people should lose their democratic institutions, it would not be because those institutions had failed or because the ideals on which they rest are transient. Disaster will come only if the American people themselves, because of indifference, carelessness, or complacency, refuse to bestir themselves in time and to take the necessary steps to practice and defend the ways of democracy."

From SadlyNo!

Scaring White People for Fun and Profit (and Votes!)
While I'm reluctant to paint all conservatives with this brush, it's certainly true that scaring white people has become the staple component of the bizarre right-wing populism that started with Nixon's Southern Strategy, came to fame with AM talk radio in the '90s and that reached its peak with Bill O'Reilly and FOX News right after 9/11. Just look at Michelle Malkin's front page, and you'll find a cornucopia of supposed mortal perils for the white race. Wherever there are Mexicans waving flags, scary Islamists holding crazy signs, deranged black studies professors advocating genocide, or 7-year-old girls reciting black nationalist poetry, Michelle is there to tell you all about them and let you know that THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU.

[snip]

You can search through Michelle Malkin's archives and find literally thousands of these Pavlovian exchanges. Michelle will post something intended to scare the crap out of white people, and then, as if one cue, several of her white readers leave trackbacks talking about how scared they are. Alas, this has become the standard operating procedure not just for Michelle Malkin, but for the entire Republican campaign machine.

[snip]

The most distresing [sic] thing is that they will never run out of enemies to attack. It doesn't matter if they grow tired of using Muslamonazi murders global or elitist gay homosodomites or Hispino invaders or some cracked-out professor: the GOP attack machine has sufficient bogeymen to last it until the year 2678, and by then we'll have become a band of polytheistic space refugees whose chief concern is fending off Cylon nuclear raids. But I digress.

[more]

And a follow-up from SadlyNo!

Fukuyama's Gift

Here's a story of importance, via Matthew Yglesias, who doesn't seem to appreciate the gravity of what he's discovered. Francis Fukuyama, the apostate neoconservative, says that in the 1990s, neocons tried to manufacture an enemy, because they felt that the Republican Party "didn't do as well" when there wasn't a ruthless, monolithic pinkomuslimcommienihilist threat to America.

People, this, coming from Fukuyama (who would know), is big. It's as big as Ike's warning about the military-industrial complex; bigger than Bill Kristol's admitting that "The Liberal Media" is a useful wingnut delusion. It's big because it provides the final and conclusive missing evidence for something that the Left has known and argued for years but could never prove: That wingnuts contrive monolithic foreign enemies, either by exaggeration or by invention from whole cloth. The Left just never knew whether such a position came from a conscious decision, or if it was instead organic and structural (i.e., simply stupidity). Now, at least for the example of the 1990s, we have a formidable testimony, from the inside so to speak, that it was conscious and deliberate.

[snip]

The wingnut strawman is the Clash of Civilizations, World War IV, the Great Struggle Against a Monolithic Enemy. Folks, this is what the man means by "perpetual war for perpetual peace". This is why you have nutjobs like Atlas Shrugs and the Powertools saying that capturing or killing bin Laden would merely be a symbolic act. This is why you have Glenn Reynolds and Stephen Green disseminating the "Long War" talking points. This is why you have Daniel Pipes and Mark Steyn constantly calling for an all-out war on Islam. They want the war to last forever, and not just because they hate the "Other", but also because they enjoy the conditions war puts on domestic politics.

Perpetual War against the Monolithic Enemy also serves other purposes than a strategery for Republican election victories: it provides wingnuts with a means to feel better about themselves. For wingnuts, it takes a supremely Evil enemy, one that is powerful and promises a struggle to the death, to remind them of how resolutely Good they themselves are. Also -- and this mostly pertains to neocons -- they think that wartime is the proper crucible in which the moral character of the masses is formed. They admired the societal mobilization and sacrifice that America summoned during WW2. They also relish the prospect of a ruthless domestic government (as long as it's Republican), one that has enhanced powers of snooping, one that wipes its browneye with the Bill of Rights. Hence Michelle Malkin's desire for internment camps, and the general wingnut defences of American torturing, indefinite detention, illegal domestic surveillance.

Wingnuts, and neocons specifically, like to think that their decisions are based only on ideology rather than on a mix of ideology, tribalism, sectarianism, and nationalism -- a mix that is pretty much universal throughout the world. Of course we know that wingnuts proceed from all these biases: we document the evidence all the time. But they believe their own lies, and say they proceed as they do because of love of "freedom" and "democracy" -- such words that have always perfumed the rank atrocities they've wrought. It is probably true that neocons, at least, have the ideological bias more strongly than most. But still the other biases are there, particularly nationalism. Yet the important thing is that they project their fundamental error on others.

[more]

The General writes letters

And is this a good one!

Moving Malkin-Belsen

A different perspective on legalization

Frankly I hadn't thought about it in this way, but it makes sense. Of course the argument is too philosophical for most politicians, which means that the people who would be doing the selling (of the idea, jeez) would be clueless about the product...

From mykeru

I wouldn't have a problem with decrimininalizing most classes of drugs, simply for the list of contradictions that prohibitions present to a supposedly free society. The state shouldn't be able to dictate what sorts of crap people put into their bodies. If people want to free-base Drano, that should be their right. The rational for prohibiting drugs is that people can do some pretty stupid things while on them. The rationale for decriminalizing them is that people also do some pretty stupid things to procure them and, if mere procurement is a crime, then you're taxing the system with what the system shouldn't be concerned with in the first place. Besides, there's other things that make people do some pretty stupid things: Greed, jealousy, avarice and stupidity itself. Might as well criminalize that too. But we don't because we make the distinction between potential and action. That is to say, if someone knocks over a liquor store to procure drugs or just because they're greedy, then I fail to see the point in criminalizing greed rather than, say, knocking over liquor stores.

Then there's the huge in-your-face contradiction of allowing the #1 make-people-stupid drug, which is alcohol, to remain legal while prohibiting an entire class of drugs that are, by any measure, fair more benign. Fully half of all murders and domestic violence cases are alcohol-related. By not figuring the booze into the equation, while sending people up for being caught with a pot seed lining their pockets, we're missing out on the major etiology of violence. Alcohol also doesn't mix well with an entire class of medications. In the case of Xanax a little alcohol is a nice way to relax yourself into a coma.

In practical terms, if you had to get in the passenger seat of a car driven by someone who was completely ripped to the tits, would you rather them be drunk or stoned?

I rest my case.

Information on medieval locks

A slight research hobby of mine...
Early, Medieval and Renaissance Locks and Keys

More information:

Lock History

Clinton and CAFE standards

Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards

[snip]

The Clinton Administration supported greater fuel efficiency, but indicated in 1993 that an increase in the CAFE standards was not the option likeliest to be embraced first.

[snip]

In 1994, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to explore raising the CAFE standard for light-duty trucks. Congress included language in the FY1996-FY2001 DOT Appropriations (P. L. 104-50, P. L. 104-205, P. L. 105-66, P. L. 106- 69, and P. L. 106-346) prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for any rulemaking on CAFE, effectively freezing the standards.

[more]

George Bush: A 19th Century President

And this is from 2004.
Nineteenth Century Bush

Kill 'em all, and let god sort 'em out.

Sadly, it seems that this disgusting phrase has a historical basis.

Albigensian Crusade

In the bloodiest incident of the war, in 1209, perhaps 10,000 of the inhabitants of Béziers [ed: France] were slaughtered during the storming of the city by the Catholic forces headed by Simon de Montfort. In a famous legend relating to this incident, the Papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, was asked how to distinguish between the Catholic and Cathars, and allegedly answered, "Kill them all, God will know his own". The Catholic Encyclopedia denies these words were ever spoken, although they were recorded soon after the event by a respected Church chronicler who was also Arnaud-Amaury's fellow Cistercian. They are also consistent with other sources such as the contemporary Song of the Crusade.

Open letter to Rep Ron Paul

Rep Paul,

I am not a constituent (I live in Florida) and I am a Democrat. However, I wanted to pass on my appreciation for your statement "Iran: The Next Neocon Target" and let you know that there are many Democrats in this country who agree with what you've said, and could not have written something better in their own words.

One statement you made brought to my mind a question:

"In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored."

My question is this - what form of outrage do you expect? Millions of us have contacted our senators and representatives regarding each of the issues you mentioned. Millions more marched prior to the invasion of Iraq, yet Congress and the President ignored our efforts.

Given the current economy, Americans have very little time to research, understand, and act on these events, and yet millions have. My contention is not that there is insufficient outrage, but that there is insufficient interest in Congress to pay attention to us.

Good job President Dumbass - only took you 6 years

Dow ends at 6-year high

The Dow Jones industrial average (^DJI - news) ended up 71.24 points, or 0.63 percent, at 11,354.49, its highest close since January 19, 2000. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (^SPX - news) closed up 3.67 points, or 0.28 percent, at 1,305.41. The Nasdaq Composite Index (^IXIC - news) finished up 3.33 points, or 0.14 percent, at 2,333.63.

So glad that the nightmare of prosperity during the 90s is over...

Mega numbers for dummies

Don't know how to get rid of all this space. Anyway, a TRILLION seconds is the equivalent of 437 CENTURIES. Wow. About how long it will take our grandchildren to pay off the invasion of Iraq.

Seconds	Minutes	Hours	Days	Years	Centuries
Million	16,667	278	11.6	0.04	0.0004
Billion	16,666,667	277,778	11,574	43.7	0.44
Trillion	16,666,666,667	277,777,778	11,574,074	43,676	437

Is it live, or is it...Will Ferrel?

So-called Global Warmings

For future reference

If you're going to try to use science to criticize atheism, don't get in an argument with a scientist who is an atheist - he will kick your ass.

And a note to The RawStory, you might want to take away Melinda's crayons before she really hurts somebody besides herself...

This is where it starts...

A week ago if you'd have asked me about Pink, I would have thought WTF? But this is just...wow...

Dear Mr. President

Hey Sierra Club! Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

As a former member of the Sierra Club (sorry for the lapse), I would like to understand why you would endorse Lincoln Chafee.

"The club said a vote for Chafee is better than a vote for a Democrat because of his position as a dissident within the majority party."

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and given that George Bush is president, that says alot. His position as a "dissident" is worthless, since he is almost a minority of one in a party whose policies are anti-environment, which is to say anti-Sierra Club. Just look at NARAL and their (lack of) success at keeping anti-choice judges off the Supreme Court. And they endorsed Chafee as well.

Please, if you can't manage to support the candidate whose party will actually implement the policies you are calling for, then withhold your endorsement. To do otherwise is a waste of an endorsement, and any money that goes with it. It also provides cover to the Republicans, because now they can claim that they have the endorsement of a major environmental activist group. True? No. Do they care? No.

Just out of curiousity, did the Sierra Club interview any of Chafee's potential Democratic challengers?

For the record, I was going to renew my membership, but given this endorsement, I am going to send my $39 to Sheldon Whitehouse. I feel it will be money better spent.

Koo-Koo-Kachoo

In case you missed it - the new Bush song: “I'm The Decider”

In case of emergency

use this direct AAR link to listen...

Why Biden is a failure as a Democrat

From Crooks and Liars

Matthews: Does the President of the United States have the authority to attack Iran?

Biden: No, not without congressional support, authorization I should say.

Matthews: Is that a consensus in your body?

Biden: "No. I don't think it's a consensus among Republicans or Democrats at this time..."

Actually, what Biden SHOULD HAVE SAID (and he can not be aware of the phrase "Rubber Stamp Republicans"):

Biden: Consensus? No. The Rubber Stamp Republicans will give Bush whatever he wants, because he is their king, and they have completely abdicated their responsiblity as a check on the Executive Branch. The Democrats recognize that this administration has shown that it is not competent with power, and cannot be trusted to deal with Iran.

Chompions!

Go Gators! What a week it's been. First Florida kicks UCLA's ass to take the NCAA tournament, then Tom DeLay decides he's too much of a pussy (or he saw the writing on the wall), then I successfully defended by PhD. Feels like I hit the trifecta!

Florida 73, UCLA 57

Sorry for the downtime

These last few months I have had my share of highs and lows. My mom passed away in February, and in a way I've been waiting until I had put together a fitting tribute to start posting again. But during it all came the wrapping up of my dissertation, and the defense (which went smoothly only last Wednesday). With that, my PhD was complete. On top of all this was the academic job search, all of which started in January. I hope to have more on these things later.