"I Voted" sticker variants

The classic version, good for discounted booze, a sugar cookie, and discounted oysters if you live in the Los Angeles area.

Sadly, I was beat to the creative punch by about four years by this guy. But it inspired the next sixteen.

True story. 

18 stickers, one for each electoral vote Ohio is using to hold the entire country hostage. Have fun today!

How I engaged in voter coercion

I was nine years old when I first "voted". It was 1992, and H. Ross Perot was shaking up the political establishment with his funny ears and his aggressive, detailed critiques in his infomercial ads. I liked him, and I encouraged Mom to vote for him. I went in with her to the booth, and made sure she voted Perot.

When I was 13, I enjoyed watching Norm MacDonald play Bob Dole on Saturday Night Live. In particular, there's a skit about Bob Dole living in the "Real World" house. Sadly, the clip appears to be lost and not on the Internets, but here's a transcript.

Bob Dole: Who the hell ate my peanut butter?! Peanut butter!

Chris: I guess I did. Why?

Bob Dole: Yeah, well, now it's gone! Next time, ask! Nobody eats Bob Dole's peanut butter without asking!

Chris: Whatever..

[ cut to Annabel summarizing the scene ]

Annabel: Bob needed to work on his "people skills"..

[ cut back to the scene ]

Bob Dole: You wanna chip in, that's a different story. Otherwise, keep your grubby hands out of Bob Dole's peanut butter! [ throws the empty jar across the floor ]

[ cut to Annabel summarizing the scene ]

Annabel: So I called a house meeting..
Needless to say, I pushed my mom to vote for Bob Dole in 1996.

So, there are two cases in which I coerced a Democratic, minority woman's vote and caused her to vote against her economic interest. I'm sorry.

Why I am proud to be a Democrat

Thank you, Demosthenes, for a spirited speech, and an articulation of so much that we admire in both Republicans, and in Americans in general.

Demosthenes and I agree on a number of things. We agree on the innate goodness of the American people. We agree upon our proud traditions and values, and our quest to form a more perfect union.

I am glad he extends such courtesy to our party, and I shall do him like service. The Republican party, in its history, has been the lead for some of the most wonderful movements in our history. It was a Republican President that freed the slaves. It was a Republican President that created the national park system. It was a Republican President who created the Interstate highway system, a national science policy in the face of Sputnik, and ultimately proved the strongest voice against American imperialism. The Republican party has been a party of progress during much of its time, and has many accomplishments. Many of our great leaders come from those ranks.  As I extol my party, I take nothing away from the Republicans. It is good and right that we each take pride at our history, at the calls we got right, and the role each of us has played in this American pageant.

The gentleman is right that the forces of obstructionism and division are the real enemy. But here is where I must begin the long, disagreeable, but necessary process of disagreement with him. The Republican party is a shadow of what it once was, hostage to forces it long ago rejected and fought, and threatens to take the nation down with it as it stumbles toward implosion. For love of country and your honor, sir, I pray you tend to your house, for it is in considerable disorder, and your less distinguished colleagues do great disservice to the memory of your former greatness.

One of the gravest false choices that has been shouted at us is that the state can be strong only at the cost of the individual. No, no, no! I cannot stand by and allow these fearmongers malign our Republic, and in so doing, diminish the individual.

Our nation is a group of individuals, bound together by our love of freedom, our duty toward its protection, and our commitment to each other. We know our history -- that too frequently the liberty of some have come at the expense of others, those too weak, without an advocate, without economic independence, without the legal right to own property, or vote, or decide matters concerning their own body. We know that without a society of laws and common principle, the lesser elements will set us against each other, to their own gain.

We have seen it again, and again, and again, and we must oppose it, for this is the snake in the Garden.

Your party has celebrated the individual, and yet will not safeguard her when she needs food for her children, clean water to drink, affordable healthcare that she might be a mother, a wife, a grandmother to other great Americans. What you offer is not the emancipation of the individual -- you offer the freedom of the wilderness, the freedom of the lion's den.

That is not liberty -- that is callousness, a dereliction of our sworn duty as citizens and leaders. I reject the notion that we seek a state that dominates the life of the citizen. I also reject the notion that we owe our fellow citizens no protection against raw nature. It is a false choice between the two, and I reject both utterly.

This nation has, when it is at its best, stood for freedom from hunger, from oppression by interests both public and private, freedom from fear, freedom of choice, freedom to walk clear beaches and choose who you want to work for and who you want to marry. This nation is about freedom -- a freedom that often must be defended by the state against private interests that seek, for one reason or another, to curtail it.

We have shown that good people working in government are no different from good people anywhere else -- they have a job to do, they have rules they must follow, and they want more or less the same things those who work for companies do. Enough! Enough with the artificial divisions!

Now let me focus on what the Democratic party stands for, and not what it is against. For to be against principles and policies without offering better alternatives is not American at all.

I am a Democrat because I believe that no one should be forced to apologize for their love for another person -- not the love of a husband and wife, not the love of same-sex partners, not the love good men and women have for the poor, not the love a father has for his son, nor the love of the Son for all of us. It's not only the greatest commandment -- it is the greatest joy, the source of inspiration and meaning and human progress.

I believe passionately that we can judge a people by how they treat its most vulnerable - whether it be children, or women, or minorities, or the disabled, or the poor, or its non-citizens.

I am proud to be a Democrat because I believe in the wedding of principles and pragmatism. No generation has been free from difficult choice, from the crucible of old and new challenges. And ours is no exception.

I believe, as Viktor Frankl did, that liberty without responsibility is not freedom. It is the beginning of the end of freedom, for it is passion and defiance without wisdom and vision. It is not responsibility imposed by the state, nor the sacred text -- it is the responsibility that thoughtful souls realize in the dark of night, in their own struggles and their own blessings. It is the responsibility that is such a part of our identity that it transcends the identity divisions of faith, race, and nation.

I am a Democrat because, while I accept the imperfect nature of human beings, I believe that humans can be better than they are. I believe that men and women of sufficient courage can rise above the circumstances of birth to become more productive, more ethical, and more free. I am, despite everything, an optimist.

I am a Democrat because I believe in a nuanced partnership between expertise and democracy -- that a confident, open society can generate the best solutions if it both trusts its experts and guides the policy agenda in a manner consistent with our uniting principles. We do our people the greatest service when we trust them to face real facts honestly and in an adult manner, and do them great disservice if we seek to obscure what science tells us in more comforting, and more fatal, lies.


We must base our legislation on facts, not fears.


I am a Democrat because I want to be on the right side of history, to stand in support of, instead of opposed to, the arc of human history in which individuals become more free, and our identities become more rich and complex.

And yet, as much as I care about legacy, I am also a Democrat because I believe our duty is, first and foremost, to the present. It is to people I know and love who enjoy less than full citizenship, for whom daily life is filled with a hundred insults and obstacles that serve no purpose whatsoever. Whether inspired by differences in  race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or economic status, these acts hurt not only the target, but also diminishes the attacker. In my humble service, I do as well as I can to wed these high principles with a more primal desire to see justice, to preserve and protect those I know and love, even those who do not love me back, because of values that are bigger than any of us.

It may never be enough -- the path of principles demanded may never be fully lived up to. But I want to live in a way I can continue to look myself in the mirror, and look my mother and father in the eye, and say, "I don't know if I did enough. But I did something. And I will do more tomorrow."

I am proud to be a Democrat because it is a big tent, as America should be. I have known too many gifted individuals, of the highest qualities of character, intellect, and heart, to shut the door to any group, any creed, any people who have the desire and the fortitude to play their part in our unfolding greatness. No matter where they were born, or what they were born, or to whom, these men and women of talent and tenacity ought always have a place in America.

Those under this broad tent argue and bicker, often like family at Thanksgiving. But it is with thanksgiving I appreciate the strength of our Republic, that it can stand the confluence of disparate ideas united by our essential American spirit. It is through the dual traits of our diversity and our faith in our common dreams that makes our diversity our strength.

I am every bit as patriotic as my Republican colleagues, but find no reason to be as loud about it. I am proud to be a Democrat because I believe, firmly, that government is often a matter of the small and uncelebrated. It is a matter of tax incentives, a fair and transparent tax code, clear, effective regulation, protections such that we have healthy food to eat, clean air to breathe, safe cars to drive, and care for our elderly and disabled. It's about boring things, like highway bills, and electricity infrastructure. It is about policies that demand data, and expertise, and thoughtful consideration, but which will not have us lauded by generations hence. Sometimes, governance is mundane, and this is a virtue, our rhetoric notwithstanding. I am content to leave greatness to those who would seek it in the boardroom, the classroom, or the emergency room, or wherever outside this chamber that true heroes live and fight.

I am proud to be a Democrat because it is the party that best represents the spirit with which my ancestors came to these shores, and found opportunity even as they found challenges. I am here, in this great party, because I look around and see the future, a future of youth and ideas, guided by experience and wisdom.

I am proud to be a Democrat because I know that the best way to celebrate our military is to ensure they are not sent into harm's way unless absolutely necessary, until all other options have been exhausted, and then, only then, to do so with the reluctance, seriousness, and the weight of responsibility that belongs to those who would send them into danger.

I am proud of what the President has done, and how he has done it. I sometimes disagree with him on matters of policy, sometimes intensely. But I also stand in some awe at the great deal he has accomplished in four years, in the face of economic hardship, international hatred, fervent political opposition, and even his own coalition of disparate, centrifugal forces. He is a good man. Let me repeat, for it bears remembering: he is a good man. He is one of many good men and good women, including a Secretary of State that has played an indispensable role in guiding American foreign policy back on the right track. To both, we owe a debt of gratitude; to the nation, they express their gratitude for the trust placed in them.

***

The election draws nigh, and we can look forward to a mix of relief, celebration, disappointment, and uncertainty. But one thing is clear: we go into November 6 as Americans, and on November 7, we will still be Americans. We must not forget what that means, nor what was paid to achieve it, nor what we must yet do to maintain and grow our nation in peace and prosperity.

I am but a lowly man. But through service in this chamber, for this party, for this President, and, most of all, for this great nation, I have become more -- I have become a citizen of a Republic that is unparalleled in all history, a Republic that has achieved, yet continues to strive toward greater and more perfect expression of the goals of civilization. Together, through common citizenship, and all it means, I have found purpose and hope, laughter and love. I express my undying gratitude to this country of mine.

Whatever your party, whatever you belief, I hope you exercise your sacred duty November 6, and vote. Know that voting is not the end of your service, but the beginning, one of many, many things that define our efforts to keep freedom free.

God bless you, and God bless America.

- Locke

Romney-Ryan hat is not made in China

Hm... I decided to write this because I'm starting to see independent repostings of this picture, suggesting it's viral:

Does the Romney-Ryan campaign use hats made in China?

No.

The campaign store website shows two models of hat, neither of which is featured here. Also, the page clearly says, "All products are Made in the USA."

So where are they coming from?

Apparently, there's someone on Zazzle.com making hats with the Romney-Ryan campaign logo. I doubt there's a financial relationship between the two, and if there is, it's almost certainly negligible.

Note that the hats tend to be almost as expensive as the Romney-Ryan campaign hats. I don't know if this is because of economies of scale for the official campaign hats, or fattened profit margins, or if it reflects increasing labor and shipping costs for textiles made in China. (Spoiler: it's probably the first one.)

So it's not obvious if this picture is a crappy and misguided attempt to tip Ohio voters by a liberal organization, or a clever Republican plant orchestrated by O'Keefe et al. Maybe it's an effort by domestic textile companies to ratchet up anti-China sentiment further. But I'm guessing it's an individual, and not a broader conspiracy involving white or black propaganda.

According to one source, as of the first Presidential debate, the Romney-Ryan campaign has not trademarked their logo. The Obama team has.

Without a trademark, I wonder whether the campaign could shut down these nonofficial hats. That is, assuming they'd want to -- perhaps they don't. But I could just as easily create a Romney-Ryan cat litter liner, or Kotex pad. Surely they'd object in those cases.

Any lawyers want to comment?

Memories of a gay stepfather and mentor

There is a news story out about how Romney has been pretty rotten/tone-deaf to gay people. Yes, they do have children.

I don't want to focus on that. Instead, let me tell you a story.

By my second year of grad school, I was pretty depressed for a lot of reasons. It made it difficult to plan at any level, and I found myself desperately casting about for housing when my previous residence was sold. Fortunately, I had a friend who lived in a remarkably beautiful house near downtown Ithaca. My room was a 10x10 coffin, but that's all I really needed. Rent was very cheap.

The dining room gives an impression of the overall house. There was a table for eight, with wonderful wooden chairs that were comfortable and stylish. The tablecloth was white - always white - some sort of synthetic, with doilies beneath a candle centerpiece. Above, there was a small glass chandelier. The windows looked out to a yard with modern stone sculptures. An antique credenza housed the plates and cutlery. Most remarkably, the flooring had bits of a composition painted on the borders -- I can't remember which piece -- with phrasings in German.

He was a piano professor at Ithaca College -- a liberal arts school often overshadowed by Cornell, but one with an outstanding music program. I heard him play Rhapsody in Blue, which was, as expected, wonderful. Given his hand span, I think it would've been great to see him play a Rachmaninov piano concerto (2 or 3).

Despite my very comfortable living situation, I was pretty depressed out of my mind at this point in grad school. I was lonely. I was lost. My landlord noticed this, and we had a chat. We talked about fathers. He shared about how it was challenging dealing with a very macho Brazilian father, and empathized with my struggle to define my relationship with my dad.

 He, refreshingly, talked openly about therapy, and celebrated it -- "I think everyone should have it!" He isone of the most cheerful, optimistic, kind-hearted individuals I had ever met. He was one part father figure, one part older brother, at a time when I desperately needed it.

He is also gay.

Perhaps a mark of age, or maturity, or just his special type of patience: he wasn't easily angered or bothered by ignorance about homosexuality.

I remember we were discussing it, and I said something expressing confusion how homosexuality would fit in the larger biological picture, and whether it really was a human cultural phenomenon. Instead of getting angry, or expressing shock, he smiled, quietly went to a bookshelf, and handed me Biological Exuberance, documenting homosexuality and bisexuality among many different species. I paged through it, was surprised, and learned something. We talked a bit more. From his admittedly ever-present smile, I think we were both glad that he trusted me to be open-minded and to update my views in the face of new information.

My friend is also a stepfather.

I forget where he met his partner - it could've been in an airport (how Hollywood!), but it was definitely abroad somewhere. He visited Ithaca a couple times, and it was clear that they were serious.

The third or fourth time he visited, he brought his eight-year old son.

I still remember how nervous my friend was about making a good impression when his partner and his son came to visit. The ice was broken via finger-painting -- not the kindergarten variety. He used high-quality paints and a real canvas. I could tell the kid enjoyed it. It wasn't a breakthrough -- but it was the beginning.

Eventually, he left a tenured position at Ithaca College to move to Germany for love. Some probably thought he was crazy, either for leaving a highly prized position, or for moving to Germany, a nation which is culturally and climatically pretty different from Brazil. He probably was -- love makes people crazy. But I think he's still happy there.

So, I know one gay man who is doing a damn fine job of being a father. I know this, in part, because he was a fantastic mentor to me in my hours/months/years of need. Surprisingly, to my American self, he still keeps in touch at least once a year. I know this because I saw how much he worried about making a good impression on his partner's kid.

He's in Germany still, so he can't be an advocate and representative of the human decency of gay fathers. So I suppose it falls to me, and the others whose lives he touched, to be advocates for him. In the unlikely event that he could be seduced from Europe to bring his talent and great heart back to America, I'd like to see him welcomed as a scholar, a gay man, and a father.

Forbes: Ohio Voting Machines and Romney -- waiteveryonecalmthefuckdown

Forbes Op-Ed: Romney Family Investments Ties to Voting Machine Company That Could Decide the Election Causing Concern

Seriously, wait everyone. Calm the fuck down.

The op-ed is NOT accusing Tagg Romney of owning the voting machines. The op-ed is NOT accusing the Romney camp of intending to, or even considering, manipulating the vote.

The article IS saying that the connection stinks just badly enough to make people nervous, and that's a bad thing for the integrity of the vote, EVEN IF NO ONE DOES ANYTHING BAD.

I'm writing this here because comments might be closed on the Forbes article. And I want to get ahead of this before it starts getting (mis)reported all over my Facebook feed.

Did you read the whole thing?

Seriously?

Ah, fuck it.

This is my tl;dr version of what I got from the article.

1. Voting is sacred.

2. Voting machines have problems.

3. It's dumb for companies involved in the voting machine business to have even a hint of preference for one candidate over another. Even if there's no actual malfeasance, it helps the conspiracy theorizing and degrades the integrity of the process.

4. Voting machines should belong to the people.


If I missed something, I'm sorry. This is what I got from the article.


Some meta-comments on the critiques:


1. On replying to comments/questions about the form

Look - the author is an adult and a professional, and therefore has a thick enough skin to deal with all the criticism heaped at him. He also hopefully has a thick enough skin to deal with the fact that a lot of people don't read articles before they comment on them.

The fact that he has commented on a lot of posts -- I have the dubious distinction of claiming to have read the article AND 14 pages of comments of varying quality and relevance -- shows that he at least enjoys the back-and-forth, and, like any writer, cares about what he has written, and will defend its scope and its content against misappropriation.

I could speculate whether a more creative approach means that the author feels more attached to it than a more boring news piece, or even an opinion article, but I probably would (rightly) get my head bit off for speculating without info and projecting my own attitudes toward writing.

2. On partisanship lenses

Perhaps relevant, perhaps not, but the NYTimes had an interesting report about research in partisanship. Thanks go to Evolutionary Politics FB group for highlighting this.

Again, for the tl;dr crowd:

People actually become more moderate when they are forced to explain a policy - the how of a policy. So, if the goal is to actually have a conversation across ideological divides, then we should focus on how a policy could be good/bad, and not just stick with defending or attacking X.

The Forbes author did this. The author has told a story about what could happen, something that would be very bad for the country, no matter who won. Nevermind the Democratic lean of the youth vote - if elections are perceived as fraudulent, then the alleged disengagement of my generation will get even worse -- and it won't be limited to the young.

I don't know - perhaps the style of the piece caused people to project things into it that weren't there. If it fails on style but succeeds in content, I trust the author to be non-defensive enough to accept constructive criticism.

The whole process has made me, and many I know, a bit frazzled. So let's calm down a bit and think about how even a hint of impropriety is bad. Bill Clinton probably doesn't even walk around in a block radius of a strip club. Why? Because it'd be bad for any prominent politician, but it'd be really bad for Bill Clinton.

Similarly, it's bad enough with the existing problems of voting machines. It gets worse when the optics of donations and connections with Tagg Romney are added. And, intended or not, the back-and-forth about the latter may inhibit the work to fix the former.

If I were really tin-foil inclined, I'd say THIS is the reason they did it - to take the heat off design/implementation problems of their products. ;)


3. Maybe the problem is that this appears in Forbes

I had a subscription to Forbes for a couple years. I ended up not renewing because I assumed, I think correctly, that I was more liberal than the general bent of the magazine.

I was therefore very surprised to see Forbes running with this story, even though the author's claim is NOT - for Pete's sake, read the article folks! - that Tagg Romney owns the voting machines, nor that there is any specific reason to suspect the Romney campaign of manipulating the vote.

If Forbes is right-of-center, or right, then maybe people feel betrayed that their "safe zone" is being violated. Attacks are extra vitriolic because they weren't expected. Maybe I'd feel the same way if I read a Hannity piece in Mother Jones.

Or maybe, people just like to fight and complain.

Epilogue:

I was searching for this story, and yes, this was the first major outlet that carried it in one form or another.

For what it's worth, I thought it was important enough to comment that I bothered registering. When email registration flaked out - not sure why - I signed up using my FB account. I have never (intentionally) used my FB account to sign up for a social reader.

I couldn't post my comment using Chrome. So I had to transfer my comment boot up my creaky IE7. That didn't work. I concluded that comments were closed, or my computer was jacked up, or a divine power just didn't want me to be posting this at 4am.

Anyway, not sure why anyone should care, but I really cared about writing this comment.

Benghazi in context

I have the luxury of being unimportant; therefore, I'll say something probably offensive.

Am I missing something? As I reexamine the foreign policy record of President Obama, I see a number of successes. Failures may depend upon your beliefs about "just wars", and perhaps less visible concerns regarding trade. (It's unclear what the long-term effects will be with fights with China over tires and other issues.)

From what I have read, the assault on the consulate at Benghazi appears to have been an intelligence failure. I don't know, and I may never know, precisely how, or why, additional security was not provided. These intelligence failures have existed before - does anyone remember the attacks against US Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998? These attacks killed many more people. September 11 was a tremendous intelligence failure -- but I don't recall people calling for the resignation of the President.

Can we wait for the investigation to conclude? If there was such an egregious miscarriage of justice involving the President and senior officials, I'm certain Congress will be happy to embark upon yet another impeachment hearing.

The Benghazi attack was a tragedy. It also led to the death of four people. These were four good people; but they were four. A sane nation cannot afford to make reckless claims about policy reversals and even war for four citizens. Even a great nation cannot afford to be so reckless.

Some perspective: the US and its allies saved thousands of lives, and, depending on how things go, Libyan democracy. It did so without a single American casualty. It did so with Britain and France exercising, at least in recent memory, unprecedented leadership in resources and risk. It may go down as a textbook case of how American interests, ideals, and capacity align, and how measured commitment can produce better (though not perfect) results.

It took thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and many years for the majority of Americans to even begin to start questioning the justice of the Iraq War. Now, the intervention in Libya, and the overall approach of measured foreign policy of the last years, is seen as illegitimate because of four deaths in Benghazi?

How is this at all proportional?

I accept judgment that to count American lives reeks of the worst of armchair generalship. I accept that the United States has a responsibility to its citizens, and that its diplomatic corps is especially vulnerable and especially valuable.

But it just isn't computing for me -- unless I consider one possibility.

Benghazi has been amplified and magnified because it's difficult to assail the foreign policy record of this administration. Libertarians that believe in zero military intervention, or Niebuhrians/humanitarian interventionists that believe action was merited in Syria (and perhaps Iran in 2009).

Drone strikes are a more valid critique. But they aren't being criticized and magnified because, quite frankly, the killing of civilians in Pakistan by American drone strikes don't matter to the vast majority of constituents in either party, except in the abstract. At best, they are seen as the necessary price of waging a war against Al-Qaeda and terrorism in a state increasingly incapable of providing security to itself or its neighbors.

And there remain issues in Iran. But I don't see how Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal, and Sarah Shroud would be alive if Tehran had been bombed. Remember them? Was their release after years of incarceration a failure or a success of US diplomacy?

Remember Somali pirates? Remember Osama Bin Laden? Remember the release of hostages in North Korea?

What about the soft power coordination with the European Central Bank to stave off the recession?

Benghazi matters, but not for the reasons so many think.

It matters because it reveals how little effective criticism can be laid against the administration by its GOP opponents, possibly because it is indistinguishable from a realist GOP foreign policy. (It is quite distinguishable from a neoconservative foreign policy; some of the rhetoric suggests a Romney administration would have a chance of exhibiting the former, but the constituency of his foreign policy advisors suggests the latter.)

And it matters especially because it has revealed the tremendous gulf between me and others I know and respect. Their emphasis on Benghazi, ignoring the wider context of Libya, much less four years of foreign policy, makes me question their judgment and objectivity, at least in analyzing these issues.

If someone can explain, reasonably and coherently, how Benghazi invalidates an approach of scaling military responses to a situation and depending upon soft power wherever possible, I will gladly listen, and possibly even change my vote. You can refer me to an article or video, but I'll be far more likely to take your argument seriously if you articulate it yourself.

A note: I'd ask those who feel that military intervention is never justified, or are arguing from a primarily humanitarian interventionist position (esp. re: Syria) to alert me to such in the beginning. I'm not addressing this to you - our assumptions and metrics for acceptable vs. unacceptable intervention may just be too far apart for any fruitful discussion. Just letting you know ahead of time that I may not invest time to deflect those critiques. In all cases, please make sure your assumptions about the ethical nature of the use of force are clearly outlined so I can follow your chain of logic, even if I don't agree with your starting point.

Awkward facial expressions post VP debate

Joe Biden wasn't the only one with some interesting facial expressions tonight.

Jonathan Martin of Politico and Sam Youngman of Reuters discussed the VP debate with Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff at the PBS News Hour.

The analysis, as always, was informative. But I was struck by how young and green these guys appeared, even though they seem to have lots of experience covering politics. Were they just excited to be on PBS?

I know, I'm being shallow and petty, but I can't get over the awkwardness. Call it appreciation for kindred spirits.

Again, let me emphasize that I thought they did a great job. But I think there's some irony in the fact that two reporters covering a debate marked by facial awkwardness couldn't help but show some of their own. Honestly, it sometimes looked like a weird prom photo.

The whole video, worth watching is here. This particular segment begins at 9:47.

Memento Romney

How I failed a context clue test on Facebook

What happens if Sesame Street gets canceled?

If Sesame Street loses fundin

1. Big Bird will have to move in with his controlling sibling, Big Brother.

2. Cookie Monster will lose his healthcare coverage. Without methadone, he'll spiral back into full-fledged drug addiction.

3. Without a convenient supply of child guest stars, Elmo will start prowling preschools and parks in search of tickles.

4. The Count will return to his previous job as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

5. Without public housing and same-sex partner health benefits, Bert and Ernie will have to struggle in a long-distance relationship. Bert will move in with his father, who, as an evangelical Protestant minister in Indiana, will force him to undergo conversion therapy. Ernie will go back to his job at a gay strip club; however, having put on weight after years of comfortable domesticity, he will be forced to offer "extras", and eventually be busted for prostitution.

6. Mild-mannered Grover will show up to Congress and stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into Congressional representatives and employees. In an extreme case of irony, he will be stopped by Nancy Pelosi with an Uzi, who has long secretly taken advantage of a concealed weapons permit and the expiration of DC's assault weapons ban. Jim DeMint will be on record saying he wish he had been shot instead of having to thank her for saving his life.

7. Snuffleupagus will see his daily routine unchanged: wake up, get high with Tracy Morgan, and eat Doritos in his apartment.

Sometimes, the comments section of an article isn't a complete waste of time

Don't get me wrong - usually it is. I've learned to avoid reading comments on CNN articles. But the more specialized the article, the lower the readership, and so - sometimes - the comments tend to be of higher quality.

Occasionally, however, they are interesting for completely different reasons.

Observe this, from the comments section of an article at the NYTimes Fivethirtyeight blog:

Katherine Harris, assuming the poster is the real deal, is referring to this piece of the associated article:

According to the current FiveThirtyEight projection, President Obama will carry Maryland by 23 percentage points; Mitt Romney is projected to win just 39 percent.

Hm. Let's see what the replies look like.

Note that the only polite reply came from a guy in the UK, possibly because he didn't know the role Katherine Harris played in world history, or possibly because British people tend toward excessive politeness.

It has been 12 years. Have you forgotten? Or do some wounds never heal?

The Red Line: US jobs programs do not cover Binyamin Netanyahu

Despite claims to the contrary, Netanyahu is directly injecting himself into the US elections. He enjoys a closer relationship with Mitt Romney, and probably would be happier with a Romney victory. But regardless of his specific preference in the US Presidential election, he correctly senses that this US election gives him the maximum amount of influence, and is using it to push a more hawkish and explicit plan of attack against Iran's nuclear program.

Netanyahu is right about one thing - there is a red line approaching. But it's not the point of no return for Iran's nuclear weapons program. It is the point at which it becomes politically possible in the United States to question the nature and depth of the partnership with Israel.

I'm not exactly a dove regarding Iran. In the past I have tried summarizing the history of Iran's nuclear program with an addendum, and also considered a grim trigger strategy for Iran (and vented a bit about Netanyahu's rudeness at that time).

I don't think King Abdullah II of Jordan was correct during his extended Daily Show interview that Iranian nuclear ambitions would be curbed once the Israelis and Palestinians reached a peace settlement. It would help - Arab leaders could bring to bear pressure against Iran with less domestic political risk. But I don't think the most die-hard optimist thinks that is even possible, much less probable, before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

But there's a difference between developing plans for surgical strikes and committing to them publicly. The former can meet the national security requirements of Israel. The latter meets the political requirements of the Israeli government in general, and Netanyahu in particular.

Some voices in Israel realize that Netanyahu may be putting the relationship between Israel and the US, undermining the long-term security of the latter. (Sadly, I was unable to find a free version of the full text of the Haaretz opinion piece - if anyone finds it, it will be much appreciated.)

But I think Netanyahu has already been demanding and rude on many occasions in the past - remember VP Joe Biden's visit to Israel, during which the government just happened to unveil plans for new settlements?

Sometimes I wish I understood more about Israeli domestic politics. It would give me a handle on whether Netanyahu represents mainstream thought (which I doubt), and to what extent the Iranian threat is seen as both imminent and existential (more interesting, and possibly mainstream). So maybe Netanyahu is responding to his constituency.

Or, maybe he's also playing domestic politics and is pursuing policies, and pursuing them in a way, that will help Likud, and by extension, himself. Last time I checked, Likud is the party of the right -- it sure sounds like it under Netanyahu.

Look, the United States is Israel's most powerful and most loyal ally, to the point where I think it has significantly hurt American interests. So it is seen as our job to ensure the safety of our ally. But it is not our job to make sure Netanyahu has a job. That's his. As he's been part of the Israeli government for an awful long time, he must be somewhat good at that, at least.

Israel prides itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East. Putting aside challenges to that, that means the Israeli people are responsible for his persistence in politics. Like it or not, leaders in democracies are mirrors of us. We had George W. Bush for eight years, and rightly had our balls busted on that one. Israel has a parliamentary government, and can change leadership somewhat more frequently than we can, should they desire.

So I can thus infer that Israel has a sizable population that really is jingoistic and feels entitled to US protection.

Someone, please remind me why we're allies again.



PS: this graphic was a poor choice.

If the issue really is as serious and imminent as is claimed, why use such a crappy, ridiculous graphic? Who is Netanyahu's communications director?

In his defense, an extensive search of the Internets reveal that this isn't a Wile E. Coyote bomb. The closest he comes is his trademark Acme rocket.

Here's hoping the Iranian weapons delivery systems prove equally defective.

The Simpsons, Sideshow Bob, and the evolution (or not) of American politics

I just watched "Sideshow Bob Roberts" (1994), an episode of the Simpsons which covers Sideshow Bob's release from prison and his election as mayor. It was hilarious, but depressing how little has changed.

1. Schwarzenegger is still a Republican, and even became governor of CA in 2003. Consequently, he's even more credibly a prominent Republican than when this episode aired.

2. Rush Limbaugh is still on the radio. And yes, he's still a fat blowhard.

3. The secret Republican conclave applauded a top loading water dispenser as their next mayor. Arguably, this echoes the Romney-is-an-empty-suit claim.

4. Democrats still have to fight the soft on crime reputation.

5. One-liners are more important than substance in debates.

6. Personal illness during debates affects perceptions. (Scott Brown sounded a bit sick during today's debate.) However, I'm guessing most don't know that it's a reference to the Kennedy-Nixon debates.

7. Krusty the Clown votes for Bob, even though Bob tried to frame him for armed robbery, because he is itching for an upper-class tax cut.

8. Voter fraud is a major plot device (in this case, having the deceased people - and pets - vote). Note, however, that the voter fraud in this case was perpetrated by Bob, a Republican, even though most current efforts against fraud (turnout?) are being pushed by Republicans.

9. The Democrat is being portrayed as a womanizer, a tax evader, and illiterate. Two of these three still apply today, and it appears literacy/intelligence/education is no longer necessarily seen as virtuous (see: Rick Santorum and Massachusetts Senate debate).

10. Margins of error in polling data are still funny.

11. Lisa has a great line when she says "I can't believe that a convicted felon (Bob) could receive so many votes (100%), while another convicted felon (Quimby) could receive so few." Since broadcast, a handful of Democrats (including Blagojevich) and Republicans (including George Ryan) have gone to jail. Also, see Providence, RI and Washington DC for convicted criminals returning to public office.

12. Larry King is still old, and probably will still be involved in the debates, or coverage of the debates.

The things that don't age well:

1. Dukakis debate reference.

2. Citizen Kane reference when Bob celebrates at Republican headquarters election night.

3. Stacey Coone was the sergeant involved with the Rodney King trial.

4. People don't remember Matlock, or why old people loved it so much. (RIP Andy Griffith)

Thoughts while watching Massachusetts Senate debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren

Update: Evidently the drama started before the actual debate. Harry Reid ended voting in the Senate to make sure Scott Brown could go debate. Interesting tactic - like him or not, Harry knows how to use (bend?) the rules.

C-Span: Massachusetts US Senate Debate between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren

19:09 I started late. What the FUCK is Scott Brown doing going on about the Native American heritage of Warren and whether she got an advantage for hiring for Harvard?

19:14: On tax policy - Warren seems to have more specifics - Brown is on the defensive regarding taxes. He's confusing middle-class with upper-income individuals.

I like the format/moderating of these debates - they let them go at it. Reminds me of Game 7 2010 NBA Championships, where the refs didn't call as many fouls and just let the teams go at it.

19:17 Brown is trying to bait Warren into attacking the Chamber of Commerce and the independent businesses group. Warren isn't taking the bait, and attacks Scott Brown's record. Warren dodges the trap of looking anti-business.

19:20 Thought Brown was lying about the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world - confirmed by HuffPo. 

19:23 Wow. This race is personal. Brown is taking yet another personal swipe at Warren's history. As someone once pointed out, men need to take care to appear not to be bullying women during debates. Joe Biden was cognizant of that during the 2008 VP debates.

19:25 Brown really hasn't been able to mount an effective counterattack against charges that his record shows him to be favoring big businesses at the expense of working-class families.

19:29 "Balanced approach" is now the catch phrase for taxes and cuts in spending. Not complaining, but it does surprise me how Republicans can credibly combat the deficit without looking at the revenue side. It's like saying that I will lose weight just by eating less, and not looking at exercise at all - it could work, but a combined approach might be healthier.

19:30: Major themes so far -

Warren - Brown's record is one of supporting billionaires.
Brown - Warren will raise your taxes.

19:31 One place where Warren has an advantage - Brown has a record, and Warren less so. Gives Warren an advantage, even if Brown's record isn't particularly bad.

19:32 Another personal attack by Brown. He basically implied that Warren supported Kagan because she was "her boss".

19:33: Heh - "anti-choice". Nice re-re-branding, Warren.

19:34: They're actually pretty close on abortion. 
Oh, first mention I've heard of the late Senator Kennedy. (But I missed the beginning of the debate.)

19:37: They're both fighting for the mantle of Kennedy, and characterizing his views on the Blunt Amendment providing exemptions for employers for moral obligations for contraception.

19:39: Brown seems a bit more comfortable discussing criteria for military intervention - no doubt in part because he is apparently a colonel. Waiting to hear how he feels about Libya.

19:43:  Both sound a bit more nuanced than traditional neoconservative ideology. Brown wisely isn't arguing against Obama's foreign policy record, or Secretary Clinton's work.

19:44: Brown does want a harder line on Iran. Apparently "nuanced approach" is now a dirty word too! But they're actually pretty close on these policies. Warren is bringing the Presidential race into it, which I think is a good call, except that this is probably not a foreign policy election.

19:46: Wow - Brown is directly attacking Warren's livelihood!

19:49: Warren needs to avoid the academic habit of nodding when someone is lecturing/speaking. It makes it look like she's agreeing with Brown when he's attacking her.

19:53: Hm... Brown landed a decent blow on the Travelers Insurance case. Warren didn't directly reject it, and went back into a standard response. Sounds like the Globe investigated.

A question: who had the longer career as a corporate lawyer?

19:55: Warren is running against the Republican party.

Scott Brown ripostes by saying "You're not running against Jim Inhofe. You're running against me."

19:57: Not sure who has the better argument. Brown has a point that Warren is running against him, and that the overall argument about which party has control over the Senate is secondary. But Warren has a point about the fact that Inhofe is a paleorepublican on environmental issues, and probably shouldn't have a major position regarding US energy policy.


Post-debate thoughts

One thing both seemed to agree - on the economy, there was a lot of talk about Commonwealth jobs. But this race was more national than local. 

The Republicans - possibly - could run a stronger race by localizing it, depending upon Brown's record, and by hammering away that Warren probably would vote with the Democrats nearly all the time. Because Massachusetts is the second-bluest state in the Union (after Hawaii), he has to push the bipartisanship button.

The Democrats benefit somewhat by nationalizing certain aspects of the race, by making it clearly a referendum on two different visions for America. Warren posts lots of stuff on her FB feed about helping small businesses. But the bigger issues that are presently salient - debt reduction, Middle East policy, and energy costs - are national policy issues, and it may be fair game to run against the party as well as the candidate.

I have no idea what's salient for voters in Massachusetts. That it's close means that a fair number are pretty happy with Scott Brown.

In terms of mannerisms, I think Brown came off a bit more hostile and personal than he should've. Although women enjoy plenty of disadvantages in American politics, one advantage they do have is that a man has to be at least somewhat careful to avoid looking like a jerk when attacking a female candidate. Brown took some cheap shots, mostly centering around Warren being part of the Harvard community. He may need to take a more positive and less defensive tone.

Warren, for her part, is a good communicator. But I think her head does bob around quite a bit, and again, it's an academic habit of nodding one's head when listening to a lecture/speech. Brown was also obviously a bit more practiced about the little nicety segues - although I don't think anyone bought that he would really like to chat with Warren's brother about his tours in Vietnam. So, even if subtly so, Warren did come off as somewhat more partisan.

Rick Roll'd, Republicans, and the Republic, and trying to find the funny side

 Rick Santorum: Conservatives Will Never Have "Smart People On Our Side"

I swear, I thought this was an article from The Onion. But it's from Buzzfeed. And it's an accurate quote.

Reality has been out-Onioning The Onion for a while, to the point where I think they'll go out of business in the next few years. How can you mock the world when it consistently steals your punchlines?

I read the article, and still had a piece of doubt. Surely, this must be an elaborate hoax. What leader could be credibly anti-smart, especially a leader who was a credible Presidential candidate for a major party?

Then I saw the video.

I admit, I laughed. A lot. I laughed more than I had laughed at all of the stand-up comedy I had listened to today - and I listened to some absolute gems.

But then I thought a bit, partly triggered by some of the quasi-defenders on the thread. Some people, including some who strongly dislike Santorum, are on the thread are questioning whether the title is misleading. Do they have a point?

In a word, no.

In _____ words,

*breathes in*

Ok. First, it's a direct quote.

Second, it's pretty clear from the context that "smart" is supposed to have negative connotations. At the bare minimum, he is associating it with academics or expertise, and this is clearly evident within the context of the wider speech.

So "smart" is being used as an insult.

Oddly, my experience has indicated that you can call a person a lot of things and not have them be bothered, as long as you don't attack their intelligence. Once you question that, the reply you can expect is the communicative equivalent of a honey badger released in your pants, and said badger having been told that delicious termites exist somewhere within your entrails.

I could leave it at that. But I can't. Because at this point my laughter at the sheer ridiculousness of having been "Rick Roll'd" has given way to consuming rage that he, and a huge number of people in this country - and around the world - are serious. He's not a somnambulant stand-up comedian genius - he's fucking serious.

And another thing: put aside the blindingly breathtaking bullturd of trying to make "smart" a dirty word. When did "elite" stop being a compliment and start being derogatory? When did it get conflated with "elitist", which has a distinct meaning? In the world of policy, business, academics, and science, I HOPE the people leading an area of research, or for that matter, the country, are elite. I HOPE they are better than average. I HOPE they're smarter than I am. I HOPE people who enjoy large amounts of power, beauty, success, and responsibility are endowed with above-average capabilities.

I hope that, in part, because we've got some damn meritocratic values that are pretty fucking cemented into the foundation of our ideal of America.

I know we like to call them idiots and numbnuts, etc., and politics can be pretty stupid. It's fun, and mocking politicians is truly the only global sport. It's way more entertaining than watching dirty foreigners spend 90+ minutes chasing a sphere of white hexagons or black pentagons - or black hexagons and white pentagons... I care so little I didn't bother researching which it was - only to finish in a goddamn tie. As a good American, I don't do ambiguity - moral or athletic - well.

But there is a naive part of me - perhaps the part that still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Justice For All - that believes elite (but not elitist) leadership is a desirable thing. Hell, there's a part of me that believes it operates at some level - hopefully higher than my pessimistic weltanschauung would have me believe.



Otherwise, the nation is truly fubar.

When, when, did the passion for individual sovereignty override any sense that some people have better knowledge over some things than other people? When did we start believing that movie stars have special insight into vaccinations, or psychotherapy, or anything that isn't fucking movies? Why, with such bitter irony, does a political slant against concepts of wealth transfer and affirmative action embrace the democratization of truth, debasing expertise into mere opinion?

It's not just an American thing, as Dara O'Briain, an Irish comic, points out. (He, by the way, studied physics and mathematics in college before going into comedy.)

The sad truth is, no, my opinions are not better than expertise. I think I know a lot about things, and certain things a great deal. But I'm not an expert in health policy, or fashion, or abstract expressionist art. I'm not even a goddamn expert in astronomy - I've only got a masters degree in it. I quit my PhD program in part because I had a vague sense of how fucking much I needed to know about a specific area, and how goddamn hard I'd have to work to get there, in order to be anywhere near a credible expert. And I didn't care enough, even about planets around other stars (which is pretty damn awesome, even by the lofty standards of astronomy), to do it.

I know more than other people, a lot of people, most people, about a lot of astronomy. But there are people who know more than me. And in order for society in general, and science in particular, to, you know, progress beyond rudimentary levels, I have to TRUST people that have more knowledge than I do. I have to. I can't research every goddamn thing; hell, memory is such that a good chunk of the things that I think I know, and think are well-founded, are probably partial or complete bullshit.

Yes, experts sometimes lie, or cheat, or fuck up. There's a measure of skepticism we have to learn. But at some point, I have to trust - or I become, in the most literal sense, some sort of paranoid schizophrenic.

I have to decide whether fluoridation is a massive conspiracy with untold health effects that aren't covered by my knowledge of chemistry, or if it really is something that is the product of (known) health and economic benefits outweighing against (known) health and economic costs.

Maybe I could speculate on the extent to which the cult of individualism is a coping response to a host of unresolved existential crises modern individuals face, or the possibility that it's a reaction/protest to cultural and religious sources of guilt and shame.

But I'm not an expert. I'm not elite. I'm not smart.

That doesn't preclude me from an incoherent opinion - the standards of fact-checking and refereeing are pretty low for blogs in general, and this one in particular.

But this is too long already. And I got some stupid, pointless-ass shit to do... like watch Youtube comedy clips. Better that than contemplating the intellectual suicide of our great nation.

Like Stephen K. Amos, I, too, am trying to find the funny side of life.

PS: If you actually clicked on "Rick Roll'd", congratulations. You've just Rick Rolled yourself, and you have no one to blame except you.