This Post Is Dedicated To Logan, Who Shamed Me Into Blogging For You All.

Dear Everyone,
It is quarter after 3. In the morning. I have been sitting on my couch since election day doing nothing but watching MSNBC and clicking, county by county, through all the exit polling the NYT and CNN have to offer. I've spent the last 20 minutes looking for politically-themed applications I can add to my iPod. I have to be at work in 4 hours and I've resigned myself to the fact that, for the second night in a row, watching the continuous loop of Keith-Rachel-Chris that plays on MSNBC between the hours of 5pm and 5am is better than sleeping. If only I could smoke in my apartment everything would be perfect.

Barack Obama is the 44th President. This means we can all shamelessly carry around our copies of The New Yorker, lunch at vegetarian restaurants, and follow it with 10pm steak au poivre dinners. I can dress head to toe in black, talk about Karl Lagerfeld, read Vogue Paris on the Metro...and not as a way of escaping the horrible horrible stench of "conservativism" that has hung like a cloud of sulfuric acid over DC, and I'm sure all of your respective cities, for the last 8 years. No. Now I can be a liberal elitist because I AM a liberal elitist. And President Obama says it's ok to be a liberal elitist, because he's a liberal elitist, too. Finally, we have a President who appreciates that arugula is fucking expensive and who, I'm sure, has spent hours and hours wondering if Sarah Palin isn't secretly an evil genius who is fucking with us all and will one day tear off her face to reveal that she's a chrome robot with a motherboard controlled by John Boehner/Mitch McConnell and explain in an eerily calm voice that this has been a huge ruse by the RNC to fool the electorate into a submissive state of calm in the interest of launching a huge evil, evil, evil plan to win back a majority in Congress........

maybe not the last part.

Regardless, I am fairly certain that if Barack Obama had not been born in a manger and delivered to the United States as its one true savior (theocracy, what?), he would have been exactly like me. And probably you. He would be the one sitting on his couch listening to a playlist of awesomely hip music, reusing his water bottles, laughing at pictures of Sarah Palin wearing a leather jacket, probably getting stoned and captioning LOLcats pictures once a week or so, and maybe, just maybe, building his own chrome android whom he would then disguise as Rahm Emanuel and send to rid the world of idiocy via a grand, sweeping campaign of awesomeness. Kind of like what actually happened except I guess in real life Rahm wasn't inside a robot. Details...

Anyway, I am completely aware that there seems to be absolutely no point to this post, and mostly I am posting because I want you all to remember that we exist even though half of us are on another continent becoming socialists. The point is, I am so happy that I cannot express my happiness in words that don't seem ludicrous. There will never be a president who was born in the 1930s. In the next Presidential election, the Democratic Party will win Arizona. The Republican Party has succeeded in trapping itself in a southern cage. I don't know what this means yet, because I don't think I've even fully absorbed the fact that Barack Obama is actually the president.

Let's start the future. I'm going outside to smoke.

Oui, nous pouvons!

Politics Depresses Me So Much Lately That It's Hard to Blog

But I will resume. Only something as shocking to my intellect as Sarah Palin, Veep could rouse me from my crushing why-doesn't-Obama-have-a-landslide depression.

Sarah Palin has had "executive experience," sure. Governing a state! That sounds so impressive! I thought there was no way to refute the claim of her executive experience, but I was wrong. The entire State of Alaska has a smaller population that Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

The illustrious Governor has shown mind-bogglingly poor judgment in both her private and public lives. Bullet point time!

• Troopergate! It gets better--the replacement for the wrongfully terminated State Trooper had numerous sexual harassment charges against him, and Palin was aware of this.
• Odd and Dangerous Decisions during her pregnancy with Trig...and some internet cover up? (I am not bothered by the McCain campaign's timing of the story--at least they're getting some of their common sense back)
• So conservative she sued the Bush administration over--wait for it--putting polar bears on the endangered species list. Everyone loves polar bears. Except Sarah Palin.
• Even EPIC Conservative George Will hates her.
• Doesn't believe in Global Warming.
• Palin on Abortion: "I'd oppose even if my daughter was raped." Her daughter was 14 at the time, and Alaska's rape rate was distressingly well over the national average.

I can't even begin. All I can get out is...Really? Like, really??

The Congressional Black Caucus Had Better Save Mentholated Cigarettes

There is a reason Congress and I have been on a break for the last four months, and that reason is because, recently, I feel Congress has been like the controlling parents I already have. However, this may be the issue that forces me back into the ring: Congress is, yet again, hating on cigarettes. Specifically flavored cigarettes. [NYT]

Now, personally, I eschew flavored cigarettes. If you can't stand the taste of a cigarette and feel it should taste like a eucalyptus cough drop, I feel this is a sign that you are clearly too much of a pussy to be smoking. Not that smoking is cool or anything like that, because it's not. No matter how cool I look doing it. No. But regardless, I'm even more opposed to Congress telling me, you, or any other American over the age of 18 what type of cigarettes they can and cannot smoke.

The argument goes like this: Congress says that mentholated cigarettes lure in children and teens because menthol masks the taste of the smoke, making mentholated cigarettes more appealing to young wannabe smokers. Apparently, according to some un-cited study, some scientists and researchers claim there is evidence that mentholated cigarettes may be responsible for the elevated cancer rates among African Americans.

Now, I could make the argument here that perhaps we should be studying the thousands of millions of other factors that could be contributing to the fact that African Americans see more cancers than other groups. We could surely examine the fact that, in many major cities, African Americans are the group most affected by poverty, and that people living below the poverty level generally have a diet consisting of processed food high in refined salts, sugars, fats, and other products that have been proven to deteriorate health and promote diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Not to mention the fact that people living below the poverty level tend to not visit physicians or take precautionary measures with nearly the same frequency as those living above the poverty level. But I won't.

Instead I'll say this: regulating or even phasing-out mentholated cigarettes is not going to decrease the number of people taking up smoking. Nor is it going to decrease cancer rates among African Americans or other groups that largely live below the poverty level. I swear, if Phillip Morris ever stops producing Marlboro Lights, I will just start smoking other cigarettes. People will get over the taste difference, and Phillip Morris will surely not lose any money. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Phillip Morris will just find a way to flavor cigarettes with something other than menthol. Considering food scientists can make a gallon of high-fructose corn syrup taste like delicious fruit snacks, I am confident there is a chemical that will taste exactly like menthol when smoked with tobacco.

Also, are we really going to outlaw clove cigarettes, too? I promise, the fourteen-year-old girls, pretentious hipsters, and part-time potheads who make up the clove cigarette-smoking population will just start smoking something else. Probably regular cigarettes. Or pot. Dear Congress, how will you feel knowing that you've driven a whole demographic to start/continuing smoking pot? Just kidding. But not really.

In conclusion, Congress, laws are not the way to go about making people healthier. Not to be ridiculously cliche, but France has one of the largest populations of smokers in the world, yet still has fewer incidences of cancer than the United States. I'm pretty sure menthol cigarettes isn't the party at fault here.

Maybe instead of attacking mentholated cigarettes, or even cigarettes in general, we should look around for the actual factor behind why the United States is one of the least healthy nations in the world. I'm looking at you, processed food.

McCain Showing His Age, Rapid Brain Cell Death

In a move usually reserved for long-faced New Englanders, John McCain performed an impressive backflip, made even more impressive by the fact that I'm fairly confident that his joints are in pretty bad shape.

Remember back in the day when John McCain was all anti increased drilling in the United States? Waaaaaay back when. Waaaaaaaaaaaay back when he was running for president the last time. Yeah. John McCain, the man who was so against new drilling in the United States back in the stone age of 2000, is now blaming Barack Obama for the ridiculous cost of gas. There's a fucking tv ad about it: "Pump" TV Ad

Since fucking when is Barack Obama opposed to energy independence, reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, and, you know, making energy affordable? But whatever, like that's the point.

No. The point is, that this is fucking stupid. Let us not even try to blame Barack Obama, or even Democrats in general for the high cost of oil (unless you're trying to make the argument that Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq, in which case, kindly go fuck yourself. We don't have time for that argument). Regardless of who voted for it, the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent clusterfuckery is a totally Republican initiative. Also, which is the party drafting green energy legislation, pushing for renewable energy, and, you know, believing in global warming? Democrats, Democrats, and Democrats.

Also, not that it needs to be said again, but increasing domestic drilling is not going to significantly affect the cost of oil. Don't make me tell you why for the millionth time.

For more: McCain Urges More Drilling, Blames Obama For Gas Prices

Why We Shouldn't Drill Off-shore or in ANWR

I've been hearing a lot of bullshit about how we should drill more oil to fuel our disastrous amounts of oil consumption.

I absolutely believe that fuel prices shouldn't be so high--because, like everything else, it hurts the poor worst.

The answer is not to drill our way out of this crisis.

If we were to start developing more drilling sites off our coasts and in ANWR this very instant, no oil would be extracted from those sites for 5-10 years. By that time, if there is any hope of mitigating the human and economic casualties of global warming, we need to be relying largely on renewable, carbon-neutral fuels.

Secondly, contrary to public opinion (because the media and the government is being purposely misleading), the oil that would be extracted from off-shore points and from ANWR would not go exclusively to the American market. It would not get directed towards the American market at all. It would enter the world market, sold by the same oil companies that are reaping morally repulsive profits today. Because that "American" oil would be going all over the world, we wouldn't even see a 10 cent decrease in the price of gas. And given that that will be 7 or so years from now, I don't think it'll make much of a difference if your gas is $7.10/gallon or $7.20/gallon.

However, if your algae-derived ethanol (and jet fuel, for that matter) is just $3.50
/gallon and falling as production increases and technology improves, well, that would make a big difference.

Bush, the EPA, and the Court

Or: The Executive's Radical Abdication of its Responsibilities Under the Separation of Powers

Not that the Bush administration gives a shit about the Constitution anyway. Which is to say that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about the only thing that makes all American citizens united as Americans. I could go on and on about how, as everyone who lives here originally came from somewhere else, we cannot, as the French, the Chinese, or Nigerians, claim that we are American because this is where our flesh and blood originated. We don't have race to unite us. We have no "creation myth." We have the Constitution, and we have the Declaration of Independence. And I think that's so much more beautiful. But I'm not going to go on about that. I'm going to talk about the EPA

A few days ago President Bush's EPA head Stephen Johnson announced that the EPA is not going to to anything about greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed that the EPA is going to do more research about whether or not greenhouse gas emissions have consequences harmful to people.

Despite the fact that, as the New York Times reports (click on the title of this post to go to that article), "last December, a task force of agency scientists concluded that emissions do indeed endanger public welfare, that the E.P.A. is required to issue regulations, and that while remedial action could cost industry billions of dollars, the public welfare and the economy as a whole will benefit (emphasis mine)."

This WOULD be business as usual with the Bush Administration (and what we can expect from a potential McCain administration) EXCEPT that the Supreme Court last year decided in Massachusetts et al v. Environmental Protection Agency that the Bush administration MUST take action to determine whether greenhouse gasses were harmful (which it was determined they were) and if so, they MUST take remedial action.

In other words, the Bush administration has been evading the law since EPA scientists submitted their report last December. Now, with the official announcement that the EPA is not going to act on emissions, the administration is openly breaking the law.

Dear 9th Circuit, I love you. Dear war-on-drugs, fuck off. Dear zero-tolerance policies, you are destroying the lives of the young.

Somewhere in the American West in the recent past, a 13 year old girl was strip searched for drugs. At her middle school. The drugs searched for were Advil. She was searched based on the accusation of a girl who was actually caught with prescription strength Advil (hello? cramps!). No corroboration of that claim was sought for. No call to the parents for notification or permissin was attempted.

The girl who claimed that Redding had pills did NOT indicate that she had them on her at the time nor did she suggest anywhere that Redding might be keeping them. Certainly not IN HER UNDERWEAR.

Vice Principle Wilson simply took 13 year old Savannah Redding into his office and took off her clothes. To see if she had Advil in her underwear.

I couldn't possibly explain why this is both shockingly unconstitutional and morally disgusting better than the 9th Circuit already has.

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.”

The court said further, “A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil,” and obviously, “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

"Knowing effort"--I like this hint that the Court agrees with many other commentators that any sane person would see the issue here as not whether or not it is constitutional to strip search a student or even if it is moral to strip search a 13 year old student, but rather the issue is how the fuck is some dude who thinks it's ok to strip a young girl naked in the name of "war on drugs" allowed to be near children?

I simply can't believe that this ever happened.

How Long Before The New Cameras Fall Victim To A Drive-by?

The Washington Post reported today that the Metro Transit Police have recommended the installation of security cameras outside 30 of the most dangerous Metro stations. [WaPo] DC has agreed to pay $225,000 for the installations, and the Metro Transit Police are urging Virginia and Maryland to fund the installation of outdoor cameras at stations in their jurisdictions as well.

And, in case you're wondering, Metro is funding the installation of security cameras outside the Anacostia station...independently of their larger camera installation project. Anacostia has the highest crime-rate of any station in the Metrorail system.

I won't ask if anyone wants to place bets on how long it's going to take before the cameras at Anacostia are destroyed by gunshots, rioting, or some other enormous but somehow not surprising event.

(Don't hate me, Anacostians, for I love your neighborhood and desperately wish I lived there, too.)

BREAKING NEWS! Congressional Staff Not Good Secret Keepers.

So it turns out that giving every Hill staffer a BlackBerry was maybe not the smartest idea in the world. [Politico]

Apparently, everyone, up until now, thought anything owned and operated by Congress was totally impervious to outside forces, including the sensitive information bouncing through the exosphere where, you know, really anyone who's taken an introductory computer science class and has a decent understanding of network security can access it. Especially if you don't take such strident precautionary measures as maybe password protecting your BlackBerry.

Not convinced? Still think you have to be pretty retarded to accidentally leak private information? Turns out that "an employee at a local investment firm unwittingly leaked personal information about Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and others while downloading music online." Up until now, I thought you had to be pretty intelligent to be employed at an investment firm, but apparently the hiring process is a little less intense than I'd imagined. I'll ignore the fact that this genius employee was clearly pirating music on his company laptop, and just say that the term "file sharing" does actually mean what it says. Also, if you're not skilled enough to go to the Account Settings tab of your Limewire window and change it so that you're not giving the entire world access to your hard drive, I really seriously don't want you handling my investments or anyone else's.

The best part of this article, however, is when Harvard computer science professor, Harry Lewis, author of Blown to Bits, confirms that all computer hackers are, in fact, male: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

To the roughly 49% of the world population with a scrotum, I say: SUCKS TO BE YOU!

On Off-shore Drilling, Democrats Feeling Effects of Anesthesia

Before my iPod died and I had to make three trips to the Apple store, I started writing this post with the intention of saying that Congressional Democrats seem to be moving in the direction of compromise with Congressional Republicans. The headline above the fold on today's Politico is "Democrats Searching Their Sould On Drilling," which certainly seems to imply fairly widespread reluctance throughout the Democratic Caucus. [Politico]

I don't believe this for one minute. Not one stinking minute. Approval rating numbers just came out, and Congress, with its stellar NINE PERCENT approval rating seems to be in an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" kind of mood. And so continues the ridiculous trend of quick fixes that pander to national interest but ultimately fuck us in the end...so to speak.

Just a few minutes ago, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer spoke with considerable enthusiasm on the need to increase domestic oil product, because, well, the United States consumes 25% of the world's annual oil product while producing itself only 3%. So, yes, technically if we want to spend less money per barrel of oil without actually confronting OPEC, and we've never ever shown any real interest in confronting OPEC, and without taking the time and effort to shake off the vice grip of oil companies.

However, an increase in domestic oil production is not going to do much good. First of all, Congressional Democrats have stated repeatedly that drilling could not feasibly begin until 2020, with Congressional Republicans calling their bluff and stating that drilling could begin much sooner than that. Whatever. Regardless of when drilling actually commences, drilling in an area the size of the ANWR is not going to yield enough oil to effect the price of oil in the long-term. We know this already. Back when Congressional Democrats were vehemently opposed to increased off-shore drilling, they talked about that point at great length. (GovSpot has a well-outlined point/counterpoint.)

But sucky legislation is apparently favorable to no legislation (see: FISA reauthorization), so we've stopped thinking about how increased off-shore drilling will undoubtedly shift focus away from what was shaping up to be a decently enthusiastic jaunt through the world of alternative energy, sustainability, and breaking America's "addiction to foreign oil."

I can say with reasonable certainty that the reason Congress' approval rating is 9% is because of deals like this. Save the caribou.

-This post is dedicated to the guys at the Pentagon City Apple store who saved my iPod and my sanity.

Louisiana or 1950s Mental Hospital? It's Your Call.

Yesterday, the Louisiana State Senate voted 32-3 to send a bill to the State House that would make castration an acceptable and sometimes mandatory punishment for sex offenders in the state. [Fox News] For second-time offenders, castration would be mandatory, provided that a "medical expert" decided castration would be effective. Chemical castration, via medroxyprogesterone acetate, would be the default method, but offenders would be able to choose physical castration instead.

Take a moment. I'll wait for you to catch up.

Let's roam into the hypothetical. Medrozyprogesterone acetate is a progestin that, when used as a treatment in males, reduces sex drive. Makes sense. Yes, introducing progesterones in a testosterone-filled environment will reduce sex drive. That seems like a common sense statement, and unfortunately I cannot veryify it because there are no studies on the effects of medrozyprogesterone acetate in healthy men. Every study I found was about sperm count in men having recently received vasectomies. Moving on. That's not the ridiculous part.

The ridiculous part is the assumption that too much sex drive is the underlying problem. Grown men do not rape children because they have overactive libidos. Rape, whether of grown women or of children, is an action driven by anger and rooted in violence.

Non-consentual sex is a physical manifestation of anger, violence is the coping mechanism, and mental illness is what we should be addressing. How often sex offenders feel the urge to get laid is not what we need to be talking about.

Religious Education Will Save DC!

So, in case you weren't aware, President Bush is a huge fan of school vouchers and created the first federally funded education voucher program. In DC, 1900 students were able to escape the torment of their every day lives and the horrible, terrifying DC public education system.....by way of $7500 vouchers to the private or religious school of their choice. [WaPo]

Not that I don't appreciate how terrible the state of DC's public education system is. I know I wouldn't want to have to rely on Michelle Rhee to provide me with a sound education. And I fully support providing students with access to a good education, but seriously, Spellings herself writes in the article that the problem is "institutionalized failure." So clearly, we should be paying kids to go to religious schools instead of using that money to, you know, fix the system.

Spellings even lays out the statistics: more than 7000 students have applied for the federal scholarships. The federal program costs $74mn; money that, according to Spellings, we might as well use to pull kids out of the DC public school system because, hey, if it weren't for the federal program, the District wouldn't receive it anyway! So what they hey! Let's drain the DC public school system of its impetus to reform.

Spellings even states that 86% of the students receiving federal vouchers would otherwise be in schools that "did not meet 'adequate yearly progress' goals in reading and math for 2006-07." This means that an atrociously high percentage of DC schools are undoubtedly sub-par and unable to provide their students with a comprehensive education.

So where does the $74mn come into the picture? Here's my hypothesis: sending a tiny percentage of DC public school students to private and religious schools costs a similarly tiny fraction of what it would cost to reform the school system that continues to fail the thousands of students who do not receive federal vouchers.

The silver lining, however, may come in the form of increased attention paid to the state of DC's public school system. Hopefully, while the parents of 1900 students are lauding the greatness of the federal voucher program, the parents of all of the other students in the system will take the opportunity to remind Mayor Fenty and Chancellor Rhee just who they're here to serve.

Money is the mother's milk of politics, and that, my friends, is the name of the game.

Let's Keep Waffles on the Breakfast Table

E. J. Dionne Jr. is now apparently playing the constructive criticizer role favored by former Speaker Newt Gingrich. [WaPo] For those of you who didn't make it all the way through the A section this morning, I've done the reading for you. If you pass the test, I'll take my payment in the form of cigarettes, alcohol, or this wicker chaise lounge.

Anyway, Dionne actually makes an excellent point. Barack Obama needs to work on his flexibility, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Having one position ("I intend to end this war.") will not allow Senator Obama the range of motion he needs to successfully and decisively blow Senator McCain's campaign out of the water.

Right now, the Bush White House is banking on the Iraqi Parliamentary elections, slated for October 2008, being successful; a label that requires enthusiastic voter turnout, strong international support and reinforcement, and no post-election surges in violence.

But here's the lynchpin: if the Iraqi elections are successful, Obama will need a message that is in line with his current thinking, but can still make the argument that the war was a tragic and misguided undertaking. All while Senator McCain is standing on the other side, stating, correctly, that the surge worked, that Iraq is more stable than it has been in the last five years, and that all of this is proved by the fact that Iraqi citizens just peacibly elected a new parliament.

Senator Obama has run an incredibly intelligent and effective campaign, and he undoubtely knows that using the death toll since 2003 is not an effective tactic when it comes to building a stong foreign policy platform. Instead, Senator Obama must draw a distinction between himself and Senator McCain that does not leave him open to the charge of defeatism. After all, Iraq has begun to stabilize, and Obama's original sixteen-month timeline for withdraw, as he must realize now, leaves the door wide open to resurgences in violence at the hands of a Sunni insurgency, Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, and Al Qaeda; all of which, although currently diminished and flailing, have great potential to revive if the United States were to redeploy all troops within sixteen months, not having taken into account the ability of the Iraqi government to pick up the slack.

Long story short, Senator Obama needs to take a page from Senator McCain's book and begin shaping a foreign policy platform that is based on viable foreign policy instead of fondant and marshmallow.

For more, read George Packer's essay in this week's New Yorker: Obama's Iraq Problem

I Don't Understand Your Methodology, America.

So, after about 6 weeks, I finally started reading some of my subscriptions, and I happened upon this little gem from Ann Applebaum. I remember when I was a wee youngin, writing a reflection on one of her more mundane and rambling op-eds, and realizing sharply that her work often encourages America's disordered thinking. However, she may finally....finally have come around. [WaPo].

Sadly, we all remember how America twice elected George W. Bush, hailing him the candidate they most wanted to throw a few back with. 8 years later, we're somehow still talking about this, and even, horrifyingly, using this characteristic as a ruler for electability. Apparently, and I'm going to have to take Applebaum's word for it since I've spent the last month or so reading Women's Wear Daily and watching copious amounts of TLC, Bravo, and HSN, America is shitting itself over the fact that Sens. Obama and McCain aren't as "nice" as we once thought.

Well no shit. It takes a great deal of ego and arrogance to run for President of the United States. Seriously, to seek any elected office, you have to be pretty fucking convinced that you're the greatest and most intelligent person in the world. Now, that's not to say that the halls of legislatures and executives across the United States are filled with raging megalomaniacs, although I'm certainly not willing to wager my salary that they're not. But really, America, after 8 years of a country led by the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with, don't we think maybe, just maybe, it's time to be sober this time around?

Electing someone idealistic is certainly a good thing, but when we delude ourselves into thinking that that idealism is going to persist throughout a full term is completely absurd. Of course, an idealistic candidate is still going to be an idealist, but holding elected office, especially one as demanding as President of the United States, is going to provide a shock of realism that campaigning can't.

Having spent a longer-than-necessary amount of time on Capitol Hill, and now in my fashion industry refuge, I can tell you with some authority that the ones most able to maintain their idealism through the demands of performance are the ones who are less "the guy you want to have a beer with", and more "the guy you want running the country."

Yes, I Am Aware That This Blog's Tagline Implies A Political Theme.

I know that I'm supposed to regale all of you with witty commentary about political issues, but I've been off the political scene for some time now, and frankly, all of my subscriptions are piling up in Google Reader, and admittedly, I am never going to read them ever again. Clearly, I was kidding myself when I subscribed to 12 sites about Medicare reform.

No, this post is dedicated to my brethren in customer service.

I am a color consultant for a high-end cosmetics, skincare, and fragrance retailer. Yes, it's true, I spend a lot of my day standing around preening myself and having my 10-out-of-10-on-the-Kinsey Scale coworkers tell me how attractive I am. But it's not like I walked out of my walnut-paneled Capitol Hill office and into the fashion industry. Bitch, please. You fuckers have no idea how many hours I've spent reading about make-up artists and fashion designers. I can discuss at length the pros and cons of dimethicone and parabens. I know the history and significance of every major brand in my store. I have quasi-coital conversations about the genius of Kevyn Aucoin. So maybe every one of you assholes who walks into my store and begs me to teach you how to "do a smoky eye" could give me the benefit of the fucking doubt.

When I tell you that the oil-free, preservative-free, paraben-free tinted moisturizer isn't going to make you break out, seriously......who the fuck are you to argue with me? Please insert your brains and take into consideration the possibility that your skin is congested because you don't fucking clean it. And don't complain to me when you're not getting enough coverage out of your water-based makeup. It's fucking water-based. Who are you kidding? I offered to spackle your face with a healthy layer of professional-grade pancake and you looked at me like I had nine heads. Really? Then don't complain when you can still see your fucking disgusting pores.

Additionally, don't come into my store and ask me where L'Oreal is. This isn't a fucking Rite Aid. For future reference, we don't sell Sally Hansen, either. Kindly note that there is nothing under $15 in the store. Find a Wal-Mart.

And as much as I appreciate you telling me what great skin I have and how I'm so lucky that I don't have to wear make-up, you are all full of shit. They pay me to look like this. You're diluding yourself if you think I don't spend an hour applying 12 different moisturizers and serums to my face twice a day. I'm probably wearing more make-up than you are. The difference is that I fucking know what I'm doing and know how to prevent myself from looking like I just walked off the stage at the MGM Grand. There's a reason you're sitting in my chair.

And I swear to fucking god, if one more of you douchebags walks in at 9pm and asks to see the manager so you can complain about some fabricated bad service just so I'll be forced to give you a complimentary consultation, I will purposely give you pink eye.

And yes, we talk about you over our headsets when you're being moronic prats. I'm not working here because I love telling you how much that disgusting Hilary Duff fragrance costs even though the price tile is right in front of you. I'm working here because my life will be much more pleasant if I can convince you to put some industrial-strength concealor on those black and blue half-moons you're cultivating under your eyes. I would love if you bought the glycolic peel and the capillary constrictor, too, so I'd never ever have to touch your face again.

But I won't hold my breath.

"This is what your blog is for, Meredith!"

People. Are. So. Stupid.

This article, about how there is no such thing as the "water shortage" is probably THE prime example. It is only made worse that it's on a website about "SCIENCE."

You see, the earth is a closed system, so it's impossible to "waste" water, since it doesn't actually get lost or leave the system. It just goes to the oceans. And becomes undrinkable.

Oh, sure, you can desalinize sea water. And, yeah, it's expensive, but OBVIOUSLY you'd pay to get something you can't survive more than two days without. So what's the big?

Interestingly, the writer didn't mention how low-quality desalinated water is, or that the only countries who rely on desalinization plants for most of their water are the massively wealthy oil-states of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and even THERE, the cost is prohibitive to the states as well as their citizens.

Which means that most other arid nations, which are very poor (those in Africa, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, etc) will most certainly not be able to afford desalinization plants.

Then, of course, there are the arid, poor nations without any access to AN OCEAN. Who will have to pay even MORE for water when buying it from their similarly water-starved and possibly hostile neighbor nations.

And, an entirely other issue--the author treats water shortages as if they are not at all connected to global warming, which could not be farther from the truth. As the global temperature increases the power of our weather systems will intensify--creating both greater droughts and greater floods (see Atlanta, GO and the midwest, respectively)--and perhaps, as polar ices melts past the point of return, our weather systems may break altogether. In any case, droughts will intensify, and no matter what this moron tells you, when there is a drought in your area (such as most of the American Southwest) there is a shortage of water.

And when you are in that situation, you'll probably get pretty pissed at your neighbors for spraying it on their lawns. I think you'd say that they're wasting it.

Floods, too, can create water shortages. During Hurricane Katrina, flooding led to wholesale contamination of all of the water in New Orleans, meaning that all of the water that people needed for cooking, drinking, and cleaning had to be trucked in.

Live in a water-rich area, like the East Coast? Water shortages are going to affect us, too. Our water sources may not dry up, but the price of water will probably rise like the price of oil has, because all of the areas suffering from water shortages need to buy it from areas that are not in danger. And there are a hell of a lot of bottling facilities in PA, NY, and New England.

Please don't waste water. And please don't let anyone tell you that because we live in a closed system, there's nothing to worry about. Tell them to go take a thermodynamics course.

1 Billion people don't have access to enough water to meet their daily needs. Every single day. This means that they may have enough to drink and cook with, if they're lucky, but they don't have enough to wash with. Their clothes, their cookware, their bodies go unwashed for days, weeks at a time, leading to sores, disease, and shame (what would you do if you were simply unable to wash? To clean your clothes, your dishes?). This means 1/6 of the entire world population. Water for these people is so remote from their homes that they must walk 12 miles a day to retrieve it, making it impossible for women to work (and thus save money to get out of poverty) or for children, mostly girls, to go to school (also keeping them from escaping poverty).

I don't know how I can stress it. There is a shortage of water for these people. Desalinization plants aren't doing anything for them now, and probably wouldn't do anything for them if they existed. They can't pay for water because they don't, and have never had, money. When UNICEF tells you (rightly) that X number of people (about 1/4 the world--another 1/2 live on less than $2) lives on less than a dollar a day (or $300 a year) that number is based on how much they COULD get if they COULD sell the corn (or whatever) that they grow at market. But they can't sell that corn, a) because there probably is no market, and b) they have to feed their families with it, which they can do slightly better by eating what they grow rather than selling it at market and using the money to buy other food.

Aside from all that, even where there is no "shortage," exactly, there are other massive problems with water supplies.

2 Billion people have no access to sanitation. The water that they drink may be contaminated by chemicals (the Ganges river in India), by manure runoff from local farms, or many other forms of waste, including household trash and human waste. Therefore 1/3 of the world is constantly in danger of contracting one of dozens of water-borne and water-related diseases, such as cholera, malaria, dysentery, etc.

So, seriously. How, exactly, does this guy think that there is no such thing as a water shortage? And how does he think that desalinization is the solution?

Bring on the Foreign Policy Debate, Indeed.

Or, alternately, Wall Street Journal Opinion Page: You Never Fail Me for Incendiary Commentary to Rant About.

John Bolton, the Bush crony that got appointed to the UN for the usually nonsensical reasons (as he was a very outspoken critic of the UN's sheer existence before his appointment), wrote
a piece for the Journal's Monday Op-Ed. A good summary of his characterization of Obama's stance on negotiations with hostile states/organizations:

"The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy."

This characterization that Obama's policy on negotiations at all lacks nuance or is a topic that has been avoided is either terribly unfair or terribly uninformed (I'm guessing the former, since he wrote an op-ed on it, and I would only assume that he has the integrity to research).

Bolton made a particular point out of Obama's rejection of "preconditions." Here's a really good quote explaining how Bolton artfully (but falsely) reframed the debate. Obama said "Understand what the question was. The question was a very specific question. Would you meet without preconditions? Preconditions as it applies to a country like Iran for example was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has meet preconditions that are essentially what Iran and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want. But that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation, and the preparation would involve starting with low level-lower level diplomatic contacts..." etc about standard diplomatic practice.

Just take a look here and read through the dozens of other quotes from Obama about what he considered appropriate ways of dealing with aggressive nations/groups.

Now, in one or two of those quotes, Hugo Chavez is listed among Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad (yes! spelled it right on the first try!), which, let me tell you, I take issue with. Because seriously...Venezuela is no threat to America and Chavez is as much a goofball as he is an ideologue, and most of all, he just wants to alleviate poverty and finally put an end to the Monroe Doctrine (and the Truman Doctrine, while we're at it). But that's a conversation for another day.

A Lesson in Constitutional Law: California Supreme Court and the Chicago Tribune

The Chicago Tribune's enlightened journalist, Dennis Byrne, here said that the California Supreme Court is "tyrannical" for applying the most basic tenet of Constitutional law (which is the foundation of every single law in our nation and each of our states), the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land: The United States Constitution for all of the states, and each state constitution for the laws within their borders. This means that the principles put forth in each state constitution, not the laws passed by the legislature nor the will of the people, however much populists may dislike it, trumps all other points of origination of law.


Mr. Byrne, who clearly skipped the opportunity to take a Constitutional Law class in college, or, for that matter, even a half-decent Intro to Political Science course, proclaims this misinformed outrage:

"The majority declared that people had no say in the matter. It said that, in its supreme wisdom, it could overrule a constitutionally created process for the people of California to directly exercise their will. The court proclaims its view is so fundamentally correct that it cannot be "abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process." In other words, the people of this state are not supreme."

No, they're not. The people never, ever have been. If you want them to be, try to make a constitutional amendment, I dare you. People who actually know this stuff will slap you upside the head and explain to you what a fundamental reversal of our government and protection of civil liberties it would entail.

"Let's think about that for a minute. The court is saying that some rights are so fundamental that they cannot be voted away by a majority, or even a supermajority, of the citizens or their representatives."

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they're saying. How can you take offense to that? I was taught about the ubiquitous concept that the only real danger in a democracy is the "tyranny of the majority," that a numerically powerful but nefarious group of people in some moment in history would impose their prejudice (or worse) on other human beings who are less numerous (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Polpot's Cambodia, Sudan since the late '80s, Serbia).

The Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, are all based on the principle that some rights are so FUNDAMENTAL (Jefferson and the writers of every other state Constitution used the word "unalienable") that they can't be abrogated just because some people don't want to share the rights they enjoy with people they don't like.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I read sometime between last posting and right now about Senator Clinton's plan to suspend the gas tax for the summer months, and really just haven't been able to get over A) how ridiculous and stupid it is, and B) the fact that it was supposed to make people like her more. Let us address point A.

Let me point out that the idea of us actually suspending the gas tax for ANY length of time is entirely stupid. I am certain that Senator Clinton, as a member of the United States Congress, is fully aware that any such legislation would require a presidential signature. In case you've been passed out, George W. Bush, the creator of Arbusto Energy, notorious friend of oil companies, and whore to should-be-illegal OPEC, is the President of the United States. That legislation, providing that it, you know, successfully got through both the House and the Senate in any sort of timely fashion, which, as anyone who's ever talked to anyone about anything knows, is SO not likely to happen, is going to be vetoed so quickly that we might as well not even bother trying to get ourselves off by pretending it's possible.

Second, and you're probably going to be able to guess what I do in my free time after you read this, as a tax proposal, Senator Clinton's plan to suspend the gas tax Constitutionally has to originate in the House of Representatives, and, subsequently, would be directed to both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. While telling you all that stuff about committee jurisdiction was mostly for purposes of showing off, the POINT is, the bill still has to originate in the House of Representatives, which A, means that Senator Clinton has to find someone to introduce a bill that she likes, and B, expects that the members of the House of Representatives, especially the members of the Democratic Caucus, are so stupid as to not realize that VOTING on such a bill is going to force them to effectively declare their affiliation with her over Senator Obama. No fucking way. House leadership isn't stupid.

Third, the actual policy implications of a suspension of the gas tax are disastrous. No gas tax = lower prices. Lower gas prices = higher demand. Higher demand w/o higher supply = higher prices. Higher prices as the result of higher demand = prices not much different than before we suspended the gas tax. Then there's the whole point of how, since the gas tax hasn't REALLY succeeded in curbing gas consumption, a suspension of a tax that, from June-August would only save the average consumer about $30 billion, isn't really going to do much to save anyone any money. And we'll just have to hear Exxon Mobile talk later about how they were so kind and heroic and generous and proved their commitment to energy and saving the world by not publicly fucking every member of Congress up the ass once this who extravaganza is over and the American people start pay tax on their gasoline again.

Also, let's just put out there the fact that the presumed increase in consumption that would result from this suspension of the gas tax is really going to do nothing except destroy the environment MORE. Because, come on, we know that giving people a tax cut isn't going to make them appreciate the fact that gas is cheaper. They're not going to save that extra 4 cents every time they fill up. Come on. People are going to consume MORE gasoline.

OH! We do remember that Congress has to follow pay-go rules, right? That's right. So that means that in order to suspend the gas tax for four months, Congress would need to find a way to offset $30 billion. Well, it's not going to come from defense spending, obviously, so it's going to need to come from somewhere else. I guess we can leave Senator Clinton with the task of deciding what gets screwed over. Furthermore, the gas tax pays for the maintenance of U.S. bridges, highways, and other infrastructure. We NEED that $30 so we can continue to pave roads, prevent bridges from collapsing into rivers, and, you know, do other important stuff like that.

Oh. And not that it matters, but Senator Clinton's idea to suspend the gas tax didn't make anyone like her more. Oh well. So much for that.

Let's Talk About Miley Cyrus' Parents

I'm maybe the only realist here. I refuse to be the one whining and complaining because the world is mean and people do inappropriate things and Disney is breeding a generation of untalented hack tweens but oh no Vanity Fair "sexualized" one of them and now we're going to light our torches and storm the publishing headquarters and turn Annie Liebowitz into a villain because how could she do something like that.

Welcome to the real world. The real world is full of competing interests. Vanity Fair wants to sell magazine. Annie Liebowitz wants to take photographs and create art. Miley Cyrus wants exposure/money/name recognition for something other than being the latest in a long line of Disney protégés.

Miley Cyrus has parents. She is fifteen years old. Her parents are still largely a part of her life. Are we seriously believing that neither Miley Cyrus nor her parents saw any of the pictures before Vanity Fair went to print? Really? When Annie Liebowitz photographs you, she does it with a digital camera. You get to see the pictures after she takes them.

Additionally, when Vanity Fair dressed Miley Cyrus in a sheet and tousled her hair, none of her caretakers thought maybe the photographs were going to be suggestive? Are you kidding me? Miley Cyrus is fifteen. She's not four. She knows what it means to be sexual. I'm assuming we all remember the pictures on her Myspace where she's pulling up/down her shirt. I make very valiant attempts to not know things about Disney stars, and even I've seen pictures of Miley Cyrus in her lime green bra.

Come. On.

When I was a "tween," I tried to leave the house in slutty clothing. I failed. Because of my parents. Teenagers know what sex is. They're insecure. They want to fit in. They try every way possible to be "cool." Now, granted, the situation is different when Vanity Fair is the party sexualizing you, but the role of the parents doesn't change.

Don't blame Vanity Fair or Annie Liebowitz. They're doing their jobs. Blame Miley Cyrus' parents for failing to keep their daughter from jumping on the bandwagon of Disney superstar turned slutty Disney superstar twat.

Let's talk about Miley Cyrus

I have little but disdain for Miley Cyrus and every other manufactured child star that has the Disney logo branded into her ass.

But as 15 year old girl whose entire existence is manufactured into pop culture commodification, she can't be anything but a product of our pop culture, accepting everything it tells her. And the number 1 thing it tells you is to be sexy, and if possible, to embody sex. Especially if you're a sign of wholesome American girls, and especially if Disney made you. (Don't forget: Disney also brought you Britney Spears).

And for fuck's sake, she's 15! 15-year-old girls are unstable, searching for an identity, and, literally, dying to fit in. This means blow jobs, sex, drinking, hard drugs, starvation, and self-inflicted wounds. And this means looking like a babyprostitute.

How dare the media condemn Miley Cyrus for being who they tell her and every other female from prepubescent girls onwards to be?

I know its patriarchy and I know its pop culture and I know its the pornification of all things remotely recognizably female, but I still can't contain my fury. It's just so unfair.

Oh, and Annie Liebowitz, for seeing a 15 year old as someone who it is appropriate to lead into being photographed with I've-been-having-sex-for-3-hours hair and a satin sheet, there's something wrong with how you look at young girls.

The World Needs Power-Sharing

MentalJumpstart (whoever you are, thanks!) sent us this powerfully infuriating article.

Infuriating because on face value, it's convincing, and within another paradigm, it makes sense.

Let's start off with this: the article is called "Why the World Still Needs Mr. Big: Rumors of its demise have been exaggerated. Just one country has the will and the wherewithal to take care of business." The will to take care of business. That's where this whole article goes wrong. In the subtitle. That might be a record. (Also, Joffe needs to go back and re-watch Sex and the City, because Mr. Big is an asshole but he definitely isn't a global hegemonist)

What exactly does that mean, "take care of business?" Let's speculate. The only things that superpowers are actually better at than normal-powers for are a)domination and b)war, which is a subset of domination. Not that superpowers have the monopoly on wars. The wars that we embark upon as an international community, at least, have come much closer to being ''just'' wars (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia) than anything America has lately embarked upon.

The point is, no one should be "taking care of business." No country should have a monopoly on domination of every lesser power, no country should be able to get away with the wars of "preemptive" aggression that we've flipped the world off with.

So I agree with Jaffe. Russia, China, Europe even should not be allowed to take power over the world in our stead. We shouldn't have been allowed to take power over the world in the first place. We should behave more like Europe--having the "means" but not the "will" to be a superpower, because in a perfect world, no one would have the will. In this one, however, we'll have to share power.

He got it right in the very beginning, "Washington faces two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is not winning. Russia, China, Europe and perhaps even India are stepping forward to claim a piece of the leadership action; the "unipolar moment" is waning in favor of multipolarity. There goes the American century." And thank God.

Post-script: I very, very much resent Joffe's assertion that only Russia and China shelter corrupt, brutal, even evil governments. We installed, funded, supported, and armed, countless regimes, from Iraq to Indonesia to countless Latin American fascist dictatorships and much, much more, many informally through government-sanctioned, officially illegal arms dealers. I know I'm going to sound like Hugo Chavez here, but seriously, go read Hegemony or Survival.

Peggy Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry

While my brilliant commentary on this op-ed may lead to you believe that it's all you could possibly need or want to know to fulfill all yearning for knowledge about why Peggy "Batshit" Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry, this piece is just so ridic that you should check it out for yourselves. After reading my divinely inspired rant.

First, it instantly becomes clear that Peggy Noonan believes that she is Queen of America, and in a uniquely colonial twist, replaces the use of the royal "we" with the royal "referring to one's self in the name of one's nation." I.e., Peggy Noonan refers to herself as America, and believes she alone really represents it.

B, Peggy Noonan is a neurotic bitch who wishes death on those who are doing their job to make sure that passengers don't meet their deaths via airplane bomb (which is not to say that TSA people aren't heinous bitches themselves, but still).

Roman Numeral III, Peggy Noonan is a racist, class-ist, age-ist bigot. She tells us that it is impossible that anyone who is not phenotypically Arabic Muslim could not possibly be any kind of threat to the safety of other passengers. She believes that "equality" means letting the "middle aged woman" bypass security. This of course also means the middle-class, white woman, by virtue of her soccer mom potential. Though the "vulgar girl on the cell phone" and the "loud ruffian" (ruffian? didn't that word go out of style after the Renaissance?) are also white and therefore non-threats, Noonan doesn't suggest that they should get to skip security--probably their punishment for being not as wealthy as she is.

Additionally, she talks about how no one's watching Wolf Blitzer mumble through his beard about PA, probably because they can hear him talking and who'd want to look at him, anyway? Also, the probably get all of their news from the internet, like everyone else.

Then she goes on for a while about how it's inherently ok to call Obama's patriotism into question, unlike John McCain, because he's black and a liberal and probably for some reason having to do with the fact that his father wasn't born here. And then there's something about how liberals and moderates should listen to her despite her racist, class-ist invective because she doesn't like Bush, either.

I'm filled with hate for the media.

Don't Use The R-Word.

As I sit here eating my mid-recession lunch of kidney beans (surprisingly sweet today!) and baked organic chicken breast (moist and delicious!) I seriously can't help but laugh at how batshit everyone is going over the fact that their "economic stimulus" checks are effectively in the mail. [CQ, sub. req'd.]

Ok. Let's be real about this. This is not a good economic stimulus package. I mean, if you're middle class and generally able to pay your bills and feed yourself, it's pretty ok. You're probably just excited that the government is giving you a pocket-full of cash and encouraging you to spend it on stuff. Because everyone knows that what I need in my life right now are more foreign-made conveniences. And I'm serious about that. But let's look at the big picture, shall we? Gather round for story time, kiddles. I will regale you with tales of bipartisanship (read: Republicans hacking the teeth out of what at one point was actually a decent economic stimulus package.)

A good economic stimulus package not only focuses on those who are most likely to spend the money (ie: me), but also on those who actually, you know need the money (ie: the unemployed, people on food stamps, etc.). If it's really good, it will also maybe try to create jobs, but getting all three of those things while there are still "fiscal conservatives" on planet Earth is so ridiculously unlikely that, really, I won't even bother hypothesizing.

Now that the first round of checks are mailed, House Democratic leaders want to start considering a second economic stimulus package. One that would include all the things Republican leadership managed to complain out of the first bill. Hooray! Extension of unemployment benefits! Expansion of food stamp benefits! Infrastructure spending to create jobs!

Wait.

Republicans don't think we need a second bill.
Oh well. Better luck next time, poor and lower-middle class America.

Nora Ephron Is Bad Writer, Complete Moron; Pennsylvania Voters Are Powerless To Demographic Trends

Nora Ephron has taken a moment out of her busy, busy day to give voters in Pennsylvania a thorough, yet amateur psychoanalyzing. Totally free of charge! Except, I guess, for however much the thousand or so brains cells I lost reading her idiotic drivel were worth. She also comes to the stunningly brilliant conclusion that it was slightly less obvious that the nominee was going to be either a woman or a black man when Woman and Black Man weren't the only options. [HuffPo]

Since, you know, if you're a woman or black, you don't get a choice when it comes to who you vote for, Nora Ephron has concluded that the only people who mattered in the Pennsylvania primary are white men. And they're all either racist, misogynistic, or both (read: Republican, if your English-Ephron dictionary is turned off).

That's right. Look around you. If there's a white male within eyesight, he definitely either hates black people or women. If you're either one of those, I guess you should just hope that he hates the other one. Although, if you're voting for Barack Obama, Nora Ephron would probably also conclude that you don't have to worry in this situation because voting for Barack Obama also means you run fast and can probably jump really high.

Snark!

From someone who is definitely not me.

I Fucking Hate Maureen Dowd

There are lots of reasons I should like Maureen Dowd. She's a woman, she's a liberal, she supports Obama, she's snarky (kind of...), she's also a fake red-head.

But I don't.

Her writing is totally inane. She's way more concerned with how awesome she (thinks she) is than actually writing good opinion pieces. Her pieces, when they have a point, never have a very good one, and usually get there in some stupid way.

Look. I'm no rabid Obama-lover. I really like him. I also really like Hillary. The point is that Dowd's piece, linked to in the title of this post, is extremely detrimental to both of them.

According to Maureen "my cynicism and hyper-judgemental-ness is more important than having a message in my political opinion pieces" Dowd, Hillary is conniving, emasculating, and has no desire but to take the party with her if she has to go down, while Barack is whiny, losing steam, and not enough of the leader we thought he was to make Hillary "go away."

Even more damaging, Dowd both portrays Hillary as buying into the misogynist invective slung at her every fraction of a second, saying that Hillary sends a message that Barack isn't "enough of a man" to "put me in my place" (in her place? What the fucking motherfucking fuck?!) AND Dowd portrays herself as buying into Hillary's claims that Barack must be inferior to Clinton as a leader because he can't "seal the deal."

Dear Hillary Clinton, Maureen Dowd and all the people who buy her shit,
Your point that Barack must be an inferior leader to Hillary because he can't "shake her off" is an absurdly blatant logical fallacy (didn't a bunch of you go to law school? Have you heard of fallacies? It has nothing to do with fellatio, stop looking at me like that). Hillary Clinton hobviously can't "seal the deal" EITHER. So much so that she's still losing the primary contest by hundreds of delegates.

So shut up with this groping for reasons why one is suddenly a failure and the other isn't. They can't "seal the deal" because they're both incredible candidates that would make amazing Presidents and really want a chance to prove it. THAT'S why, you morons.

Also, to all those Barack supporters who whine about how Hillary's damaging the ability of the party to be legit and present a united front: every time you Hillary-bash, you're doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Suck it up already.

--Rant terminated--

Back On Track?

So today, the almighty (and perpetually drunk) Terry McAuliffe announced that Senator Clinton raised $10mn through 60,000 online donations after winning the PA primary by a 10-point margin. [Time]

My. Ass.

Seriously. Americans can't afford to fill their gas tanks, but you want me to believe that the Clinton campaign managed to pry about $166 from each wallet in blue collar America? I'm calling bullshit on this one. But that's not the point. Even if the Clinton campaign didn't just withhold $10mn at the end of the quarter and save it for a time when they needed a little money-driven "momentum," the question remains as to why blue collar America is so attached to Senator Clinton.

Blue collar jobs are incredibly difficult, strenuous, and over time, are often debilitating. It's a life that is incredibly admirable. But these people aren't sheet metal workers because it was their life's passion. They aren't workers in cement plants because they understand and value the importance of smooth texture and a good blend when pouring foundations. They're auto workers because it pays the bills. They're miners because they want to send their children to college. They're service workers because they want their children to be the directors and the CEO's they never had the opportunity to be.

Somewhere in this post I lost track of the snark and ended up in campaign speech land. But really. I've been trying to compose the next paragraph of this post for the last 20 minutes and have written and erased it 6 times. I don't fucking have an answer.

I don't understand blue collar America.

But that's what Al Gore does...

You know what I'm getting kiiiind of sick of? Presidential candidates that (rightly) make the environment one of the biggest campaign issues, but choose policies that sound familiar (i.e. from the last 8 State of the Union addresses) rather than ones that are, you know, well-thought-out. Or even rely on knowledge that any freshman environmental studies major would be able to tell you. I'm referring to biofuels.

Biofuels require more oil to produce than they save. So when you put 10 gallons of 10% ethanol gas in your tank, you're not consuming 9 gallons of oil rather that 10...you're actually consuming more than 10 gallons, more than your would if you had gone to a non-"flexfuel" station. (I nevertheless commend your effort, but seriously, stop doing it now).

Oh, that and making biofuels out of corn (which is less efficient than using sugar cane or switch grass) is causing the poorest of the poor in the world to starve due to rising grain prices while industrial agriculture gets rich off of ethanol demand, speculation on corn prices in the commodities market, and farm subsidies that come from our taxes. (For that matter, lets get rid of farm subsidies. If they actually went to small (often organic) farmers, who often don't qualify for subsidies, I wouldn't have this issue).

This is why I like Barack's energy policy the best--he calls for the use of non-food crops to make biofuels, though he doesn't take it far enough. ALL of the crops that we use for biofuels should be non-food crops, like switch grass. But before that, let's go back to doing research in biofuel production so that making biofuel actually cuts down on our oil use, rather than increasing it.

Questions of Strategy

The New Republic's John B. Judis successfully echoes the same blah-blah "the Democratic candidate must be able to win the big Democratic states in November" bullshit rhetoric that party old-liners are trying to shove down the tensed throats of slightly-less-than-ridiculously-cynical Democratic voters. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama has more of the popular vote, more pledged delegates, and more states than Hillary Clinton. Yes, yes, we know: Senator Obama hasn't really won any of the so-called "big states" upon which Democratic candidates have used as crutches for their reliably gimpy-bordering-on-completely-paraplegic campaigns since, oh, I don't know, the mid-20th century. [The New Republic]

Really? One's electability is determined by how popular one is within one specific demographic? You can't win the presidency if you're not the party's cookie cutter candidate? Yes, Senator Obama failed to win two of Philadelphia's four suburban counties. Yes, he has trouble with blue collar workers. But also important to remember is that the biggest reason why Democratic candidates are traditionally made or broken by the same 20-some states is because they're the only 20-something states in which Democrats campaign. At some point in time, Democrats might have to suck it up, buckle down, and campaign in states where they have to do more than just show up to collect votes.

Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Montana: I'm looking at you.

Snark Nation

Welcome to Snark Nation!

As a proud parent of Snark Nation, allow me to explain the simple yet ridiculously motivating force behind this little piece of cyberspace heaven: most political blogs really, really suck. Seriously. They're terrible. I mean, as much as I love reading what professional bloggers have to say about this morning's Washington Post op-ed, and argue with themselves about whether telecom immunity in FISA is actually a big deal or whether the ACLU is just acting like a neglected middle child, frankly, political blogs have turned into one giant clusterfuck of a therapy session wherein otherwise unemployed Political Science majors and law school rejectees pretend they know things about how politics "works."

I know, life is tough. That career you could have had as a strategist at a top DC firm mocks you every day as you drag your hungover ass from your bed and start perusing the internet for stuff to make fun of. How could this have happened? You have that degree hanging on your wall and everything! I know you're bitter. (You probably also cling to your guns and religion in a vain attempt to fill the soul-sucking void in your life.) But let's not forget that no one fucking cares.

This is a blog, not a therapy session. And with that, snark away.

What Agency?

Everyone knows that most women embark on the long, joyless process of attaining an abortion with little to no gravity or weighing of consequences.

Thankfully, the Missouri legislature has addressed this pressing issue by introducing a bill the likes of which is sweeping the nation. This bill says that women must, a) wait at least 24 hours between scheduling an abortion procedure and receiving treatment and b) provide "pertinent information" to those women so that they have something to think about during those 24 hours. After all, we all know that women won't think about anything unless you give them something simple and well-explained and instruct them to use the mushy organ behind those pretty faces.

All of this is about denying agency to women. It comes from an attitude in which women should not be allowed to make decisions for themselves, most of all not the ones that patriarchy dislikes. And then laws like this one are part of an onslaught to chip away at whatever ability to act and choose we have left. All under the pretense of enhancing our choice, with that co-opted phrase "informed consent."

Of course, women also get in trouble for things that happen to them that they never chose (rape being the example so obvious and profuse in instances that I can't even begin to rant on) like this abuse of justice against a child.

Dear misogynistic legislators everywhere,
I like your laws in my uterus even less than I like your propensity for gay-hating and public bathroom anal sex.

Many thanks to I Blame the Patriarchy for the story