By min | February 21, 2008, 2:06 PM | Ummm... Other?| Link

It begins...

Note: I haven't had a chance to re-read my screed below, and i also see that i'm going to have to do some quote fart surgery on the blockquotes, but actual work has rudely intruded on my morning so i'm putting this up as-is for now. K, it's as good as it's gonna get. Have at it.

You know, just when you think someone's your friend, they turn around and send you the latest mouthful of stupid from David "McBobo" Brooks. I was going to work on my comic chronology project this morning, but nooooo, now i have to go through this brain numbing editorial.

Let's start with who this bozo is: David Brooks is one of several right wing editorialists that the New York Times has felt the need to hire in order to deflect the right's constant criticism that it is a left wing paper. When your editorialists currently include Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd, and they are adding people more right-wing than them to "balance" their editorial staff, you know you're in trouble. To see some of Brook's previous disasters, see here, here, here, and here. The cartoon along the right, by Tom Tomorrow, is a reaction to Brooks' book, which supposedly detailed the author's travels through the heartland of America, so that he could compare 'real americans' to the latte-sipping liberals on the coasts, but it fact it contained no actual research and a lot of pithy stereotypes.

Now let's look at the most recent stupid. (Disclaimer: I am a half-hearted Obama supporter)

At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill.

Mary Chapin Carpenter? Berkeley? Already we see that Brooks is still fighting the culture wars of the 60s. Brooks, it is 2008. Folk music has come and gone. The rock and roll hasn't corrupted our children's souls and we've decided that it's OK for black people to vote. Get over it.

But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what's bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania - fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama's face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation's Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

In the real world, just this Tuesday Obama had a blow-out primary win in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a swing state, which Gore and Kerry barely won in the last two presidential elections. Obama received more votes in the Wisconsin primary than McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul combined. He made further increases in all demographics, including those that have traditionally gone for Clinton. Obama beat Clinton by 17%, in a state that a few weeks ago he was expected to lose handily. Polling shows him now neck and neck with Clinton in Texas and Ohio, states that Clinton expected to be no contest (and again, states that don't have large amounts of what was originally considered Obama's core base of support). He's even getting significant support from independents and moderate Republicans. Polls focused on the general election show Obama beating McCain both nationally and in nearly every important swing state.

In other words, Obama's support is currently huge and increasing.

But Brooks is writing about a 'syndrome' that suggests Obama's popularity is waning. Ignoring the fact that he produces no evidence (anxious posts on Facebook?), why would he do this? Well, as of Tuesday's primaries, the right wing is shifting its focus of attack from Clinton to Obama. While conventional wisdom had it that Clinton's nomination was inevitable, it is now becoming increasingly clear that Obama is going to win, so it is time to shift targets. Brooks is happy to oblige. So what Brooks is describing is not what is actually happening, but what he and his cohorts would like to happen, what they will attempt to make happen.

Now let's look how they plan to attack him:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he's waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama said he would enter a discussion with the Republican nominee about agreeing to take public funding. The discussion would likely have entailed also promising to disavow fake third party 527 groups that act as loopholes to public financing laws. Once the primaries are over, he will still have that discussion, but it is unlikely that McCain will agree to curtailing 527s since that is a primary way for Repubicans to use their corporate money advantage. Furthermore, McCain's abuse of the public financing system this season is already legendary, so it is very unlikely that Obama could enter an agreement with McCain that he could have faith in.

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd's campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

Aside from being a non-issue (what does this have to do with "a new kind of politics"?), this is a very disingenuous argument. Nearly every elected official is a superdelegate. During a presidential election, a lot of down-ticket elections ride on its coat tails. It is smart tactics to support those elections in order to build your party and ensure that you have support in Congress to enact your policies. Specifically, Robert Byrd would be a very dependable ally. His fiery outspoken speeches in opposition to the Iraq invasion at a time when literally no one else in the Senate was opposing it has already distinguished him from the average politician (there's your new kind of politics).

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

In 2004 we were told that John Kerry was the most liberal senator. It was then pointed out that the methodology used to determine that was... flawed. Robert Byrd, Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, and Ted Kennedy (among others) were all more liberal than Kerry. All of these people are still senators, so how can Obama suddenly now be the most liberal? Obama co-sponsored a bill with Republican Richard Lugar (the goal of which was to track down and ensure that the former Soviet Union's nuclear arms were not falling into the hands of terrorists, something the Bush Administration dropped the ball on). Would the Senate's 'most liberal' senator be expected to co-sponser a bill with a Republican like Lugar? Furthermore, after 8 years of Clinton's centrism and another 8 years of Bush's hard shift to the right, isn't it proof of independent thought to continue to pursue liberal policies when your colleagues are becoming more conservative?

And should we be worried about Obama's mountainous self-confidence?

Brooks has never once complained about Bush's mountainous self-confidence, which has lead him to pursue disastrous policies long after it is clear they are not working.

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation's 261,000 lobbyists don't see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party - the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP?

This is an interesting shift. If Obama can't bring lobbyists to "see the light", does he have the guts to take on trial lawyers, teachers unions, and the AARP? Does anyone thing the problems of the past 8 years have been the fault of lawyers, teachers, and old people?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out.

"Bipartisan unity" meant ensuring that Bush's far right judicial nominations would be seated.

Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions.

The immigration bill was a disaster whether you were pro- or anti-immigration. And god forbid Obama try to represent the interests of the working class.

Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no.

Good. That's the deal that gave telecoms immunity from prosecution for helping the government spy on people.

It's important to realize that whenever a Republican holds office, the message is "Democrats lost the election, the Republicans have a mandate, and they should be able to pursue their agenda unopposed", but when Democrats hold office, the message is "bipartisanship is extremely important." Centrism is not by default a positive thing. If the Republicans pull to the right and the Democrats agree to meet in the middle, and then the Republicans pull to the right again and the Democrats agree to meet in the middle again, what we have is a rightward shift.

And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

I'm not even sure what he's talking about but it's possible he means when the Democrats voted to hold Bolton and Miers in contempt for refusing to respond to subpoenas, and the Republicans stomped out of the building in protest. THEY'VE BEEN IGNORNING SUBPOENAS, and we're supposed to "heal the breach"? Awww, poor babies, you don't like the rule of law? It's ok, we'll meet in the middle.

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here's the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it's vaporous.

The idea that Obama is all talk and no substance was a common complaint of the Clinton campaign. It didn't work very well for her because in truth Obama does have a lot of experience and examples of leadership, and furthermore people have watched politicians with "experience" betray them for these past 8 years.

But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama's hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.

These last paragraphs are Brooks' backdoor so that when people call him on his bullshit he can claim that it wasn't a pure attack piece. Expect stuff like this to disappear as the general election heats up.

The fact that the New York Times sees fit to print stuff like this should tell you something about the state of our media.

By fnord12 | February 21, 2008, 10:38 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2) | Link

---

Random Lyrics Thursday

Everything Counts by Depeche Mode

The handshake
Seals the contract
From the contract
Theres no turning back
The turning point
Of a career
In Korea, being insincere
The holiday
Was fun packed
The contract
Still intact

The grabbing hands
Grab all they can
All for themselves
After all

Its a competitive world
Everything counts in large amounts

The graph
On the wall
Tells the story
Of it all
Picture it now
See just how
The lies and deceit
Gained a little more power
Confidence
Taken in
By a sun tan
And a grin

By fnord12 | February 21, 2008, 8:53 AM | Music| Link

---

February 20, 2008

Irish Pride

I'm more in line with a Kucinich or a Gravel when it comes to politics. I liked Dodd for his willingness to fight on telecom immunity. I liked Edward's focus on class inequality. But they're all out of the race now (except Gravel... i guess?). Of the two remaining, i'm certainly no fan of Clinton. She totally failed to distinguish herself by standing up to Bush in the Senate, she voted for the war and his tax cuts, and i think her experience/'ready on day one' line is bogus. So i've been glad to see Obama take the wind out of Clinton's sails. He's too centrist for my taste, but he's not bad (and the idea that he's all talk and that he's taken no positions is nonsense). Plus i have to admit his race is a factor for me.

Anyway, if you want to effect real change, the way to do it is through primary challenges to complacent, centrist Democrats. Right now a number of groups are supporting Ed Fallon in his bid to knock out the Bush-supporting Democrat Leondard Boswell, and you can help by contributing to his campaign.

By fnord12 | February 20, 2008, 10:22 AM | Liberal Outrage| Link

---

Trying to think if there's anywhere he could apply that lesson...

I've stopped paying attention to Bush because it's obvious the Democrats in congress don't plan to do anything about him; they're just sort of waiting for him to go home. But this was too hard to ignore:

GOLER: The president says it's better that African nations deal with African problems. White soldiers in Darfur, he believes, would be targets for all sides.

BUSH: A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces tend to divide people up inside their country and are unbelievably counterproductive.

Gee.

A) I wish Bush's parents had taken him to more museums when he was a kid.
B) I guess 'productivity' has a different weighting when it comes to helping Africans deal with imminent genocide versus hunting down imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

By fnord12 | February 20, 2008, 9:47 AM | Liberal Outrage| Link

---

February 18, 2008

First Show!

Lead Singer Syndrome had its first show this weekend and it was a lot of fun. We had a really great turnout, too, so thanks to everyone who came. The Proghouse people are very cool and made it really easy for us, and it was an awesome place to play. Fun Machine is a very interesting band, so if you haven't already, you should check them out (although their recordings don't do their live show justice).

We should have more pictures in a few days, but right now there are a couple in the comments on our myspace site, and someone apparently put some pictures of us on Fickr. Also on our myspace site is one of the videos we played at the show.

Umm, rock on or something!

By fnord12 | February 18, 2008, 11:17 AM | Music| Link

---

February 14, 2008

So It's Thursday

Or at least, i think it's thursday. I've been thinking it was thursday for the last 2 days, so you can understand if i'm a little confused about the veracity of my statement today.

Anyway, there haven't been any posts this week cause i'm sick, fnord's sick, and you can all go to hell.

I now also know where the "you don't win friends with salad" bit comes from.

Thank you.

By min | February 14, 2008, 8:25 AM | My stupid life| Link

---

February 8, 2008

Which conspiracy theory do *you* like?

Someone left me a ranting paranoid message on my answering machine suggesting that the right wing pundit tantrum against McCain (I got to experience some of it first hand since my rental car was tuned to Rush's show. He is ranting and raving about McCain and talking about how conservatives want to destroy liberals because they are the enemy, not reach across the aisle to them) is actually a ruse wherein they are trying to trick the average voter into thinking "If the far right is against McCain, he must be a moderate".

It's a theory that i've thought about too. There's also the alternate theory (quoting Digby):

They know they are going to lose. They will blame the loss on the fact that McCain wasn't a real conservative (just like Bush.) They know when to fall back and regroup. They're already playing for the next election.

Everybody sing: Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

While either option is possible, i think we may be giving them too much credit. Yes, the Right has a lot of money and has been very good about broadcasting their message, but they have never been subtle. Their propaganda machine is more of a hammer than a surgical knife, belting out obnoxious and clearly untrue things as loudly as possible, and they've had amazing success with it. It's not usually about saying one thing so that people believe another. The exception is when they give "advice" to Democrats, saying things like "My goodness, we'd sure love to run against Howard Dean in the general election. Yep, it's John Kerry that we really fear. Please don't throw me into the briar patch." But I've never seen this type of outrage against their own candidates before, and if you listen to Rush's regular listeners, they surely don't know it's a ruse. They are as outraged as Rush (feigns to be?) and a lot of conservatives will not be voting for McCain in this general. I think it's really possible that we're really looking at a meltdown in the Republican party.

Of course, four years of Clinton or Obama, during a recession (or worse), increased oil prices (or worse), the continued debacle of Iraq (one way or another), and possibly another terrorist attack, will work wonders to reunite the party, just in time for General Petraeus to sweep in and be the flagbearer in the 2012 election.

By fnord12 | February 8, 2008, 9:39 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (3) | Link

---

Ah Want Hair

If the thought of hair not attached to a body doesn't make you gag,

Matter of Trust has collaborated with thousands of salons throughout the US and abroad to donate their hair clippings which are made into mats that soak up oil spills. ... Pet hair is ok too - but not as efficient.

By min | February 8, 2008, 9:11 AM | Ummm... Other? | Comments (1) | Link

---

February 7, 2008

5 More Candidates for Cannon Fodder

So, now that Romney's dropped out of the race, his five sons are free to enlist in the military so they can go over to Iraq and fight the terrorists there so that we don't have to fight them here. Right?

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

By min | February 7, 2008, 2:40 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1) | Link

---

Hi! I'm Joe Lieberman! I'm a Very Important Person!

Link

Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.

Hello? I'm Joe Lieberman......I'm very important.....Please, won't somebody ask me to be their running mate?

By min | February 7, 2008, 2:20 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1) | Link

---

Random Lyrics Thursday

Bird Flu by M.I.A.

Big on the underground
What's the point of knocking me down?
Everybody knows
I'm already good on the ground

Most of us stay strong
Shit don't really bound us
Then I go on my own
Making bombs with rubber bands

I have my hard down
So I need a man for romance
Streets are making em hard
So they selfish little roamers
Jumpin' girl to girl
Make us meat like burgers
When I get fat
I'll pop me out some leaders

A protocol to be a Rocawear model?
It didn't really drop that way
My legs hit the hurdle

A protocol to be a rocker on a label?
It didn't really drop that way
Our beats were too evil

But I put away paper for later so I'm stable
A better something better come
So I could get cable
Ghetto pops, food drops
I store them in my stable
I cook em up , pop em down
Eat me it off ya a table

The village got on the phone
Said the street is comin' to town
They wanna check my papers
See what I carry around
Credentials are boring
I burnt them at the burial ground
Don't order me about
I'm an outlaw from the badland

Put away shots for later
So I'm stable
Live in trees chew on feet
Watch lost on cable
Bird flu gonna get you
Made it in my stable
From the crap you drop
On my crop when they pay you.

By fnord12 | February 7, 2008, 9:23 AM | Music| Link

---

February 5, 2008

Super Tuesday

It's Super Tuesday and dammit, i'm actually going to have to declare a party affiliation so i can vote in the primary. I don't even really love that guy. I would just rather it be Obama than Hillary and the polls show the race getting tighter, so my vote might actually make a difference. So here i go. Ugh.

1. She voted for invading Iraq


2. She voted to let Bush into Iran


3. Her reasoning for voting this way was completely lame - she said by voting to allow him to invade Iran, she was in fact preventing him from going into Iran. Silly me. I would have thought a vote against him going in would, you know, not let him go in.


4. I think it would be very bad to perpetuate the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. They are grooming Jeb Bush for 2012 as we speak

And those are just the things off the top of my head. I know. Hillary says she's for universal healthcare and Obama's only committing to getting kids insured. Well, first off, no way she's going to get universal healthcare (not that she shouldn't try for it) because that would be too "socialist" for the average person to handle - unless they are personally facing a challenge with health care costs. Rules always change when it's you who's affected. Second, mebbe i'm being too cynical, but i really don't believe that Hillary Clinton is going to be out there fighting the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies for us. They represent too much money.

So is it fair to judge her based on my gut feeling with no concrete argument to back it up? Nope. I have no way of knowing that Obama's going to be any better. But that doesn't change those 4 things i've listed at the top, the Iraq thing being a huge issue for me.

And let's face it. The sad truth is we are at the point where we vote for the person we hate the least. We don't expect to get a chance to vote for the candidate we actually like and support. It's down to the lesser of the two evils.

Who loves politics now?

Btw, I'm totally avoiding Kos because he's ALWAYS wrong and i really can't handle the emotional rollercoaster. If you have a stronger constitution, go for it. Give me a summary of the bullet points.

By min | February 5, 2008, 11:47 AM | Liberal Outrage| Link

---

February 1, 2008

Marvel Sales

December

By fnord12 | February 1, 2008, 3:42 PM | Comics| Link

---

I Think More Than a Few of You Can Get on Board With This

Everything Should Taste Like Bacon

**thanks to jazmine for the link

By min | February 1, 2008, 3:33 PM | Ummm... Other?| Link

---

« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »