quadrennially yours...

february 29th doesn't come along every day, y'know.

which is good, since this year it coincides with me being sick. yes, i got the flu shot, therefore it isn't the flu. i insist. regardless, for the last 48 hours, maybe 72, my head hasn't been right. (far longer than that, you say? oh, very funny. ha. ha.)

while awake i've been sneezy, achy, dizzy, sleepy, and a couple more of the seven dwarves. while sleeping...i've had some really weird dreams.

he (disentangling from she): i'm going to have to get some sildenafil citrate to keep up with you.

she (still smiling): what's that?

he: generic viagra.

she: generic? why generic?

he: for what we're doing, cheap is more appropriate.

she: that was not nice. not nice at all.

he: you can't have tawdry without audrey.

she: yeah, well you can't have odd without todd.

he: my name's not todd.

she: my name's not audrey.

[pause]

he: i have to go.

she: me, too...

for the record, i was not the "he" in this dream. also, i don't know any "todd and audrey" couples. nor was i aware that i was aware of the generic name for viagra. who notices that kind of thing? and who has dreams like this? bizarre.

~~~~~~~~

since monday, i have experienced several episodes of back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back sneezes. much to my discomfort, and much to the amusement of those around me. to them i say one thing: snot funny. it's fortunate i wasn't operating heavy machinery during any of these sneezures.

~~~~~~~~

in other news...

the president of the california fish and game commission, daniel richards, recently traveled to idaho, where he hunted, killed, and ate a mountain lion. he couldn't do these things in california, because they're illegal there.

apparently dozens of california lawmakers have called for daniel's resignation, saying his actions aren't consistent with his position with the state. he has declined to quit, essentially telling the lawmakers to go fuck themselves. i may be slightly exaggerating that last part.

legally, daniel is correct. he participated in a legal (in idaho) activity, broke no laws in doing so, and seemed to really enjoy it. good for him.

me, i have no quarrel with hunters, mostly because they carry guns, and people with guns are dangerous. what i've never been able to understand, though, is why so many of them get so much joy from killing.

i bet they wouldn't enjoy it so much if the quarry were shooting back. which is kind of what's happening in afghanistan, where u.s. military personnel recently burned several copies of the koran.

this was bad form, and a bad idea, in that it set off riots and killings in that country. recognizing the danger that riots and killings pose to u.s. forces, barack obama apologized to the afghan president, and told him it wouldn't happen again.

unless of course one of the gop candidates wins the presidency in november. then there'll probably be koran burning parties at the white house every week.

rhetorical query: if afghan troops, occupying america for the last ten years, were burning bibles willy nilly, what do you suppose the reaction amongst christians would be? someone should ask the gop candidates that question, i think.

~~~~~~~~

disconcerting moment of the day: a tweet from someone named megan calhoun (@social moms) showed up on my twitter feed today. the tweet said, "I'm happiest when ________ (fill in the blank)."

the disconcerting part: i couldn't fill in the blank.

~~~~~~~~

grotesquely overrated: filling in blanks.

quietly underappreciated: weeding out the daily surfeit of choices.

~~~~~~~~

note to the lovely mrs. spaceneedl: i don't know if you bought it, or i bought it, or if it was a cruel gift with purchase...but we have to promise~~promise!~~each other never to buy this institutional-grade toilet paper again.

~~~~~~~~

seen today on facebook: "Collective sob ladies...Davey Jones has passed away. How come I always got stuck with peter?"

i have no further comment on this post.

~~~~~~~~

santorum time

i got an email from rick (google problem) santorum!

i mean, i think it was meant for me. it began, "dear patriot," which is different and much better than "dear conservative."

something tells me, though, that this particular email is gonna be as disappointing as the recent note i got from newt gingrich. yeah, that didn't end well...

but, let's not prejudge...let's find out!

"We did it again! We shocked the moderate establishment and pulled off what the media elites said was impossible by winning three HUGE contests that we were told we couldn't win.

I'm exhausted, but I'm so elated. Before I try and get some sleep, I had to sit down and write you this letter."

if by huge he means, "nonbinding contests in which no delegates were secured," then yes, these were huge. and does rick really sit down and write his own campaign emails before going to bed? i wonder how his wife feels about that.

"All the momentum is on our side now. A Rasmussen survey over the weekend revealed that there is only one Republican Presidential candidate who would beat Obama if the election were today – and no, it wasn't the mushy moderate that wants you to believe that this race is over. No, instead it's me, Rick Santorum, and our campaign – with its bold, conservative ideas and platform."

actually, polls show obama well ahead against any of the current republican candidates, including santorum. meanwhile, the economy is rebounding and the gop is shooting itself in the foot on issues like contraception, if you can conceive of such a thing. so the prospect of the president being rickrolled is as likely as a good-looking sweater vest.

"I can beat Mitt Romney and then President Obama with the kind of conservative ideas that you support. But to do that I need your immediate support. Will you give $25 or $50 immediately to make this happen?"

santorum can't beat obama, but it's quite possible he might win the gop nomination. he has that special kind of crazy that republican primary and caucus voters love. it's almost tempting to send him a quick $25, just to feel like you've helped pay the crazy forward.

almost.

...are you talkin' to me?

i got an email from newt gingrich!

i mean, i think i got an email from newt gingrich. it came to my email address, after all.

come to think of it, though, it started out "dear conservative..." ...and, uh, the thing is, i'm not exactly a conservative. what i am, in fact, is a liberal.

so, if you think about the political spectrum in terms of "liberal" on the left and "conservative" on the right, picture me standing in left field in a beautiful, all-american baseball stadium, and gingrich standing in the parking lot on the far right side of a dog-fighting ring in georgia.

i hope that helps.

back to the email...what else is newter saying?

"As I write this, Barack Obama and the Democrats are raising thousands of dollars per hour, waiting for a Republican nominee to emerge. He's a radical, secular socialist who wants to reinvent America in the image of the faded, decrepit Republics of Western Europe."

hang on. i may be biased here, but i'm also well to the left of barack obama. which is how i know he's neither a radical (much to my chagrin), nor a socialist. as for the "...faded, decrepit republics of western europe," wouldn't the failed communist regimes of eastern europe be a more apt comparison? i mean, if obama really is as far left as gingrich would like us to believe (which he totally isn't), then surely barack must be a red-loving, failed communist-statist.

why has newt-the-historian-and-reagan-conservative failed to make this connection? could it be because he's actually a revisionist historian and not remotely a reagan conservative? as if being a reagan conservative were actually something to embrace, rather than run from, screaming.

and before we leave the subject...why does newt hate europe so much? aren't some of those countries among america's allies? i'm no cartographer, but i'm pretty sure they are. is it really a good idea to insult them like this?

you know, i'm starting to think newt and his emailing minions made a mistake. several of them, in fact.

"I believe that a second term for Barack Obama will be a disaster for this country and I am committed to beating him."

i have no doubt that newt actually believes this. but most sentient creatures and several varieties of mushrooms believe the exact opposite. especially if newt is as committed to this endeavor as he was his first two wives.*

(* was that a cheap shot? nah. especially since newt is selling himself as a holier-than-thou roman catholic convert, blithering on about the sanctity of hetero marriage. historical note: newt raised a ruckus over bill clinton's blowjobs at a time when newt himself was happily hypocritizing in an affair of his very own. no, when you look at it that way, it's not a cheap shot. at all.)

thinking back to newt's glory days in the house, i recall him leading his party to remarkable lows in civility and willingness to govern via compromise. in fact, i see a direct line from the newt-led 104th congress to today's hilariously hostile, nonfunctional government, as well as the chasm of contempt between the right and left. these are not fond memories.

maybe i'll respond to this email and let newt know i'm disinclined to send him money or volunteer for his campaign. unless he'd be willing to negotiate (gasp!) some sort of compromise.

for example, in exchange for a few minutes of my valuable volunteer time, he could put me in charge of his email blasts. without irony, i would do nothing more (or less) than quote the candidate (in context!), and solicit support on that basis. all the way to the convention.

this would be consistent with newt's stated desire to run a "positive campaign, based on the issues."

it's a high-minded goal, one befitting a serious candidate with serious ideas, like putting poor children to work as janitors, or drug-testing people applying for unemployment, or building a permanent colony on the moon.

this way, voters would know exactly what they were getting with a newton leroy gingrich candidacy.

it's a straightforward, strait-laced, straight-talking strategy, with newt providing the content.

what could possibly go wrong?

armed and genderous

Happiness is a warm gun
Happiness is a warm gun, momma
When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Because happiness is a warm gun, momma
Happiness is a warm gun
Bang bang, shoot shoot...

~~john lennon

i don't mind guns.

it's people i don't trust.

people and guns are a bad combination. anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying. or foolish. foolish liars with guns are an even worse combination.

"chicks with guns" (the concept and the book) is only slightly less disquieting than "children with guns," or "monkeys with guns."

women, see, are the life-affirming, life-giving, life-worth-living side of humanity. our better half in more ways than one should attempt to count.

put 20 million guns in their hands, and what do they become? what do we become? irredeemably dangerous. frightening. and, best avoided by creatures that prefer their bodies unpunctured by fast-moving metal.

"but, guns are for protection! women deserve to feel safe from other people with guns. people with bad intentions. you know, men!"

this argument seems valid, until you look at the fine print. the part about 30,000 u.s. gun deaths each year. the 17,000 suicides, and the 1,000 accidental deaths-by-gun.

when you put it that way, being anywhere near a gun doesn't sound like such a good idea. it sounds about as safe as petting a ravenous mountain lion. or befriending a masked man with a chainsaw. or fracking a volcano.

or indoctrinating the next generation of gun-toting tots...

Some of the more haunting images are those of moms with their kids.

In one image, a woman who lives in Healdsburg is seated on her bed with her daughter. The woman, named Lake, holds a stainless-steel Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. Her young daughter, Ruby, sits behind her and holds a vintage cap gun. Both stare impassively at the camera. Another portrait shows a woman in Houston, cradling her naked young son in one arm and holding an Ithaca 20-gauge side-by-side in the other. The woman told McCrum, "I'm eager to teach my boys everything I know."

if she gets started on that lecture now, those boys should be ready to go out and shoot living things any minute. heads up, y'all.

if we're being honest here (and we are), we should agree that guns are made to kill and maim animate objects. and if we can agree on that, we can also feel the dissonance of turning women into steely-eyed weapon wavers, a hair-trigger away from something horrifying and permanent.

men, historically, are the hunters and killers of all things with a pulse. back in the days of mammoths and saber tooth tigers, you could make a case for weaponizing the males, so the women could focus on perpetuating the species. now? not so much. the threat of extinction is no longer imminent, so men with guns kill things for fun, or because they're drunk, or because they're stupid.

until proven otherwise, we should agree that men can't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a plastic butter knife. and that the women are too smart, too civilized, too invested in the future of humankind to set their sights that low.

or maybe that's just whistling past civilization's graveyard.

Author and satirist Christopher Buckley called the book "a serious work of cultural iconography, and visually stunning, alternately sexy, arresting, haunting and mesmerizing."

visually stunning and haunting, certainly. indicative of our culture's cheerfully homicidal nature? definitely. sexy? um, right. nothing says "sexy" like a woman with a gun in her hand and a look of vacuous indifference or calculated menace in her eyes.

upon further review, it occurs to me that if you mentally photoshop out the guns, most of the women in "chicks with guns" actually are sexy. but then, they'd have to change the title of the book to something like "random chicks in fields," or just "chicks." which would be kind of odd.

the conclusion, then, is that that the chicks with guns should stay far afield~~farther...no, really, farther~~and i'll stay over here with the living things that don't care to be shot or shot at or even have a gun anywhere near them.

we can agree to that, yes?

thanks.

truth is a maverick, and other foibles

“You can’t hide from your record of making this country bankrupt, from destroying our national security and making this nation one that we have to restore with Mitt Romney as president of the United States of America!” ~~john mccain

i don't know why i let this kind of thing bother me. i really don't.

yes, i do.

it's because i was taught early in life to tell the truth. or risk a swift beating. it's not the best rationale for truth-telling, but it stuck with me.

a couple decades ago, john mccain seemed to have a stubborn streak of the truth-telling in him. while his colleagues on the right were busy defining down the concept of "facts" and "reality," mccain would get all contrary and say something like, "no, that's not right, and i'm not going along with it."

that's not a direct quote. but it does capture the essential mccainness that earned him the "maverick" moniker among his admirers.

compare that with today's mccain, who has sold his soul to the loony-fringey sarah palins of the world. to the point he will blame barack obama for bankrupting the country, destroying our national security, and oh-i-don't-know, cooking up endangered species in the white house kitchen.

as if everyone wasn't painfully aware george w. bush did all of it first, and far more efficiently. with a monkey grin on his face.

the fact that mccain has endorsed a candidate who would take us back to the glory that was the bush years perfectly illustrates how the old maverick is now not much more than an old barn horse ambling from fence to fence, hoping someone will feed him a carrot.

mccain used to be someone whom you could admire, sort of, if you overlooked his cognitively dissonant politics and the fact he was a lousy pilot.

one day, though, it seemed like senator maverick woke up believing the hype. overnight, probably during the 2008 presidential election, he jumped his own shark into the land of self-parody. from that moment on he's been kind of a sad charicature, an unfunny punchline who doesn't get the joke.

the lesson here is that it doesn't take much, or long, to fall from prominence and relevance to absurdity and bewilderment. this is especially true if you walk away from the qualities of character that made you interesting in the first place.

mccain's vanished integrity (and empty ranting) really isn't worth a moment's dudgeon. it shouldn't bother me in the slightest.

but for some reason, it does.

the end of the beginning

this is it.

unless something really interesting happens (let's hope not), this is the last blog post of 2011.

the last one by me, anyway.

i know several people who, for an assortment of very good reasons, did not enjoy their 2011. "i can't wait for this year to be over," they say, hopeful that adding a digit to the calendar will bring better results. or at least some breathing room.

i hope it works.

of course, 2011 wasn't bad for everyone. the 1%, for example, got richer. sure, the 99% got poorer, but the tide may be turning. the 1% really hate that prospect, which is in itself a good thing. #occupy 2012.

the spaceneedl family managed, once again, to keep heads above water. that too may change in 2012, when the missus quits a job she can no longer tolerate and goes in search of a new career. while i'm not eager to be poor, i'd rather be poor with a happy wife than comfortable with an unhappy wife (because, really, there's no being comfortable with an unhappy wife).

besides, i am fortunate in many nonmonetary ways. for example, i have the great good fortune to work with some of the most fiercely intelligent women i've ever met. they amaze me every day...plus, they make me laugh, for which i'm very grateful. i live with a couple females who fit that description, as well. the older one continues to be my best friend, as has been the case for many years. the young one continues to keep me wrapped around her little finger (and every other fiber of her being), as has been the case for all of her eleven years.

i do know a few intelligent males, but they're fewer and farther between. maybe it's because men are rumored to think of sex every sex seconds (which would certainly make concentration difficult, if that were true, which i'm sure it's not). i happen to live with an intelligent young male who tries hard, every day, to convince me he's not very bright. so far, i'm not buying it. but for the record, he is very persuasive.

collectively, we are healthy, we have enough to eat, and we have a roof over our heads. this makes us far more fortunate than many. we are grateful for our good fortune, and empathize with those who are not so lucky.

moving on...

at the end of last year i did a review of my itunes downloads for 2010. it was cathartic, and served to remind me that not every idea that pops into my head is a good one. yes, i needed the reminder. this year, instead, i offer the following random observations on the pop culture i stumbled across in 2011. make of them what you will. but try the wine...

movie of the year: (tie) "the help" and "midnight in paris"

album of the year: low country blues, gregg allman

song of the year: "god loves me" melissa mcclelland (2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T2_NAbtTZE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

wine(s) of the year: (red) 2008 tres picos garnacha; (white) 2009 chateau montelena chardonnay

chocolate of the year: coconut milk & caramelized ginger 55% dark chocolate (madre chocolate, honolulu) madrechocolate.com

best fitness-related decision of the year: stop playing basketball, start running. for real. as a demonstration of this zeal, today i was about to blow off running. late, a thought occurred to me: "LAST CHANCE TO RUN IN 2011 !!!" that got me moving. three and a half miles as the sun w
set over the olympic mountains.

best running shoe ever: new balance baddeley 890 (bought on a whim for $45.00 at nordstrom rack)

top projects for 2012: finish "the rally," start "the midlife wife." also, goad brenda into starting "deadwood SD" (or maybe "secrets of deadwood." still thinking about that one)

that's it. bring on 2012.

and don't make me regret it.

why so serious, son?

"You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying."

so, apparently the war in iraq is over.

you might have heard about it last week~~but then again you might not. the 'news' didn't get a lot of play in the press, and celebrations were muted.

VJ-day it was not.

"The last convoy of heavily armored personnel carriers slipped out of Iraq under cover of darkness and strict secrecy to prevent any final attacks. The 500 soldiers didn't even tell their Iraqi comrades on the base they were leaving.

"The fear spoke volumes about the country they left behind - shattered, still dangerous and containing a good number of people who still see Americans not as the ally who helped them end Saddam's dictatorship, but as an enemy."

officially, the last u.s. soldier killed in the conflict was a young man named david hickman, from greensboro, NC. speaking about hickman's death, and the outcome of the war, a friend said, “There aren’t enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I’m just sad, and pray that my best friend didn’t lay down his life for nothing.”

if we don't find horror in that kind of numb ambiguity, it's likely our souls are full of novocaine.

and sadly, plenty of facts are available. to recap, there was no link between iraq and 9/11. there were no WMDs. in fact, there was no justifiable reason at all to wage war there. in the end, there was just a surfeit of carnage. huge deficits. and a middle eastern country left wide open to the kind of threat we were warned to fear beyond all rationality.

did you know: the u.s. spent twice as long fighting in iraq as it did fighting WWII. would anyone like to make the case that saddam hussein was twice the threat of hitler, et al?

in lieu of that, it would seem that a langourous conflict in iraq, along with an endless "war on terror" was actually part of someone's mind-boggling plan.

and we haven't even mentioned afghanistan (aka, the place empires go to die). that plan, ten years later, is still reaping grimly, with no end in sight.

in both cases, despite all evidence to the contrary, there are still plenty of people who insist not enough time, money, and blood have been squandered. as if a pyrrhic nonvictory that laid waste to three countries (yes, the u.s. among them) isn't enough. what would satisfy them, one might wonder?

particularly since the u.s. is leaving behind a significant military presence, in the form of nearly 53,000 military contractors. plenty of money still to be made on that front.

to sum up, the u.s. spent nearly nine years at war with a third-rate dictator; hundreds of thousands of people were killed and trillions of dollars were spent. america became known for torture, prison without trial, and irradiating/strip-searching hapless air travelers.

for that horrific cost we earned the opportunity to sneak out of iraq under cover of darkness.

not to worry, though. it was all according to some sort of plan.

In the end, many of the departing troops wrestled with a singular question: Was it worth it?

Capt. Mark Askew, a 28-year-old from Tampa, Florida, said the answer will depend on what type of country Iraq turns into years from now - whether it is democratic and respects human rights.

"People are asking themselves: `Was this worth it?'" he said, speaking to his troops before they set off to Kuwait. "I can't answer that question right now."

loose canons

jesus is disappointed.

he can't figure out how he came to be associated with "conservative christians."

like the people responsible for the latest gop debate (if by "debate" you mean human-looking creatures throwing feces at one another, each toss applauded by the fox news crowd).

the audience (and by "audience" we mean bloodlusting zombies ravening for human flesh) at one point cheered like coliseum romans over texas governor rick perry's affinity for executions.

perry, a self-acclaimed christian, characterized the 234 executions during his governorship as "justice."

jesus, however, would like gop christians to know that he is not down with the executions.

nowhere in the bible does it say, "...and the lord jesus saw the multitudes on death row and proclaimed, 'father, these sinners have trespassed against us. you have said we are to forgive them, but we've decided instead to flay the flesh from their bones, nail them to a cross, and call it ultimate justice. hope you're okay with that.'"

perry the pious and his merry minions must be reading from a different bible.

"I think Americans are clearly in the vast majority of cases, supportive of capital punishment, "Perry said. "When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens, and it’s a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don’t want you to commit those crimes against our citizens, and if you do, you will face the ultimate justice.”

it's justice, perry insists, even when those who haven't committed heinous crimes are among the dispatched. he tried to hide one such case by disbanding the investigation and burying the findings. just as jesus no doubt would've done.

if we're being honest here, and we are, let's just call capital punishment what it is: revenge killing. a primal reaction hard-wired into human DNA to perpetuate the survival of the individual and the tribe.

and since we are being honest, let's acknowledge that this instinct isn't reconcilable with the finer sensibilities of jesus's philosophies.

the point here, to state the obvious, is that there's no having it both ways. you can howl with delight over 234 executions in texas, but you can't simultaneously call yourself a christian.

you can't love your crucifixions and love you some jesus, too.

that said, let's try to give these folks the benefit of the doubt: maybe they rationalize this revenge business another way, say, as a matter of fiscal policy. that's not really a moral foundation for state-sponsored killing, but perhaps it's enough for some.

and...durn it all. it actually costs more to kill someone than to put them away for life.

moving on, maybe some believe the prospect of ultimate justice prevents the kind of crime perry was referring to. and...wouldn't you know it? turns out capital punishment doesn't deter crime, either.

interesting note: the same people who think government is completely incompetent still trust said government with the power to execute people.

another interesting note: the death penalty is disproportionately applied to non-white people. that's probably just coincidence.

so, upon further review, it appears that today's "conservative christians" cheer for execution by the hundreds simply because...they like executions.

and we've come full circle, to a place where jesus, a well-known social and fiscal liberal, finds his face on banners waved by people who thoroughly despise those ideals.

and lo, as a matter of intellectual and spiritual integrity...jesus is not amused.

crazy is as crazy does...

could it be?

is it possible?

could michelle bachmann (R-unreality) be the next GOP nominee for president of the united states?

yes! she could! she really could!

she loves america so much, she'd like to see the country default on its debts, leading to global economic turmoil. iowa GOP straw poll voters loved her so much, they made her the straw poll queen in their recent straw poll vote.

but wait! could the nominee eventually be...rick perry? perry (R-schizophrenia) loves america so much, he'd like to secede from it! plus, rick is very pious. he uses his position as governor of texas as a prayer pulpit, leading the faithful in prayers for rain, and for the economy. he also prays for an end to healthcare reform and the environmental protection agency.

he could be the GOP nominee! he really could!

based on the recent debate in iowa, any number of really, um, interesting people could be the GOP nominee. it could be rick santorum (R-manondog), the former senator with a google problem and a host of other quirky-adorable views that endear him to the hard right.

it could be newt gingrich (R-annulment) and his marriages and affairs and messy divorce from a cancer-stricken wife. yes, it could!

could it be herman cain (R-incoherence), the fast-food financier? no, it could not. herman cain is an african-american. no matter how much money he's made, or how many fast-food pseudo-meals he's foisted on our unhealthy electorate, GOP primary voters will not make a black man the GOP nominee. no, they will not!

nor will it be tim pawlenty (R-narcolepsy). in a world where crazy is the coin of the realm, tim is entirely too placid. besides which, after a somnolent showing in iowa, the former governor quit the race. rarely do voters embrace a former governor who quits. unless her name is sarah palin. and tim, for all his quitting qualifications, is no sarah palin.

who are we forgetting? oh! mitt romney (R-youkidding)! well, to be fair, everyone forgets mitt romney. even mitt romney forgets mitt romney. there have been so many mitts over the past few years, it's hard to keep track of them all. GOP primary voters recently songified mitt's many morphs to the tune "which mitt are you?"

are you massachusetts mitt, creator of the state's beloved romneycare healthcare program? are you revenue romney, who badgered standard & poors to boost his state’s credit rating after raising taxes during an economic decline?

or are you anti-mitt, who disavows any knowledge of any other mitts, if in fact it can be proved they ever existed? that'd be the mitt who insists corporations are people too.

could this mitt or that mitt (or anyone named "mitt") be the next GOP nominee? or is the very idea too crazy? tsk, this is the GOP! nothing's too crazy!

but wait, isn't mitt a mormon? yes, yes he is.

okay, then no. GOP primary voters will not make a mormon the GOP nominee. but what if they did? rhetorical/tactical question: would mormon mitt consider making african-american herman cain his running mate? it would be an interesting approach to taking on barack obama, wouldn't it?

and it raises a corollary rhetorical/book of mormon question: if an irony tree falls in the woods, do the elders hear it?

we digress.

straw poll queen bachmann says wives should be submissive to their husbands. for example, she submissively became a tax attorney at her husband's insistence, and against her wishes.

questions about biblical patriarchy theology make her squirm, and not in a good way. which in turn raises interesting questions about roles if, say, she were president and rick perry were vice president.

bachmann: mr. vice president, i need you to go to new york for the ceremonial dissolution of the united nations.

perry: madame president, given the severe distress of our economy and the unprecedented heat wave broiling the midwest, i think it's important that i go to the heartland and lead a prayer festival and re-election fundraiser.

bachmann: but...

perry: madame president, remember, "submit yourself to your husband as you would to the lord..."

bachmann: but, you're not my husband.

perry: marcus and i were wrestling, um, with this subject just a few minutes ago, and he told me to tell you that you should go to new york. he and i will go to the heartland for the prayer thing.

bachmann: well...okay. i guess that'll work too.

so many candidates for hyperzealous right-wingers to love. how will they ever choose? what litmus test will suffice? previously it would've been the willingness to borrow trillions for war and torture and tax cuts. in jesus' name, of course.

now? if iowans are a barometer, it's a willingness to suspend disbelief and sidle up to the crazy like it's closing time at the 24-hour church salad bar.

which is to say...lettuce spray.

the nature of change

"the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in dillon
are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA
we will remember that there is something happening in america
that we are not as divided as our politics suggest
that we are one people
we are one nation
and together we will begin the next great chapter in america's story
with three words
that will ring from coast to coast
from sea to shining sea
yes we can
yes we can
yes we can
yes we can..."

the song still inspires.

even now, and even after the candidate who would change everything has mostly changed our expectations by lowering them.

during the soul-on-fire days of 2008, everything was possible--and expected. because the man doing the campaigning (and those who supported him) demanded it.

in 2008, millions of people voted for more than just change--they demanded a reckoning. an exorcism of the bush demon and the damage done to a nation.

two years later millions of those same people voted for a change back to bush-brand lunacy. dozens of newly elected democrats were replaced by even newer right-wing zealots. which caused much cognitive dissonance and many questions about the intelligence of american voters.

and the president who would change everything changed as well...into a moderate
republican. snapping heads back like a right-of-center cross to the jaw.

"yes we can heal this nation. yes we can repair this world." ~~barack obama


we believed it, in 2008. we believed we could wrest the control of our destiny from those who would violate our inviolable principles. those who advocated and implemented fear and torture and unnecessary war. not to mention economic seppuku.

but a mere 24 months later we veered away from rationality and back toward darkness. since then there's been little healing, less repair, and much self-destruction.

as standard and poors put it in downgrading america's credit rating:

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."

shorter standard and poors:

"america can no longer be trusted to do the right thing--or the smart thing."

as it turns out, we are actually more divided than our politics suggest. we are no longer one people, or one nation.

"nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change." ~~barack obama


this is true. and when those voices call for a weakened president undermined by timid democrats, tea party radicals, and economic hostage-takers? we get the government we deserve and the instability we set in motion.

"we have been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope...but in the unlikely story that is america, there has never been anything false about hope."


candidate obama never hit a false note. his campaign messaging was exactly what a dispirited, disillusioned nation needed to begin believing, once again, in its better angels.

president obama, in contrast, has fallen well short of the promise and the promises. instead of a reckoning, there's been incremental wreckage. instead of exorcism there's been exasperation.

it's as if the president, once elected, forgot (or blithely discarded) the electricity that swept him into office. instead of rising to the voters' mandate, he receded to opposition punching bag. not surprisingly, the hope and dreams and yes-we-can followed.

given the derangement on the right (and the bipolar nature of the electorate), it's possible that reason will re-assert itself in 2012. it's possible that a second-term obama will rediscover his savvy and his stride.

but "change we can believe in" is no longer an option, for the nation or this president.

what's required now is action we can count on.

the bell tolls

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --george w. bush, 3/13/02

it says here that osama bin laden is dead.

killed in a raid by u.s. navy seals and cia operatives.

americans loudly celebrated bin laden's demise, in much the same way we celebrate super bowls and other entertainment events. we do love our happy endings, don't we?

you can make the case that a dead bin laden is better than a live bin laden (or a zombie bin laden, as the case may be). the bush administration might disagree, as george and dick found that particular boogie man useful for years--much to bushcorp's benefit, and much to america's detriment.

finding and dispatching bin laden was obviously more important to barack obama. but while bin laden may be dead, you can also make the case that he and his terrorists won the last ten years, handily.

do you believe this? do you feel the truth of it, without reading a list of the reasons why?

what bin laden orchestrated was bad, hideous. but in the aftermath, what we did to ourselves and others was worse. let's count (some of) the ways...

two futile, unnecessary wars featuring tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) dead and countless more permanently altered. if you prefer your costs in dollars, that's $5 trillion and counting.

torture. rendition.

secret prisons. abu ghraib. guantanamo bay.

a ravaged treasury and a broken economy.

freedoms casually set aside in the land of the free.

a climate of fear intentionally cultivated in the home of the brave.

the "patriot" act.

"homeland security." warrantless surveillance. the rise, not of the nanny state on the left, but of the security state on the right. (add another $1 trillion.)

are these examples enough? there are more, you know. we could go on and on. the obvious takeaway is that in the fight against freedom, we did bin laden's work for him.

historically, america has fancied itself the "shining city on the hill," lighting the way for the rest of the world by our noble example. sadly, we self-mockerized this concept innumerable ways during the last ten years (WMDs! bring 'em on! they hate us for our freedoms! mission accomplished!). and we failed to learn from our own bad example.

there's been no national look-in-the-mirror. no reflection on our role in a world where the u.s. may be feared but not admired. we're forward-lookers, by golly, and we're americans. we write the history, we don't need to learn from it, too.

no matter. osama bin laden is dead. the world, we are told, is a safer place.

if that's true, perhaps now we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

‎"the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. in fact, violence merely increases hate. so it goes. returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." -- martin luther king, jr

hey kid, stop that annoying breathing...

"I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
--george w. bush

our gentle descent into the jungle continues.

today we're telling low-income parents that they should reconsider taking their sick child to the emergency department--because it's just too darn expensive.

and really, that kid's wheezing asthmatic fit will probably pass. eventually. maybe.

"Washington state's plan to cut Medicaid would limit emergency room visits for potentially serious conditions such as breathing trouble and more. Two-thirds of the 1.1 million state residents covered by Medicaid are children.

"...critics say conditions such as hypoglycemic coma or asthma attacks weren't considered to be emergencies. They worry that parents and patients might self-diagnose and make risky, life-threatening choices to stay under the limit — particularly since budget cuts are reducing other options."

is it not remarkable the things we'll allow so the gentry can avoid paying a few more tax dollars? washington state residents recently defeated a tax on candy, soda, and bottled water, so poor kids could lay around gasping for air while their parents agonize over a trip to the emergency department.

let's savor that a moment, shall we? we in washington state are so enamored of our heart-clogging candy, high fructose corn soda, and ocean-choking plastic water, that rather than pay a few cents more for them, we'll deprive sick children of emergency healthcare.

when did the plan to eliminate poverty become the eradication of the poor? and damn those people for hogging all the emergency care...

"...emergency rooms have only been required to treat all patients regardless of ability to pay since the 1986 passage of the EMTALA Act. And of course Republicans routinely complain about EMTALA to this day, calling it a 'hidden tax' on the insured and railing against the fact that it doesn't allow hospitals to dump illegal immigrants with heart attacks in the gutter."

so, this is what we've come to? this is how we're defining "civilized" behavior in the greatest country on earth (and make no mistake, most states and the federal government are similarly cutting funds for the most vulnerable in favor of those who need no help at all).

we're devolving into a talking-monkeyocracy. before long we'll all be jumping up and down, shrieking, and waving sticks in the air, while dolphins and border collies look at us and roll their eyes.

even "dumb" animals take care of their offspring. you'd think the least we could do is offer ours emergency care to offset all the candy and soda.

it's the civilized thing to do.

rainy days and thursdays...

when the rain comes
they run and hide their heads
they might as well be dead
when the rain comes
when the rain comes

--john, paul, george and ringo

it's a rainy day in washington state.

not the usual kind, but rather, the kind that soaks working people.

it seems the state's budget crisis is worse than previously advertised, and the usual list of hapless targets is again being set up to pay for the shortfall.

hand it over, state employees. you too, school kids. hey, you poor people--ante up.

new taxes, taxes on the wealthy, closing corporate loopholes? don't be ridiculous. we've got this bunch of saps we can throw overboard first.

state employee unions, see, are monoliths made of money, from which chunks can be chipped away endlessly. and oooh, look at the sculptures created in the process...

it's a teacher scratching her nails on a chalkboard!

no, it's a state trooper with his hands up like he's being robbed!

wait, now it's a librarian hanging a "closed" sign on the dewey decimal system!

isn't fine art great? every time you look at it, you can see something new and teeth-grindingly different!

but, you know, whatever. if we can't afford to pay state employees, we'll just have to find other things for them to do.

like, maybe, making torches and pitchforks.

port, meet storm

the crisis in japan is still dire, but at least it's not deteriorating as quickly as it was a few days ago.

but what would you expect after an unprecedented magnitude 9.0 earthquake, a horrific tsunami, and an ensuing nuclear disaster?

you might reasonably expect the united states to learn from japan's tragic experience.

but, you know, ha.

california, the epicenter of instability (geology-wise and otherwise), is home to two nuclear plants in areas of "severe seismic risk."

there is significant concern about the safety of those facilities in the event of a "larger than expected" earthquake. probably for good reason:

"...the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which sits less than a mile from an offshore fault line, was not required to include earthquakes in its emergency response plan as a condition of being granted its license more than a quarter of a century ago. Though experts warned from the beginning that the plant would be vulnerable to an earthquake, asserting 25 years ago that it required an emergency plan as a condition of its license, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fought against making such a provision mandatory as it allowed the facility to be built."

no earthquake plan. that's nice. isn't that nice? but mitch mcconnell (R-corporate whore) says we shouldn't get all worked up about nukes and earthquakes. "I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy," he said. “My thought is we ought not to make American domestic policy based on an event that happened in Japan.”

excellent points. we should wait a couple weeks, until the story is out of the news and americans have forgotten all about the major environmental catastrophe. that's a much better time. and it happened in japan, after all! that's, like, another planet! it has nothing to do with anything here.

but enough earthquake-precipitated nuclear talk. let's ignore tsunamis for awhile, instead.

the 2011 budget proposed by the house gop cuts funding to NOAA, effectively leaving the u.s. coast vulnerable to approaching tsunamis. "I think we often over-react to emergencies, especially natural disasters, before we assess the limit of the damage, and particularly with the nuclear part of this," said rep. steve king (R-far-from-any-coast).

yes, of course. no need to get all in a tizzy over emergencies and disasters. instead, let's step back, take a deep breath, and undercut our ability to respond to them at all.

it almost makes you long for the days of gop fear-mongering during the bush administration, getting all frothy about threats to "the homeland" and national security. back then billions could disappear into the sand and deficits didn't matter, because the safety of americans was job #1.

now, apparently, the opposite is true. the deficit is the only thing that matters.

and in the face of disasters of every kind--from unemployment to foreclosures and earthquakes to oil spills--americans are on their own.

past tense

she was young and beautiful and buxom.

i had no trouble believing she was once a playboy centerfold.

that was the rumor, see, about my seventh grade teacher. i had no idea if it was true--there was no internet, no viral video, no google image search. there was only adolescent imagination.

and, you know, woof.

in today's digital, new media, 24/7 world, however, proof of the past is never more than a few clicks away. every indiscretion is catalogued for future reference. on the Web or in it? there's no escaping, denying, or justifying.

this is true whether you're a pitching prospect with a rape problem, an amusive gop president-wannabe, or a teacher who once starred in porn films.

of the three, whom do you suppose was flash-fried by the spotlight?

background:

josh lueke, a minor league pitcher with major league potential, was charged with a couple disturbing crimes in 2008. a plea bargain and felony probation later, he was acquired via trade by the seattle mariners. despite the fact that the case was all over the internet, the mariners insisted they knew nothing of it.

newt gingrich famously cheated on two wives on his way to a third. he pressured one to sign divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. these facts are important only because gingrich reportedly is on the cusp of a run for president.

then there's tera myers. sixteen years ago, a homeless mother of two, myers featured prominently in film productions of ill repute. she starred in some porn flicks. dissatisfied with the direction of her career, she joined the army, and eventually was honorably discharged. she went to school on the GI bill, and became a teacher. for awhile.

current events:

lueke is on his way to the seattle mariners. his invaluable ability to throw a ball fast apparently has spared him significant consequences, putting him in position for a big league payoff.

in a recent interview with the christian broadcast network, gingrich blamed in part "his passion for america" for "things that happened" in his life that "were not appropriate." despite being a toxic drip in america's bloodstream for many years, newt has become fabulously wealthy feeding on media exposure like a black hole sucks up light.

tera myers currently is out of a job. yes, what she did was totally legal, and sure she was homeless and trying to support herself and two children, but still...it was porn! she should never be able to join the military, go to school, get a degree, and get a job doing something other than porn, ever. i mean, obviously.

the takeaway:

always in america, follow the money.

sometimes an athlete with the potential to sell tickets and help win games for a major sports franchise can commit ugly crimes and not do the time.

sometimes low-quality people become wealthy celebrity politicians, thriving on the low-quality goals of their benefactors.

and always, always...low-paid porn stars and low-paid teachers are equally likely to get screwed.

give 'til it hurts

cut them to the bone. then keep on cutting.

it's nice, isn't it, that so many americans are sacrificing in these difficult times? what's not so nice is that the people doing the sacrificing are the ones who can afford it least.

here's a fun story that poses the not-rhetorical question, "have washington public employees given enough?"

the premise being, if you work for the state of washington you owe it to everyone to work for free. if you object, you're an overpaid union thug who's unfit to work for the state.

Since the recession hit, the Legislature has suspended cost-of-living increases for state workers. In addition, more than a third of state workers in the past year took unpaid days off. The number of furlough days varied by agency and job, but some workers have taken at least seven unpaid days since last year, with more coming.

(Gov.) Gregoire has proposed an additional 3 percent cut in pay through unpaid time off during the next two years...

teachers? you expect to be paid? isn't the privilege of teaching our children reward enough?

please note that the vast majority of state workers make between $30,000 and $60,000 a year. so by definition, they are not driving expensive cars, taking fabulous vacations, or living in posh neighborhoods.

rather, they are barely getting by. they live paycheck to paycheck. and they are one financial setback away from ruin.

but that instability is not enough for some.

State Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, Clark County, argues even more needs to be done to reduce state worker costs, either by lowering wages and benefits, or cutting the size of the general government work force.

State Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Bellevue, agrees. "We can't have a world where public employees are the haves and the taxpayers are the have-nots," Tom said.

interestingly, tom's "haves and have-nots" phrase is identical to the language used by wisconsin governor scott walker during a dec. 7 press conference. walker is currently engaged in ambitious plan to break wisconsin's public employee unions, eviscerate its public schools, return women's health standards to the middle ages, and beat on baby animals with rusty-nail two-by-fours.

he's not a quality individual.

zarelli, it should be noted, introduced a strangely wisconsin-esque bill to gut collective bargaining for washington public employees. his bill was killed, eliciting howls of rage from hell.

like wooden dummies, walker, zarelli and toms are reciting the exact same lines--and it begs the question: who's yanking their strings/giving them their talking-orders? and how much have they been paid to be so pliable?

additional point of order: in what world does $30-60K make you one of the "haves"? and just for the the sake of discussion, aren't public employees taxpayers as well? if so, this would make them haves and have-nots simultaneously, creating a vacuum that nature abhors--almost as much as it hates legislators who hate government.

and really, isn't this where the corporatist, antigovernment rat-hole leads? "public employees cost too much. we should eliminate their pensions! we should bust their unions! we should privatize public services and give sweetheart contracts to our donor-cronies!"

thanks, corporatist antigovernment rats.

have you noticed? right-wingers no longer wrap themselves in christianity and family values. which is a good thing, strategically, because good luck selling any of that jesus stuff now.

in the revised gospel of right wing america, we disdain the poor and the sick and the children. sacrifices must be made. and the cutting will begin on the least among us.

* * * * *

update: the divide as observed by jon stewart...

The Daily Show - Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

the glamorous glamour of business travel

the missus is going traveling again.

and again. and again.

it's the latest development in drug development, and isn't it fabulous?

hint: no, it is not.

this time it's a week in the UK, a splendid place in winter, if you don't mind hideous weather and the travel alert to u.s. citizens reminding them of the high level of terrorist threat, including the potential for attacks on public transportation systems, aviation, and other travel infrastructure.

in a strange confluence of coincidence and irony, transportation systems and travel infrastructure are the very instruments required for business travel. so as if the jet lag and wrong-sided driving and meetings and tea carts weren't annoying enough, the missus is advised to maintain a high state of vigilance and security awareness regardless of her jet-laggedness.

also, she's flying coach. because that's company policy and, really, who needs to be rested and coherent on a trip that's so important it requires one's presence on the other side of the globe? no, better that the indispensable executive be exhausted, dehydrated, sneezed-on and borderline deep-vein thrombosed.

there's an eight-hour difference between seattle and london. if conventional wisdom is correct, getting a body recalibrated to local time takes a day per hour. which means her body clock will be upside-down the entire time she's there. and on her return she will feel normal again just in time to get on another plane.

business travel to fabulous ports of call.

is it not fabulous?

hint: see above.

be the ball, danny

shut up! no, you shut up!

it says here that you're a rude mother%@#&)*.

but it's not your fault. you have brain damage.

according to doug fields, phd., "A disrespectful, stressful social environment is a neurotoxin for the brain and psyche, and the scars are permanent. [The impairment] is associated with increased risk of craving, drug abuse and dependence, and a weakened ability to make moral judgments."

this explains so much.

it explains, for example, republicans. if we're being honest here (and we are), we have to agree that the gop is the party of rude mother%@#&)*s everywhere.

they're egregeously uncouth on so many fronts it's hard to sort them all, but for starters, republicans are painfully ill-mannered toward the u.s. constitution, the poor, the sick, the homeless, the environment, endangered wildlife, the economy, brown people, and countries with imaginary WMDs.

on the other hand, republicans are exceedingly polite to the wealthiest 1% of americans, wealthy wingnut media celebrities, and wealthy transnational corporations. so, go figure.

but look, it's obviously not their fault. at some point their brains must've been filled with noxious socio-environmental neurotoxins, which they can't help but pass along, generation to generation. these are sad, destructive, cringe-worthy family values, but they're family values nonetheless, n'est-ce pas?

to be fair, one needn't be a republican to be a rude mother$%#&!*. consider the many homes around the country, wrongly foreclosed on and siezed by predatory banks, forcing families into the street. and how about the man in pittsburgh whose home was mistakenly demolished by the the city while he was at work? that's some rude sh*t, isn't it?

more? mel gibson. jesse james. charlie sheen. john edwards/reille hunter. lyndsay lohan. ann coulter. sarah palin. tiger woods. all are hilarious, outrageous boors (though you could make the case that they're just barbarians).

again, not their fault. we have to assume they were raised by vampires or reality tv producers or potted poison ivy.

dr. doug, redux: "Studies have shown that children exposed to serious psychological trauma during childhood are at risk of suffering increased psychiatric disorders, including depression, anger, hostility, drug abuse, suicidal ideation, loneliness and even psychosis as adults."

that's us! is not america chock-full of people just like that? oh my, yes. which means we're constantly cultivating even more deeply disturbed people, then sending them out into the world to create more stress, more neurotoxins, and more rude mother%@#&)*s.

eventually we will be overrun with rude zombies who exist in a spiritual semidarkness that never lifts, snarling their way through each day, then scuffling home at night to sit in their home theaters of rudeness, refueling in preparation for more of the same the next day.

it is a disturbing prospect, certainly, one that must be countered with large quantities of great art, great sex and great wine. there are other antidotes, of course, including excellent food, copious sunshine, happy puppies, healthy children, and books instead of television.

interestingly, not everyone exposed to the rude is doomed to contract the disease. some people are simply immune. gravitate to them like garden plants to the sun, in the hope that some of what they have might rub off on you. literally or figuratively, whichever you can manage in good conscience.

and if it helps your state of zen, remember the rude can't help the way they are. it's not their fault.

it's the brain damage talking.

post-game 2010

"violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

~isaac asimov
***

it's funny, really, how different liberals are from conservatives.

conservatives in the u.s. have their fingers on the trigger. literally. if they don't get their way via the ballot, they're prepared to use other means to achieve their ends. do you need examples, or have you been keeping up with current events?

despite the right wing's professed love of the constitution, it's a love of convenience. "free speech" only applies when it applies to them. in all other cases, the practitioner may be silenced by physical assault, police intervention, or hostage-taking. or all of the above.

constitutional protections regarding church and state? only christian churches need apply. all others are subject to bombing, verbal and otherwise, at any time. jesus must be so proud.

at social gatherings, conservatives demonstrate the failures of public education in myriad ways. spelling, grammar, historical comparisons...all wrong. if you're going to refer to the president as hitler, he cannot, at the same time, be kenyan. nazis, it turns out, were not fond of black people. (note: "kenyan" is not the same as "keynesian.")

also, if obama is muslim, it's not possible that he is also married to michelle. i mean, have you seen how she dresses? that said, she could even make a burka look good.

liberals, meanwhile, have a slightly different vibe. at their gatherings, no one gets beaten, kidnapped, or otherwise violated. worst case, a conservative interloper might be subjected to some tough rhetorical questions.

these comparisons may be important as conservatives even more conservative than the last batch take control of the u.s. house, as well as several state governments. the last bunch, you may recall, helped wreck the world economy, drive the u.s. into two intractable wars, and endorse torture as official u.s. policy.

and yet somehow millions of americans today saw fit to return them to positions of power.

go figure.

perhaps the takeaway is that you get the government you deserve...but not necessarily the government you need.

and that today would be a really good day to restock the wine racks.