First shameful admission: I watch television. This despite a lack of faith in it's ability to provide uplifting, satisfying, edifying entertainment. The odd exceptions do not add up to a rule.

Second shameful admission: I watch Survivor. I have plenty of rationalizations to throw your way if you're interested, but I personally don't believe there's much good about it. I am entertained passively for an hour, which, coming as it does after the end of a long working day, dinner, clean up, kids' homework, kids' whining, kids' fights and so on, and before the next couple of hours of work before bed, that is all I want. See? I told you I had rationalizations! But did you see Hillary on it last night...? (MORE)

"This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance"

- John Lennon

I was reminded of this line by a fellow Kossack who wondered "what's wrong the term 'Zionist'?" It took place in an extremely unwise diary which has since been deleted. Our conversation ranged from the seemingly reasonable, to the deeply frustrating. In the end, there wasn't much to say.

So what's wrong with ___ism? Well, everything, so long as it's just a label.

No. Hillary is not actively losing the battle for the nomination. Rather, Obama is actively winning it. And believe it or not, I think there is an important difference which supporters of either candidate should note. [This diary is the reformulation of a comment in RenaRF's earlier diary, per a suggestion by TrueBlueMajority. I apologize for being too lazy to add much more to it.]

Why does it matter? Well, in part because I agree with the notion that under another set of circumstances, Hillary Clinton would be quite a good candidate. I also feel that there is a reason that Obama is deserving of both the nomination and the Presidency, and that the Hillary camp's decision to portray him as unelectable, or worse (and most ridiculously, given the current occupant of the White House) incapable of being President is both unfair, stupid and missing the point--Obama is winning because he is absolutely capable and the one candidate who represents the change most Americans crave.

I am happy to support individual Democrats, but the party is for all intents and purposes, as dead to me as the GOP. Those of you anti-Naderites who still nurse a grudge based on the childish notion that Nader's ego torpedoed Gore's presidency, well, feel free to say that I am claiming the GOP and Dems are equivalent. I'm not, but feel free to say it.

President Bush today lashed out at the grilling Mukasey is receiving. According to Reutershe said this:

"I believe the questions he's been asked are unfair," Bush said in an Oval Office session with reporters. "He's been asked to give opinions on a program -- or techniques of a program -- on which he has not been briefed."

[Emphasis mine]

Now, here's the thing. This is an out and out lie. (Of course)

The Royal Society (UK) has made available a short little booklet utterly debunking most of the pseudo-scientific claims skeptics use to torpedo climate change arguments.

Here's one example (over the fold):

This is a short diary that I felt motivated to write because another diary on here may mislead many about what Ignatieff wrote for tomorrow's NYT Magazine.

The diarist here seems to feel that this apology is too mealy-mouthed, too self-serving, too dismissive of those Ignatieff disagreed with, and not nearly contrite enough. Well, there is some of that, to be sure. Mr. Ignatieff still has a healthy ego, and I think his potshots at those who opposed Iraq for "ideological reasons" are reflections of that ego.

But there is so much more in the article worth reading. In fact, I think it's the best mea culpa yet, in that it really fingers the problems with the Bush approach, and with Bush himself. (More...)

I hadn't seen any posts here linking to this (doesn't mean there weren't any!), so I thought I'd post a link to something I think everyone needs to see.

Max Blumenthal, a regular contributor to HuffPo, has put together a terrific video he took at the Christians United for Israel "get-together" last week. It's chilling stuff, given that it really shows that (unless you suffer from the same madness) a large number of folks are ready to pursue an absolutely insane course of action--all in order to get to the Rapture.

Get ready for Hell on Earth, Kossacks! (More...)

I haven't seen this diaried elsewhere so...

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — Charges against Omar Khadr were dismissed Monday by a military judge who ruled that his tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the alleged terrorist because the government had failed to designate him an "unlawful enemy combatant.''

"Charges are dismissed without prejudice," Colonel Peter Brownback ruled.

From the Globe and Mail website (updated from 12:27 story which read "with prejudice"): U.S. case against Khadr collapses

The article (which is short) goes on to indicate that Mr. Khadr, who is now just 20 years old and has been a long-term "guest" in the no-mans-land known as Guantanamo since he was barely 16, had been declared an enemy combatant by a military panel in 2004. How this will affect Mr. Khadr's immediate future or other "guests" is unknown at this point.

More on the Khadrs over the fold...

There are all kinds of compelling reasons to get the Bushes out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. sooner rather than later. Saving lives otherwise wasted, violated, destroyed or merely treated with contempt has got to be priority one. Saving the Constitution and the great country it created probably is number two, followed closely by beginning to heal our planet and protect its future.

But somewhere on that list is the chance to restore sanity, reason, respect and solutions to our public discourse. In so doing, we also remove a huge burden from all of us: having our intelligence routinely insulted by this administration, and most importantly the complicit, craven and stupid media who do their bidding. If I have one bone to pick with Bill Moyers, it's that he wouldn't just come right out and say "You know, Tim, in reviewing what was said at the time and what has actually happened, would you be prepared to admit, at least, that, in retrospect, the statements of you and your colleagues were, even if honestly unaware how they played into the White House's plan, shockingly inaccurate, unrealistic and occasionally just plain stupid?"

(...but not necessarily THESE [A - B - C] intellectuals)

I read Hunter's well-aimed smackdown and have to say I think he's right on. The folks now wanting to lay a claim to correctly guessing the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin in Saddam's trousers are as useless as all of the wankers who previously counted angels or split hairs.

The thing is, anti-intellectualism sucks just as badly. And my concern ain't so much with Hunter's salvo, as with the implicit notion that intellectual pursuits or "intellectualism" are bad in themselves. They are as much evil incarnate as anything else you could make a gross generalization about--in other words, it's not the intellectualism, it's the individuals in question, e.g. Kevin Drum.

(Props to Hunterfor the argument and the links)

So, Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down--apparently a mere hour or so after confirming to Fox news that he would do no such thing. This story was linked to the following headline on Google News: "Rumsfeld Has No Plans to Step Down, Despite Democrat Gains". But notice how quick The Great Decider is to spin this as having nothing to do with his own weakness:

Bush told Iraqis not to be fearful by the changes in the United States or its own halting steps to democracy. He also warned terrorists not to start celebrating as a result of Rumsfeld's departure.

"Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of our strength," Bush said.

Yeah? I forget, who said "Bring it on!"? (more)

One step forward, one step back...

That seems to be the case for "journalism" in this country, if one can continue to call it that. Today alone, and I haven't been looking for specific proof, I've come across (at least) three instances of grossly incompetent or patently misleading journalism.

First, there is CNN's Two Left Feet which has had plenty of exposure in this diary. It's not wrong, per se, so much as clearly put in a disingenuously objective light which attempts to portray Democrats as 1) as much a part of the problem as the GOP, 2) devoid of attractive ideas, and 3) able to win only by capturing some mushy middle.

Next there's the LATimes, and then our "beloved" WaPo... (over the fold)

There are plenty of reasons to watch this continuously great show (despite my wife's resistance--as a sixth grade teacher, the damage Bart does to kids' willingness to apply themselves, with politeness and respect, far outweighs the advantages. All the same, she has come around a little since it's so often great).

Anyway, via HuffPo, The Simpsons annual Halloween episode features a really scary story: Iraq. Or as the writers term it "Operation Enduring Occupation". And the timing could hardly be better--one week before the elections. The Halloween episode always gets good ratings, so good for you guys!

And now we must make sure everybody sees it!

There's a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing going on here, and all justitifed. Some feel that this bill MUST NOT STAND, others that it is politics as usual in the post-democratic US, still others that we will (gradually, eventually, probably) overcome, and so on. But no one seems to have put their finger exactly on why this matters to us as human beings, not merely Democrats, or even Americans.

So let me recount to you a little thought experiment I used to trot out in discussing ethics in Introductory Philosophy courses. This is particularly in response to those who would question "what is the point of virtuous behaviour, if being good offers no tangible reward?" Or, in other words, exactly how is virtue its own reward? So, the question I posed is "If we could be guaranteed peace, harmony and prosperity throughout the universe in exchange for permitting one baby to be tortured for all eternity, would this be a good deal?"

I try to answer that question on the flip...

Yay for me! After having TU status for two years, I lost it at the beginning of the summer, as did so many when the system changed over. I got it back just last week! And I lost it again this morning... :(

Why? What horrible transgression did I commit to be troll-rated into losing my mojo? Or did Dr. Evil or his sidekick Mini-Me steal my mojo too? Well, since I have nothing to lose, I want to raise the whole issue of mob mentality, tribalism and "righteous anger" because, having been a victim of it just lately, I think it's something we really need to address as a community of bloggers, a community of progressives, a community of Democrat supporters, a community of Americans (and Canadians), and a community of human beings. There's just too much self-righteous shit going on and I think it's worth examining what are the costs.

I was prompted to write this short diary in response to georgia10 and Richard Cohen's piece front-paged earlier today. I think it deserves a diary of it's own because this is a talking point which I think we have not addressed properly and are dangerously close to having it co-opted. Specifically, what I want to know is, why shouldn't we be angry?

More...

So much of the Bush Administration's vaunted political capital seems to have been spent trying to put lipstick on a pig, as they say, that we all seem to have missed a crucial evolution of how the media and White House conspire to manipulate contemporary culture.

I used the "c" word (conspire) because there is no logical understanding of what has happened in this country in the past five plus years that does not involve the notion of the media and current White House working together, whether according to a plan or merely a set of common goals. And what has happened is that they have been putting lipstick on the pig that is this administration for five years now. But not in order to conceal that it is a pig; no, merely to make it look like a made-up pig.