Cogitamus

Abortion Rights are not a Tangential Issue

One of the most frustrating things about dealing with the issue of abortion rights in DC is the degree to which I sense many of the people on the pro side of the ledger don't view it as a first tier issue.  I suppose that stems in part from the fact that many of those who lead public opinion in these matters are male and middle-aged or older. 

Well, I'm one middle-aged guy who calls bullshit on this.  I can think of virtually nothing that is more fundamentally life changing than having a child.  And no, it's not always a blessing.  Romanticization of parenthood, and particularly motherhood, really bugs the fuck out of me.  Yes, it can be a rewarding and meaningful thing -- it can also be an absolute anchor tied around your neck.  But the bottom line is that no one, absolutely fucking no one, should have the arrogance to presume that they can force a woman to bear a child she does not wish to have.  And that's why whenever I read a Will Saletan or an Amy Sullivan or some article by that bullshit Third Way organization implying that there is a legitimate case to be made to make abortion illegal I want to reach for the safety catch on my revolver.  (It's a metaphorical revolver however -- don't own one and have never even fired one.)

It is thus infuriating to see an anti-choice asshole like Bart Stupak -- an arrogant and stupid fuck if ever there was one -- holding health care reform hostage to his forced pregnancy agenda.  And doubly galling that he will likely succeed.  

This should be a day for celebrating if a health care reform bill -- however flawed -- gets through the House.  If the Stupak amendment is a part of it though, health care for millions of women has objectively gotten worse.  And that's an absolute utter fucking shame. 

(I've only had one beer and I'm already cursing like the Rude Pundit -- God help the poor people [and their children] with whom I'm having dinner with tonight -- I feel an embarrassing and inappropriate rant coming on -- but this is really a travesty.) 

The 11/3 Project: Analyzing the secret war on Glenn Beck's internal organs (quite possibly Jon Stewart's funniest bit ever)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

(Hat-tip big bad wolf and oddjob in comments, as well as everyone in the world who sent me links to this!)

More teabagging goodness: the I'm so glad irony didn't live to see this* edition

When it comes to the epic (and terribly comic) ongoing disaster known as the Teabagging Express, this Thursday's tiny tantrum in St. Petersburg represented but the tip of the iceburg, it seems. At the Main Event in Washington, DC, a much larger pro-freedom-agenda gang managed to topple Old Glory; meanwhile, their erstwhile leaders botched the Pledge of Allegiance, and confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. A semi-sane person, had one been present, might have assessed the damage to cause and reputation alike and decided to call things off in the interests of cutting losses, etcetera, etcetera.

Had one been present, being the operative phrase. Because--surprise!--one wasn't. OH no, no sanity allowed, sorry--no no no (hey, we're the party of it!)--that evil, science-based "sanity" stuff is much too centrist and traitorous, too popular with the liberal elite, and too anti-pro-freedom for that particular crowd.

So yes, to get to the point here, the show rolled on, and there was, as you'd expect, more. So much more (emphasis mine):

More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.

This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. "Join us in defeating Pelosi care!" he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher. Boehner may have been distracted as well. He told the crowd he would read from the Constitution, then read the "we hold these truths" bit from the Declaration of Independence.

[...]

By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. But Bachmann overlooked this irony as she said farewell to her recruits.

"You," she said, "are the most beautiful sight any of us freedom fighters have seen for a long time."

(H/T Shadowfax)

* this line belongs to the awesome Doghouse Riley (if memory serves.)

Also at litbrit.

On the subject of taking people seriously

I just watched V tonight, and I gotta say I enjoyed it. But, should the unthinkable occur and aliens do actually arrive on Earth, I'd like to take this opportunity to list the warning signs for them being our oppressors, not benefactors.

1) They speak our languages perfectly. The US only becomes concerned about whether or not it has enough funny-language-speaking translators when it's engaged in a war of occupation somewhere. An entire civilization of people who are charming, attractive, and take the time to learn our native tongues? Clearly, they must be evil.

2) They claim to need water. Seriously, we'll let you have Pluto. We don't even call it a planet anymore. Just keep on movin', friend.

3) They claim to need metals or some other resource on Earth. Assuming our understanding of the physics of stellar formation are correct, there's no element on Earth that can't be procured from asteroids at far lower energy cost. And given that the Vs claim the desired element is "abundant" in Earth's crust, they could just get it from the moon (again, at much lower energy cost) because the moon really nothing more than a giant hunk of the Earth's crust, torn off and scabbed over 4 billion years ago.

Nice try, aliens, but you'll have to think up a different set of lies. Oh, and most civilized countries already have universal health care. Go eat the Americans, the rest of us don't need your help.

The view (and racket) outside my window: St. Petersburg teabaggers attend party of NO class

A couple of hours ago, a chorus of beeping horns and argumentative shouting emanating from the street below penetrated my apartment building's 80+ -year-old concrete-and-steel walls and made it difficult to concentrate on the letter I was trying to write.

Hmm...strange.

There were no emergency vehicle sirens (as there are right now).

Probably someone standing in the middle of Central, holding up traffic and ranting about the latest alien sighting or something, I thought.

Fifteen minutes passed; the noise only intensified. Boy, this guy's stubborn.

Eventually, my curiosity got the better of me and I went to the window, opened the blinds, and looked across the street. This is what I saw:

And as if the din of car horns and shouts--both supportive and oppositional--wasn't loud enough, the modest-sized St. Petersburg chapter of The Michelle Bachmann Invitational Teabagging FreedomChantFest put on their best off-key tavern voices and howled God Bless America, threatening the integrity of nearby glass curtain walls, traumatizing poor Marley the Cat, and leading this writer to wish that God would indeed bless at least this part of America and call forth one of those wonderfully sudden cloudbursts for which Florida is famous.

No such luck.

[More photos and commentary after the jump]

Dear Blue Dog Bartlebys: Do Your Effin' Jobs. Or Quit.

Seems that a bunch of our favorite 'centrist' Congresscritters were spooked (like the scared rabbits they are) by Tuesday's voting, and want to cower in their offices and avoid any controversial votes between now and the 2010 midterm.

Brilliant.  That'll sure get the base to turn out for them, won't it?

From The Hill:

Vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want their leaders to skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda for next year to help save their seats in Congress.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, they don’t want to be forced to vote on climate change, immigration reform and gays in the military, which they say should be set aside so Congress can focus on jobs and the economy.

“It’s hard; the most important issue in front of us is the economy right now, and that’s where most of us really want to stay focused, the economy and jobs, that’s what our constituency is concerned about,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), who is facing a tough race next year in Arkansas.

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), a centrist contemplating a run for Senate in North Carolina, helped Democratic leaders in the summer by voting for climate change legislation on the House floor.

He now wants Democratic leaders to narrow their focus on jobs and the economy.

“Three things ought to be the top priority: jobs, jobs and jobs,” he said.

Lincoln said that lawmakers should focus on passing healthcare reform and wait until next year to effect financial regulatory reform and reduce unemployment.

“That’s an awful lot to bite off and chew for right now,” said Lincoln, who described herself as “not in a hurry” to tackle climate change, an issue she has some jurisdiction over as chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D), who is running for reelection in conservative-leaning Indiana, said “jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that,” echoing a sentiment of many colleagues in similar positions.

Bayh said he recognizes that Congress should be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time and hopefully do more than one thing,” but that controversial issues will become especially difficult next year.

Climate change legislation would be “difficult to accomplish under the best of times and doubly so when the economy is not at all good,” Bayh said.

...

Some Democrats are worried the ambitious agenda could make winning reelection that much harder.

“If it was up to me, I would figure out how to handle the war and fix the economy,” said Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a senior centrist Democrat who has found himself in the crosshairs of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has recruited a promising GOP challenger.

Tanner worries his party may be trying to bite off too much in the 111th Congress.

“For all of these big issues, the trick is — to use a football analogy — to go for a first down instead of an 80-yard Hail Mary,” he said. “Some of the more philosophically driven people want to do an 80-yard Hail Mary, but getting first downs is how you legislate over time.”

A group of vulnerable Democratic lawmakers see healthcare reform, climate change and immigration reform as desperation passes down the length of the political playing field. They acknowledge that healthcare reform may very well pass, but they say that climate change and immigration reform have dim prospects.

Rep. Bobby Bright, an Alabama centrist viewed as one of the most endangered Democrats in the House, said that many Americans feel alarmed by the drastic legislative changes moving through Congress. He said leaders should consider breaking up sprawling controversial bills into smaller pieces that voters would not find so daunting in size and scope.

“Maybe this healthcare bill is going drastically too far,” he said. “If we could take it in smaller steps, we could build confidence.

What a bunch of worthless grovelers.

Look, that's the point of having a government: to deal with problems that need to be addressed on a national level.  If you guys don't want to be part of that, then QUIT.  Resign.  Give your seat up, so someone else who isn't petrified in fear of what the wingnuts might say, or what the voters might do, can use it, since you're not going to.  There are only 535 people in this country who get to vote on Federal legislation.  If you don't want to be one of them, fine - but step down.  If you won't lead or follow, then get the fuck out of the way.

Like it or not, it's your job to deal with tough issues.  If you don't want the responsibility, then run for the goddamned Library Board back home.

And can we all admit that the 'jobs' bit is a pathetic dodge?  You guys don't like deficit spending, at least deficit spending that will help ordinary people.  And you don't like raising taxes.  So you're not going to borrow or raise taxes to do anything that will create jobs.  That doesn't leave much, does it?

Oh, wait, I know: you'll come up with a bill to gut regulations that protect workers and consumers, and call that a jobs bill. 

Pathetic.

On Losing Well

No, not yesterday's elections.  I'm talking about losing well on legislation, so that we can win (or at least avoid getting clobbered in) next year's elections.

Matt Yglesias says the White House is

not actively trying to persuade anyone because the White House is afraid that if they try to persuade key legislators they might fail. That’s circular. There seems to be some feeling that the President has an obligation to act like he’s a Prime Minister and not bring proposals to the floor unless he’s sure they can pass, even though he doesn’t have a Prime Minister’s ability to coerce people into voting for his bills. But that’s not how our system works and there’s little reason to believe that trying and failing would somehow turn out much worse than simply refusing the try.

I'd say Matt's understating it.  Trying and failing, if done right, can work much better than refusing the try altogether.

We're going to have a set of midterm elections next year, with every House seat and something like 38 Senate seats up for grabs.  The real economy, the one that people live every day, is still going to stink, and the basic reaction of people will naturally be to blame it on the President's party.

There are really only two things that Obama can do about this: (1) do things to make things better for people (the stimulus, the GM/Chrysler bailout, and hopefully health care reform), and run on these things, and (2) try to do more things that make things better for people, then run against the legislators who stood in his way.

But the only way to run against the Congresscritters who kept you from helping people is to force these things to a vote, even if it's 'just' a cloture vote.  If no votes, then no names of recalcitrant legislators on votes.  It's that simple.

So yeah, let's put together a bill, and have a vote, on a second stimulus.  And let's try again on cramdown.  And an extension of unemployment benefits.  And anything else that the White House can think of that would make a difference for working (or involuntarily nonworking) Americans in the short run.

Sure, we'll lose.  But if the Administration puts all of its muscle behind these bills, and still loses, then they'll be able to convince the people of this country that this Administration fought the good fight for the people, but were blocked by the Republicans.  And that can be the campaign issue in the fall of 2010.

Besides, in politics, it's almost always wise to take the fight to the enemy.  The more the GOP has to play defense, the less room they'll have to do the only thing they're really good at: attack.

The Self-Awareness Of A Horny Adolescent Chimp

I don't understand how Villager journalists are supposed to be so wonderful to be with at parties and other social events.  I would expect people so fundamentally unself-aware to pick their noses in public, burp loudly when eating and drinking and scratch whatever itches no matter where it is:

Eager to drain the 2009 elections of drama and import, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs claimed Tuesday night that President Barack Obama was “not watching returns.”

You can be sure that he is studying them closely now: The off-year elections were, in two big races, an unmistakable rebuke of Democrats, reshuffling Obama’s political circumstances in ways likely to have severe near-term consequences for his policy agenda and larger governing strategy.

Later in the same article:

It is true enough that both Democratic candidates had severe limitations — Deeds was a notably unprepossessing candidate compared with the polished McDonnell, and Corzine was deeply unpopular and at the helm of a state suffering through difficult economic times. Neither race should be viewed as strictly a referendum on Obama. But if there is a danger in overinterpreting off-year elections, it is also a mistake to underinterpret.

Mainly, the mistake of not overinterpreting these elections is that then these pathetic hacks would either be required to think before submitting such an abomination or, more likely, they'd have nothing to write at all.

We've said this on this blog over and over - and others are saying it as well - the only race with national implications was NY-23 (something Atrios got completely wrong).  New Jersey wasn't about Obama, and neither was Virginia.  The only national implication to either state is that Christie and McDonnell stayed the hell away from abortion, gay marriage and making public sacrifices to images of Ayn Rand and John Birch.

NY-23 is actually about Obama, DC, Democrats and Republicans, because a bunch of Republicans made it that way.  Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and the barbarian hordes from Fox News found a willing subject in Hoffman - you can bet that if Christie or McDonnell had given them any sort of encouragement, the hordes would have been screaming at voters in Virginia and New Jersey as well.  But only Hoffman rolled out the red carpet for them, and their involvement directly caused the most Republican district in the history of America to elect a Democrat.

Bart Stupak just got one vote further away from defeating the House HCR bill, but Villagers are going to run with their "Obama rebuked" storyline no matter what.  I wish the Dems could have cleared the table just to see how Broder and his minions would rescue their storyline then.

A Couple of Thoughts on the Off Year Elections

As always demographics are everything.  It appears that in Virginia voters over the age of 45 made up 65% of the electorate against just 49% in 2008.  Voters under the age of 30 went from being 20% of the electorate to 10%.  White voters were 82% of the electorate versus 75% a year ago.  That is the story right there.  I have not yet seen the final turnout figures, but it appears to be less than 50% of eligible voters.  In 2008, a remarkable 74% of those eligible voted.  A lackluster candidate running a tepid campaign was not what was needed to keep Virginia in the blue column.  

Although Republican Bob McDonnell won an impressive victory, I think it was notable that from this vantage point he ran an almost completely non-ideological race.  He disavowed the retrograde views on women that he had expressed in his infamous Regent University thesis.  I don't recall him running a single ad in which he touted his anti-abortion credentials.  He ran as the guy who would be "the jobs governor."  Laughable, but telling I think.

New Jersey continued its tradition of being willing to vote for Republicans for governor.  Given the Democrats who have occupied the office in recent times -- Florio, McGreevey, and Corzine -- it's probably not all that shocking.  Again, I don't get the sense that Christie ran a campaign to appeal to the teabagger set.  To the extent his campaign had a theme, it appeared to be a kind of good government, anti-corruption stance, always a pretty good approach in the Garden State.

New York 23rd was a telling result.  How do you take a place that's not gone Democratic in one hundred plus years and make it so -- let Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin pick your candidate.  I don't think it's wishful thinking to suggest that this was a more consequential vote than either Virginia or New Jersey.

Lastly, Maine was another closely fought disappointment.  I think supporters of equality should spend the next couple of years getting geared up to campaign for referenda in California and Maine in 2012, when turnout is going to be higher and demographics more favorable.  Older people are the worst constituency on this issue, but nature has a way of dealing with them.  It would be unethical to thin their numbers, but we can wish them godspeed as they depart from the eligible voters list.   

Huh. Didn't Expect That Result

Ok, everyone knew Deeds would lose in Virginia.  I'm surprised at Christie's win in NJ; I think it was someone at TPM which suggested that state officials get their rules of succession off the shelf so that they know who is supposed to run the state when Christie is indicted.  Though given New Jersey's reputation, perhaps they're prepared for that all the time.

And Democat Bob Owens won in NY-23.  I'll be honest that I was hoping for a Hoffman win so the teabaggers would be encouraged to seek out as many windmills as they could to tilt at.  But the real winner in this race is not Owens or Obama, it's Fox News and most notably Glenn Beck.  No, really, this election was quite an accomplishment for them and their teabagging hordes:  they managed to become so extreme in their views, and to drag so many Republicans along with them, that the people of NY-23 have elected the first non-Republican to represent them since 1873.  If we're really lucky, they'll work even harder to whip the teabaggers up and this loss won't stop them from replicating the crazy all over the country next year.

Let's see, the Democrat won in CA-10, which is no surprise at all, though the storyline of "Republicans lose long-held seat to Democrats while Democrats keep their seat with little effort" isn't likely to show up in Washington Post.

Marriage equality got the results it seems to always get:  advancing in one area (Washington State, a little step) and getting beaten back in another (Maine).  Unfortunately, hating gays is still a powerful motivation for people to get to the polls.  My thoughts and prayers go out to the people in all parts of this country who are not afforded equality before the law.  We'll win this someday.

So what does all this mean for Obama?  There's two answers:  1.  According to the Village, "Obama's in trouble because blah blah mmmghfm - excuse us, we can't speak with Rupert Murdoch's dick in our mouths."  and 2. In the real world, nothing.  Governors are about the state, not DC.  In 2008 Democrats only picked up one governorship, in Missouri - and that state gave its electoral votes for McCain.  Virginia and New Jersey were about themselves, not Obama.  And in spite of the blathering we're sure to hear and at which we'll all get pretty mad, the majority of Americans - including and especially those living in VA and NJ, will never make the Villager's false connection.

Fearless Election Predictions

I've got a bad feeling about tomorrow.  Or maybe I'm still hungover from spending Halloween in Las Vegas after a truly ball busting week of driving, flying, and meeting, meeting, meeting.

Anyway, I suspect the Republicans may well run the table tomorrow in Virginia, New Jersey, and NY-23 and to be honest it's not that big a fucking deal.  Virginia is notoriously counter-cyclical in its gubernatorial voting, the Democrats in the state are still pretty exhausted from last year's amazing effort for Obama, and the Repukes are stoked by pure hatred -- a highly motivating emotion.  (And old white people really make up a big part of the electorate in these off year elections.)  New Jersey's a mess and Corzine is not exactly an inspirational figure.  And the 23rd New York is awfully Republican, even if the party has set the crazy to eleven.  I could happily live with losing all three of these elections if we win the referenda in Maine and Washington. 

No, what is going to drive me crazy is the way the media is going to portray it if what I am predicting comes to pass, i.e. that it represents a repudiation of Obama and liberalism.  Trust me, mainstream reporters cannot resist this meme -- hell, they've already got the GOP taking Congress back in 2010, despite the fact that Republicans remain stunningly unpopular with much of the electorate.   

Why does the MSM love this story line so much?  Part of it is their own self-loathing -- they have really absorbed the notion that they are not "real" Americans and they've gotten used to reflexively buying into contentions of their "liberal bias."  But what I think really gets them off about this story is how much they hate liberals and want them to fail.  And the reason for this is the fact that criticism of the media by liberals, and particularly by the liberal blogosphere, infuriates them.  They can handle the reflexive slings and arrows thrown from the right, the "working the refs" gamesmanship that has been a part of conservative weaponry since Nixon.   But they cannot stand to be systematically dismantled by people who write better than they do, think more systematically than they are capable of, and are unafraid to stand on behalf of principle, something they find utterly baffling.  They want us to be taken down several pegs, want us to return to the status of losers -- the notion of an ascendant and popular liberalism (while they face decline) is really offensive to them. 

So if it goes poorly tomorrow, brace yourselves.  It's going to be ugly to hear.  But it's highly unlikely to be meaningful.  

Atheism: Science Or Philosophy?

Via Sully, here's an article that explains very well something I've long thought but had difficulty putting into words.  The gist of it is that we can describe at least two different forms of atheism.  The first is what Jerry Coyne, the author, calls "weak sense atheism," which is the refusal to grant belief to something that cannot be proven by science.  The second Coyne names "strong sense atheism," which is the absolute surety that something for which there is no scientific evidence does not exist.

For Coyne, only weak sense atheism can claim to be a scientific, rational stance, and he is entirely correct.  It is eminently reasonable to refuse to believe in something that cannot be proven by the scientific method.  What is unreasonable, however, is to believe that our current scientific knowledge is so complete, has reached such an apex, that one can see straight through to the ontological heart of the universe and declare unequivocally that there is no being which transcends it, which stands behind it all.

Please note that I am not talking about evolution or creationism/intelligent design.

All of us should be at least a little bit agnostic.  The believer, drawing upon evidence other than that found using the scientific method, decides to have faith in a deity.  But honest believers - by that I mean honest with themselves - always live with a bit of doubt.  We are all Thomas, or should be.*

The atheist simply chooses a different set and kind of evidence.  But it must be said that the scientific method itself is betrayed whenever someone claims that all knowledge has been achieved in some particular endeavor and absolute conclusions can be drawn.  We are still testing Einstein's claims, and will be for some time.  Physicists have seriously been wondering if the Large Hadron Collider is sabotaging itself from the future.  Science is an ever-growing, ever-changing body of knowledge, and for all that we know we must reserve ultimate judgment, because we don't know what tomorrow may bring.  This is, or should be, an entirely uncontroversial statement.  But when it's brought up in the context of any type of spirituality, it's capable of producing impressive flames.

*What's interesting is that Thomas claimed that he would need to touch the wounds on Jesus's body, yet he didn't actually do that.  And earlier, Thomas showed more faithfulness, if not faith, than the other disciples of Jesus.  Belief in the absence of doubt is no great thing; it merely shows that either there is evidence such that belief is not necessary or that you've shut down your brain's critical thinking centers.