Christine O'Donnell: "I'm You" Parody

This has been making the rounds and is friggin' hilarious. Just another example of how much of a joke Christine O'Donnell really is:

Skin Phones

Welcome to the future where communication technology can be attached to the body as if a piece of flexible skin. Now, we have people with their blue tooth phone earsets on who seem to be talking to themselves, but soon we'll have people talking into their hands or shoulders without any visible sign of electronic equipment. The indicators of psychotic behavior (i.e. talking to yourself out loud in public -- or talking at your hand) are undergoing a revolution!

At LASA

I'm currently in Toronto, Canada, attending the annual LASA (Latin American Studies Association) Convention. It's great to see old friends and respected colleagues. Click here for information on LASA.

David Vitter Is a Douchebag

The vileness that is David Vitter continues to disgust me. He is an immoral piece of scum. I have never despised someone in Politics as much as I despise David Vitter. His craven cynicism, when coupled with his moral and religious hypocrisy, is astounding. How anyone who calls himself a Christian can continue to support this douchebag is beyond my comprehension. This ad is not only so wrong factually, but is utterly contrary to the Catholic Church's position on immigration. It violates every Christian precept about respecting the dignity of the human being. Ugh! Good people need to vote Vitter out of office.

Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged: A Critique

John Scalzi has written one of the best reviews (and one of the most hilarious) of Ayn Rand's magnus opus that I have seen to date. At least it's one of the best reviews that loosely reflects some of my own criticisms (which are albeit more seriously-expressed criticisms). I have to say I just fell out of my chair in stiches when I read this one paragraph summary of that long, long, long book:

That said, it’s a totally ridiculous book which can be summed up as Sociopathic idealized nerds collapse society because they don’t get enough hugs. (This is, incidentally, where you can start your popcorn munching.) Indeed, the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged lies in the fact that it is nerd revenge porn — if you’re an nerd of an engineering-ish stripe who remembers all too well being slammed into your locker by a bunch of football dickheads, then the idea that people like you could make all those dickheads suffer by “going Galt” has a direct line to the pleasure centers of your brain. I’ll show you! the nerds imagine themselves crying. I’ll show you all! And then they disappear into a crevasse that Google Maps will not show because the Google people are our kind of people, and a year later they come out and everyone who was ever mean to them will have starved. Then these nerds can begin again, presumably with the help of robots, because any child in the post-Atlas Shrugged world who can’t figure out how to run a smelter within ten minutes of being pushed through the birth canal will be left out for the coyotes. Which if nothing else solves the problem of day care.

He then goes on to call the John Galt character a "genocidal prick" (and this is a more trenchant and pointed way of making the point that undergirds a bit of my criticism about the book and the philosophy behind it):

All of this is fine, if one recognizes that the idealized world Ayn Rand has created to facilitate her wishful theorizing has no more logical connection to our real one than a world in which an author has imagined humanity ruled by intelligent cups of yogurt. This is most obviously revealed by the fact that in Ayn Rand’s world, a man who self-righteously instigates the collapse of society, thereby inevitably killing millions if not billions of people, is portrayed as a messiah figure rather than as a genocidal prick, which is what he’d be anywhere else. Yes, he’s a genocidal prick with excellent engineering skills. Good for him. He’s still a genocidal prick. Indeed, if John Galt were portrayed as an intelligent cup of yogurt rather than poured into human form, this would be obvious. Oh my god, that cup of yogurt wants to kill most of humanity to make a philosophical point! Somebody eat him quick! And that would be that.

Hilarious! And rather on the money, if you ask me. You have to read the whole thing.

Christine O'Donnell is Not a Witch! (Payback is Hell)

Christine O'Donnell's witchcraft predicament is a bit of poetic justice. She's been so damaged by the witchcraft association that her first post-primary campaign ad specifically addresses this issue.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what kind of religion O'Donnell practices. Even if she were a witch, more power to her.

But what makes this situation so enjoyable to observe is how Christine O'Donnell has hoisted herself on her own petard. Her core constituency are fundamentalist evangelical Christianist Tea Partiers, the very people who (1) think any association with heathen religions and witchcraft would automatically be a disqualifier for any kind of position of political or moral authority and (2) believe that Obama's mere exposure to Islam as a child is enough to question his Christian bona-fides.

So, O'Donnell, who is already toast with the liberals and independents of Delaware, has to waste her first advertisement shoring up her support among her core constituency. One would expect that this would be a humbling moment for O'Donnell, at least as far as playing the Christianist card goes in criticizing anything having to do with heathen religions. What I want some journalist to do is to ask O'Donnell point blank if she thinks Obama is a Muslim and if she opposes the Park51 project near to gound zero.

Oh, and there's one other thing I need to mention. In her campaign advertisement, in defending her "youthful indiscretion" in "dabbling into witchcraft," O'Donnell

goes on to say that nobody's perfect and suggests that she's just like everybody else or, in her words: "I'm you."

Reality check: that's a lie. She's not like me. Nor is she like just about everyone else in this regard. I never "dabbled into witchcraft" in my youth. And 95% of the kids I went to school with and grew up with, in spite of all of our other imperfections and youthful indiscretions, never dabbled into witchcraft. And the reason why O'Donnell's witchcraft revelation is so damning to her is because, I'd wager, almost 100% of her core Christianist constituency not only has also never dabbled into witchcraft at any time in their lives, but also recoils in horror at the mere thought of midnight picnic dates on bloody satanic altars.

Let her judgmental Christianist intolerance come back to bite her in her self-righteous derriere.

UPDATE: A roundup of some MSM commentary on the subject from Newsy.com:

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Olive Branch to Anh "Joseph" Cao

OK. I've been silent about the US Congressional District 2 election. The reason is that I find that the options are less than ideal. I want to vote for Cedric Richmond, the Democratic candidate, who would represent a switch from the GOP to the Democrats in an election year that seems very bad for the Democrats. One switch in the opposite direction of the current trends would be a welcome salve in an otherwise depressing election year. However, I just can't seem to get beyond the recent revelations about Cedric Richmond's apparent complicity in old-school machine-style politics (with appearances of Bill Jefferson corruption, to boot). And I have seen nothing from the Richmond campaign that has addressed any of these recent allegations, which have made the rounds in the blogosphere, but which seem not to have penetrated into the general public consciousness. So, I'm leaning towards Richmond, but just can't make the commitment. And I just can't seem to swallow sending a neophyte Bill Jefferson to Congress.

And then there's Anh "Joseph" Cao, the Republican incumbent. Since Cao's vote against the Health Care Reform bill, I swore never to vote for Cao again. And I'm holding on to that oath ... for now. I'm at the point where I'd be willing to entertain eating crow and changing my mind. But to do so would require Cao to really earn my trust on matters that are of paramount importance to me these days. What I like about Cao is that he doesn't seem too beholden to the insanity that is passing for conservative GOP leadership these days. And I also very much like the fact that there is not a corrupt bone in Cao's body and not an unethical thought in Cao's Jesuit-trained mind. There's a lot to be said for that. However, that is just not enough. What is enough? Well ... here's my "olive branch" with its concomitant demands: I will consider a switch to Cao only if Cao explicitly promises and stakes his personal integrity on the line for these four issues: (1) Cao must go on record before the November elections that, if the GOP retakes control of the House, he will oppose any effort to repeal the Health Care Reform bill and will oppose any effort to withhold funding for the implementation of the Health Care Reform legislation; (2) Cao will sponsor (or co-sponsor) a comprehensive immigration reform bill that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States REGARDLESS of any border security and enforcement provision in such legislation. In other words, a path to legality for the undocumented will be his PRIMARY motivation for any immigration reform; (3) Cao will support the DREAM Act legislation and will demand that either a GOP House or a Democratic House bring such legislation to a vote again; and (4) Cao must agree to vote to end the reprehensible DADT policy that prevents openly gay citizens from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. If Cao publicly agrees to these four stances, then I'll seriously reconsider my oath to never vote for him. If he doesn't agree to these four stances publicly and unequivocally, I will take my chances with Richmond.

The Script: The Man Who Can't Be Moved

Another song that get's lots of play in the car in the morning on the way to drop the squirrelly girlies off at school:

Platanos y Collard Greens

Tomorrow, I'm accompanying a group of students to a comic theatrical production that explores the complexities (and the humor) of inter-ethnic relations in the off-Broadway play Platanos y Collard Greens. The play kicks off at 8:00pm in McAlister Auditorium on Tulane's campus. In New Orleans, the subject of black-brown relations is very much a pressing and current topic. Come out and see the play. It's free and open to the public.

The Legacy of Breitbart

Check out this surreal story:



I sat there watching this interview and could not believe that this was actually real. Is it really true that an Assistant Attorney General would be able to get away with this and still retain his job as someone ostensibly charged with the fair representation of the rights of all citizens in his state? And the Attorney General is not firing this guy? What gives? Here we have a public sector employee, someone who works in the Attorney General's office, essentially engaging in stalking, harassment, and all kinds of other egregious and legally-questionable behavior. Under different circumstances (say similar targeting an individual behavior based on racial or sexual characteristics), I could actually see this Assistant AG charged with investigating and prosecuting exactly the kind of stalking and harassment that the Assistant AG himself is engaged in. More and more, we see the fruits of what passes for Christian conservatism these days as it creeps into the halls of political power.

Taio Cruz: "Dy-no-mite"

Another catchy pop tune my kids listen to all the time. The tune grows on you, even though the video is pretty lame. Anyway, here it is:



Bonus: Flo Rida's "Club Can't Handle Me" -- I like this one better. Very Black Eyed Peas-ish. What makes the video cool is that it's got a little bit of capoeira in it:

Plaquemines Parish BP Spill Compensation Shenanigans

Plaquemines Parish Council Chairman (or should I say "Yahoo") Don Beshel, and a Republican I should note, has come up with an outrageous form letter that he's encouraging all Parish residents to submit to the BP Oil Spill claims adminsitrator for financial compensation because folks either have to pay higher seafood prices at the supermarket, or they actually now have to go to the supermarket to buy seafood that they could get previously directly from fishing themselves. [Click here to see a copy of one of these absurd letters.] Hell, by that measure, everyone in the damn world ought to be able to file a compensation claim against BP because the prices of fish are going up in supermarkets. And 4,000 people sent in this form letter seeking to cash in. It's crap like this that really ticks me off. And knowing the political/ideological proclivities of this Parish, I'd bet gobs of money that a majority of the folks submitting these fraudulent claims would generally pass themselves off anti-entitlement conservatives. I noticed the same thing post Katrina when many, many people that I know personally to be anti-entitlement and pro-personal responsibility conservatives (when it comes to such things as Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.) all of the sudden themselves become the strongest voices of entitlement grievance because they were under-insured (or simply not insured) against hurricane damage and flood losses. So many of these erstwhile anti-entitlement conservatives, when it came to having to assume personal responsibility for their own gambles, looked to point the finger anywhere else but at themselves for their losses -- and then expected (and sued) anyone and everyone they could, whether it be insurance companies or FEMA, to get what they were "entitled" to. It really disgusts me.

Obama and Internet Wiretaps

If there is one area (beyond his indefensible unwillingness to spend political capital to push for the end to DADT) where Obama roundly and rightly deserves heaps of criticism, it is in the area of executive authority and his apparent willingness to embrace the Bush/Cheney notion of the "unitary executive." This idea basically posits that the US President has the authority to violate civil rights with impunity, to do so under the claim of national security, and to reserve for itself the right to define what constitutes a national security threat. Obama has been almost as bad as Bush in his embrace of this notion and in his unwillingness to restore some kind of balance and check on unbridled executive power.

The latest manifestation of this disappointing trend in the Obama administration is the push to expand the government's ability to more easily wiretap internet communications. Here's the Obama administration's lame defense of this move:

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

Yeah, that's a comfort. The Obama Administration is content to use "existing authority," as if that is some kind of justification. What the Obama administration glosses over is that the "existing authority" is reprehensible. It's what Obama campaigned against and what those of us who elected him thought he would bring back into some kind of balanced alignment. We wanted him to restrain an unchecked executive authority and not make use of it himself, under the justification that the guy preceding him did it, too. Sad, pathetic, and reprehensible. Obama, we expected better of you.

Kavalier and Clay, Pt. 2

Well, I finished Chabon's novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. It was a very good read and a well-written story. I certainly think it deserves its accolades and awards. That said, I also have to say that it didn't rise up to the hype in my mind. I would rank it as one of my better reads this year, but I wouldn't put it in my top 20 all time favorites. It's good, but it doesn't have the hallmarks of a classic. The one thing about Chabon that I do think is quite extraordinary is his ability to craft a creative story concept. The whole idea of comic book writing and the frame of the idea of "The Escapist" as a comic book superhero to parallel the life of Josef Kavalier is pure genius and pure fun. And Chabon is an equally superb narrative storyteller. You can see the same genius at work in The Yiddish Policeman's Union, where the story concept of a post-World War II temporary Jewish homeland in Alaska as opposed to the Middle East was also quite creative and intriguing. Nevertheless, Kavalier and Clay ended with a whimper. Chabon just lost the narrative steam in the last part of the story, and I gathered that he just didn't quite know how to wrap the story up. Still a good read, though, and one I'm glad I invested the time in. Next up, and I've already started it, is Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove. Let's see if this one lives up to the hype.

The Saints Lose

And they deserved to. Sure, everyone plays at the top of their game when facing last year's champs; but there were so many player mistakes, poor coaching decisions, and all around lethargy, that the Saints were fortunate even to have had the chance to win the game in overtime.

Forget Garrett Hartley's missed chip shot field goal in overtime. I don't blame him. These guys miss a few now and then. What I can't understand is the decision made by Sean Payton to actually kick a field goal on first down at the Atlanta 10 yard line. I've never understood the willingness to give up the momentum and three whole downs to try to punch the ball in for a sure score. It's a sign of a lack of confidence in the offense. What is there to fear besides a turnover, which is as likely to happen as a missed field goal? And if you go three downs and don't get the TD, you still have the exact same chance to win it with a field goal on 4th down. Just a poor coaching decision, if you ask me.

Oh well ... at least now the hyper-Who Dat-ism can dissipate and we can go back to a more regular, normal life here in New Orleans.

Anti-Islam Bigots on the Texas State Board of Education Strike Again

These fundamentalist Christian yahoos on the Texas State Board of Education are playing the victim card yet again in a thinly-veiled expression of anti-Islamic bigotry. The claim this time is that school textbooks give an imbalanced picture of Islam versus Christianity and claim that this imbalance paints a relatively positive picture of Islam and a relatively negative picture of Christianity. And this is absolute bunk. Let's just get down to some facts:

A national poll released earlier this week by the Angus Reid polling firm found that a narrow majority of Americans holds a generally unfavorable opinion of Islam, with 45 percent saying it is a religion that encourages violence. By contrast, only one American in 10 believes that either Christianity or Judaism "encourages violence,” the poll found.

To which one can only say with some irony to those bigots in Texas: "Yeah, with statistics like these, it's clear that people educated in this country are coming away from their schooling with an overly rosy picture of Islam (just a mere 45% Americans think of Islam as religion that encourages violence) and an overly negative picture of Christianity and Judaism (because of that excessively high 10% of Americans who think these religions encourage violence)." Do these bigots not think Americans are smart enough to see the wool that they are attempting to pull over our eyes? Do they think Christianity and Judaism in this country are more reviled and that Islam is more embraced here? These people are simply nuts. To them, 45% of Americans holding such a negative view of Islam (a religion that encourages violence) is not enough, and yet 90% of Americans holding a positive views of Christianity/Judaism (religions that do not encourage violence, i.e. religions of peace) is too little -- and that this somehow is the product of an imbalance in textbook coverage? Get real. If anything, this paints a clear picture of imbalance in exactly the opposite direction.

David Vitter Demagogues the DREAM Act

For the life of me, I can't understand what could motivate David Vitter to be so viciously and aggressively opposed to the DREAM Act. All this Act seeks to do is to provide a path to regularized immigration status and an opportunity for legal permanent residency for undocumented migrant youth who were brought to the US before turning 16 years old and who have met a slew of other conditions. Many of these youth came to the U.S. at such an early age that the only country they know is the United States. These youth are fully assimilated, speak English fluently, have been educated in U.S. Schools, and have been models of civic responsibility. Some have even put their lives on the line in defense of the United States by serving legally in the US armed forces. For nearly all of them, the choice to come the United States was not made by them, but rather by their parents. Essentially, they are about as innocent of any intentional wrong-doing that can be imagined, are being punished for the "sins" of their parents, and are still forced to live in the shadows of an illegal immigration status. These young people are here and they are for all intents and purposes essentially U.S. citizens in every way that truly matters. How anyone can equate the DREAM Act as an insidious back door amnesty deal for sneaky border-crossing criminals is beyond comprehension; and such opposition has got to be motivated by nothing short of intentional malice. It's disappointing that it would have to be one of my State's Senators who is falling all over himself to be the lead voice in oppositional demagoguery on this issue. And it's reprehensible and shameful behavior on his part.

The Spread of Tea Party Statism

And we've hooked another one. Here's Renee Ellmers, a Tea Party-endorsed, Palinite Conservative running for a seat in the federal Congress in North Carolina to replace incumbent Bob Etheridge (who, incidentally, is no favorite of mine since he pulled his bullying shenanigans on some Breitbartian shock-troop new media acolytes), declaring that, if elected, she will tell the "terrorists" (i.e. those behind the Park51 project near to ground zero: "No, there will never be a mosque at ground zero." Watch the authoritarianism (if not totalitarianism) at work:



Now, some might say: "Well, she didn't say explicitly that she would use the force of government to prevent these American citizens who happen to be Muslims from exercising their liberty to construct a house of worship wherever they want." To which I would reply: "Get serious." Here's a woman running for Congress, in a campaign ad, declaring that she will never allow the building of a mosque at ground zero in New York -- which isn't even the constituency she represents and which, by Tea Party conservative standards of federalism, she should have no business demagoguing in the first place! (At least Paladino, the Tea Party-backed GOP candidate for governor of New York, can make the argument that since the Park51 project is in New York, he would be within his Constitutionally protected right as the chief executive of the government of New York, to use state power to squash the liberty of American citizens to build their house of worship in his state. What constitutional claim, even by conservative "don't tread on me" Tea Party standards, does Ellmers have to defend her liberty-squashing position?)

Let's be honest and clear here: the ONLY purpose of this ad by Ellmers is to get elected to office on the promise that the power of holding this office (and voting to send her to this office) is precisely the thing that would ensure carrying out this liberty-squashing campaign promise. And to those who still aren't convinced about the implications of Ellmers campaign promise in this ad, I'd ask you to simply consider this: If someone followed up and asked Ellmers "Sounds good! Let's send those terrorists a strong message! So, how exactly, Ms. Ellmers, are you going to deliver on this promise?" What would she have to say? It would have to be something along the lines of "well, by electing me, you'll give me the power and the chance, as a government representative, to craft, sponsor, support, and/or vote for legislation (because that's what her job would be) that would prevent this from happening." In other words, state-sponsored authoritarianism.

The creep of real anti-liberty authoritarianism (or at least the disturbing roots of it) spreading out among the increasingly more emboldened of the Tea Party candidates. And it's like a domino effect: the more emboldened they get, the more this underlying agenda comes out, no only expressed as the personal opinion of a free citizen but also as the promise of an elected government official in the exercise of their official duties as they see it.

David Vitter and the DREAM Act

I'm too tired to say too much on this right now, but I can't tell you how angry and disappointed I am at the moment with David Vitter's mean-spirited, cynical, and irrational crusade against the DREAM Act, which is a bit of legislation that seeks to create a path to citizenship for high school and college age non-citizen children of undocumented immigrant parents upon meeting some very reasonable conditions such as earning a high school diploma, serving 2 years in the military, be of a certain age, have resided in the United States for a certain number of years, and have stayed clear of any trouble with the law. David Vitter's pandering to the worst elements of the xenophobic anti-immigrant crowd would lead him not only to punish innocent young people whose only life that they know may be in the United States, whose assimilation is fairly complete, whose existence in the United States was not something they even had any control over, and whose accomplishments in the United States have been exemplary, but also to advance a policy that drives even more people to a life in the shadows of illegality. It's just reprehensible.

Federalism, States Rights, and Liberty

Thinking on a comments exchange with one of my readers (Eric), I have been pondering the whole idea of federalism and states rights as it relates to liberty. Although I have some sympathy for the idea that the closer one gets to the local, the more effective and efficient politics can be and the more control individuals can exercise over their own affairs, I am wondering how States Rights advocates draw the line between the Constitutional provisions for the breakdown of authority between federal and state governments and the notion of liberty as a guiding principle. Let me try to explain what I mean in greater detail ...

It seems to me that we have the principle of liberty which should transcend any kind of division of authority, whether that authority is the federal government, the state government, or even the local municipal government. And yet we have a constitutional division of authority and power that only speaks of state governments versus federal governments without really any regard to the principle of liberty. In other words, irrespective of the universal principle of liberty which would seem to transcend any exercise of power by any governmental authority, whatever power that the Constitution does not explicitly afford to the federal government in terms of dictating the conditions under which citizens can live, markets can function, and state force can be applied, is afforded to the governments of the individual states. This presumes that either the federal government or the state governments have the power under the Constitution to rule over its citizens, even if this ruling is to constrict liberty, as long as the power to do so fits within the proper division of powers afforded in the Constitution.

Thus, where the federal government doesn't have the right to dictate policy, the states do. Many states rights conservatives often argue that the Constitution, where it limits the federal government, does no such thing to state governments in their reserved powers. Take, for instance, gay marriage. I often hear from states rights conservatives the idea that if state governments decide to discriminate against gay people when it comes to affording the rights and privileges of marriage, they have the authority to do so. Perhaps an even better example is abortion. The argument goes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned as an un-Constitutional exercise of authority by the federal government and that the issue of whether to permit or outlaw abortion should be kicked back to the states, where state governments get to make the final binding decision on the matter. And that's where the argument tends to stop. Many states rights conservatives are willing to accept the power of state governments to enact and enforce legislation that would constrain freedom as a matter of deference to state power afforded under the federal Constitution. Hence, individual liberty or freedom can be duly constrained in one state while it can be advanced in another state. So the notion of the principle of freedom and liberty becomes relativized according the whim of state governments as opposed to being recognized as a universal concept. Theoretically, one can have liberty to smoke marijuana in California, but not even have the freedom to drink alcohol in South Carolina, much less smoke marijuana. It seems clear to me in this sense that California would be a state that is advancing liberty relative to South Carolina, and yet states rights conservatives are often willing to accept the right of South Carolina to constrain liberty in this way. This relativism that sacrifices the principle of liberty on the altar of states rights creates a slipperly slope whereby more pernicious constraints on liberty can be justified -- racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. This is why many liberals see the states rights argument often as code for the ability to justify the constriction of liberty. Through this, my friend Eric can argue (and correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position, Eric) that a candidate for governor in New York who would seek to use the power of the state through eminent domain to forcefully prevent the construction of a mosque near to ground zero may be a rotten autocrat for holding this position, but that this is a matter for the state and its residents to decide, so that if this candidate were to be elected governor and were to exercise this power, well then that's New York's business and who are we in the rest of the U.S. to meddle in New York's affairs, even if this exercise of power constricts freedom?

I'm not sure I've expressed myself so clearly here, but I think what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that there is an inherent tension between the states rights argument as commonly presented by many conservatives and the notion of support for a universal principle of individual liberty. This is why we get candidates like Christine O'Donnell talk about defending the sacrosanct notion of individual liberty, and yet still hold that some authority forcing a dress code or a dance code on people is still tolerable and legitimate under the Constitution and the reserved powers it grants to local authority.