Really dumb or really smart?

I'm betting on really dumb, but...

I'm going to start off with a rude, unfair, sexist, chauvinistic joke. I say that only to let you all know that I know what I'm doing. After all, I'm no Republican.

Here it comes: [bad joke] Days ago,  the Republicans in congress announced their list for committee chairmanships. A list of middle aged white men. In the midst of heavy criticism of this lack of diversity, the Republicans have now appointed a woman to be their maid. [end bad joke]

OK, it was sexist, misogynistic, unfair and chauvinistic.  Perhaps that "maid" line was an exaggeration. Perhaps "secretary" would have been better than "maid." Or better still, and more politically correct, "office manager."

With that out of the way, a serious question: Why is it that every time the Republicans try to do something better, to correct an obvious faux pass, they shoot themselves in the foot?

The woman in question, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan, will be the chair of the House Administration Committee, which oversees House members' expense accounts, manages its budget and makes sure its trash baskets get emptied. (Oh, and they also oversee the House cafeteria.)

(It should be noted that there has been a woman chairing a House committee, Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. of Foreign Affairs, but she's stepping down this year. Up until today, all new potential chairmen of all house committees have been just that...chair-men.)

The dearth of women on the Republican's list of chairs was in direct contrast to their stated intent to pursue more "diversity." With the announcement of that list, it seemed that they may have wanted to be seen as pursuing diversity but had no intention of actually catching up with it. Today they attempted to correct that impression with Miller's appointment.

The problem is, they made things worse. They gave her the most menial seeming of committee chairs; a committee chair that invites their critics to make rude and unfair jokes. If there was one committee chair that just screamed, "we don't really mean what we say!" it was the Administration Committee.

"Perception" is the key here. It has to be admitted that the Administration Committee does important work, and the perception of it as being menial is mostly just perception. The point is that this committee is perceived as being less important, less prestigious, less desirable that most other committees. In other words, it was precisely the wrong committee to chose to showcase their first new woman committee chair this term. One woman among nineteen or so grey or greying middle-aged guys. This has the makings of a bad '70s sitcom.

It is unbelievable that the Republicans didn't foresee this problem. Then again, maybe they did.

Maybe the whole point was to get us, the "liberal media machine," to make an obvious attack, a sexist attack, a misogynistic attack. Then they could call us sexist. Maybe that's to be their way of improving their disastrous election performance among women.

Are the Republicans that smart? I would say not...but I have no other explanation for their behavior that makes any sense.

I've already heard Rev. Al Sharpton of MSNBC's Politics Nation (among other left-leaning pundits) making this kind of joke. These people don't seem to realize that this kind of humor can backfire on them. Then again, I am the only person (so far) that seems to be calling them on it. If I am the only person that sees this danger, as I appear to be, can it really be a danger?

Certainly, the Republicans don't appear to be prepared to capitalize on this; in light of that, the Republicans cannot have been being clever. So I can relax.

I hope.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

100% of New Republican Committee Chairs are White Men (The Grindstone, 2 days ago)
The Grindstone is an e-paper for working women, but men who can read can read it too.

21 House Committees - and Now One Chairwoman (NationalJournal)

With Candice Miller appointment, woman will lead House committee after all (Politico)

After criticism, GOP adds woman chair to House committee (First Read on NBCNews.com)

US House Committee on House Administration in Wikipedia
(and yes, they use "House" twice)

More stuff I don't need

I don't write this blog professionally; if I did, I'd do a better job of it.

I have a bad habit of starting articles and never finishing them. I may intend to finish some of them, and some of them I keep around so that I may one day scavenge them for useful material. Most of them are just taking up space.

Looking through my google account, I find that I have accumulated more than a few of these orphans of late. I posted an article called Mental Cleaning Day on 11-8-12 which followed me through the process of trash-or-save that I find it necessary to go through from time to time. Well, it's time again. (Also, I can't think of anything I really want to write about tonight but I've got nothing else to do.)

Some of this stuff is just research material left over from previous projects. This often includes web sites I wanted to cite in other articles; sometimes I've copied entire pages into Blogger to reference them in articles. Of the later, one such is a page simply titled with a web address. I actually wrote the intended piece (Look, there's this guy... , 11-11-12), a piece on Eric Dondero, a Libertarian Republican who advocated that Conservatives should sever all ties (personal, professional, and familial) with anyone who dared to vote Democratic. He also advocated generally being a douche to Liberals and the merchants who sell to them. (I wonder how he's doing with that campaign?) Because I intended to quote extensively from Dondero's own blog post, I copied that entire page into Blogger just to have it at hand. But I don't need it now. Shit-canned.

I have a habit of starting an article, making a few notes, saving a few web sites for reference, maybe even coming up with a catchy title...then forgetting about the article entirely. Back when Romney was making post-election dumb statements he said something about Obama winning through giving gifts to minorities and young voters. I started a blog post on that, calling it The World According to Mitt (well, barely started) that I never got back to. The entirety of that article is repeated here:

   al sharpton

   nytimes

   20 min conf call

   blamed loss on Obama wooing specific interest groups

   gifts? clueless

Just a few notes...and that's all I wrote, and I have no idea what I was getting at. I have no memory of this post, but I have the bare bones of the article itself to prove that I had been thinking something. Obviously, I had been watching Al Sharpton's show on MSNBC and had gotten a good idea for an article (at least, what I thought was a good idea) but I have no idea what I meant by "nytimes." This cryptic ghost of an article has now been shit-canned.

Once I copied a quote from a friend's Facebook page because I intended to quote him in n article (The Last ride of Twinkie the Kid? 11-16-12) I did quote my friend, with his permission, but I can find no reason to hang onto this quote. So I am hanging on to this quote. No reason...

Which brings us to an article that I wrote (well, about half an article) but decided to neither finish nor publish. I never even game up with a title for it, so Blogger just saved it under its first sentence: How do I respond to what appears to be a rumor that...? (Those three dots represent text that might tell you why I didn't bother to publish; words which I edited out because if I wanted anyone to read that information I'd have published the damn article.) This was one of those articles that I wrote to clarify something in my mind and having achieved that clarity I felt no need to publish it, and I feel no need to hang onto it. Shit-canned.

(So if this stuff was so private that I didn't want to talk about it, why the hell was I talking about it just now? That's a very good question...and you've had as much of an answer as you're going to get. I'm funny that way.) 

Sometimes, in creating these stray fragments of articles, I write something that I rather like and can't bring myself to merely delete. One such was a piece I was writing under the working title of health care; an article that, like many others, I abandoned and do not recall why I did so. It was obviously about health care; I included URLs for ten on-line articles I wanted to use as reference and even included a few with contrasting opinions, which I may or may not have directly referenced in the final article. But this fragmentary article consisted of one complete paragraph:

"I've heard it over and over again, for years now. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Chris Christie, in the days when he was Mitt Romney's most faithful surrogate (before Hurricane Sandy forced him to rediscover bipartisanship), when he said that the U.S. has '...the world's greatest health care system.' John Boehner said much the same thing when he said that Obamacare would '...ruin the best health care delivery system in the world.'"

Obviously, I was going to refute that allegation. I do not know why I didn't. But I like that paragraph. The incomplete article was worth hanging on to just to save that one paragraph. But now I have included that paragraph in this article, and the original can be deleted with a clear conscience. Shit-canned.

I have always found it difficult to finish what I start; more difficult even than actually starting something. These articles represent both a successful start and a failure to finish. Sadly, my life is full of such. An article like this one gives me a chance to come to some kind of closure over a few of the unresolved questions in my life.

It used up an otherwise dull evening, too.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Susan Rice, reconsidered. A bit.

Is Susan Rice caught in a political tug-of-war that doesn't actually have anything to do with her?

I've blogged about Susan Rice before. (Rice paper tiger, 11-14-12) That article was, I must admit, a bit skimpy on the reasons for and the basis of Republican opposition to her nomination. This article is to correct some of those inadequacies, and to talk about a new theory as to what the hell is going on. (Not my theory, but worth mentioning. I'll get to that.)

If you need to know, Susan rice is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. She is also the "frontrunner" to take over Hillary Clinton's post as Secretary of State (though no appointment has been made, yet). Susan Rice has also been at the center of a controversy over the terrorist attack at Benghazi a few weeks ago, the attack in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others were killed (two Americans and seven Libyans were injured).

Shortly after the attacks, Ambassador Rice made the rounds of Sunday-morning talk shows on behalf of the U.S. government to explain just what happened. She based this explanation if what U.S. intelligence sources told her...which later turned out to be incorrect.

Republicans in Congress seized on that report, accusing Rice of lying and perpetrating a cover-up when all she did (according to all available sources) was to make an non-official report to TV audiences based on the data she was given. Incorrect data, as it eventually turned out to be, but still it was the best data she was given.

The Republicans went on the attack, but that attack became weaker as more information became available. That didn't stop the attack. But then David Petraeus, then CIA Director (himself since disgraced due to an inability to keep his pants on), testified that the Benghazi attack was clearly a failure of intelligence, and that sensitive issues and references were removed from the intelligence briefings Rice received. She could hardly be blamed for reporting incorrectly when she had been given incorrect data to report on.

So Petraeus supported Susan Rice and the administration, and blamed intelligence. Now, you can believe that or not; you can agree with it or not. But I think it's important to note what a chagrined John McCain (Rice's mist vocal detractor) had to say about the Petraeus testimony:

"General Petraeus' briefing was comprehensive. I think it was important; it added to our ability to make judgments about what was clearly a failure of intelligence, and described his actions and that of his agency and their interactions with other agencies...I appreciate  his service and his candor."

McCain then made a hasty exit.

The GOP's attack position became weakened. As time wore on, their assault on Rice became progressively weaker, with a note of desperation sounding in their voices. You might expect them to back off from the attack, but no. Instead of backing off, they renewed their attacks.

Which doesn't make much sense, but that isn't the only thing that doesn't make much sense. For some reason, Republicans are falling all over themselves to proclaim John Kerry, a former Democratic candidate for the Presidency and a friend and ally of Barrack Obama, as Obama's best choice for Secretary of State. The Republicans are indicating that Kerry should sail through confirmation. (I smell a rat, but let's not hunt for it just yet. I'll get back to this.)

Back to Susan rice. With the stated basis of Republican attacks on her weakened, the GOP decided to dust of its TARDIS and find something in history to attack her on. What they found were U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, back in 1998. She was then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (head of the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs, created to deal directly with emerging African nations).

(If there was something wrong with the way she did her job then, why is it becoming an issue now? Better question: Why should what happened then, fourteen years ago, be held over her head now? The Republicans are big on getting their questions answered...well, these are mine. But I digress. I do that a lot.)

These Republican assaults on Susan Rice don't really make a lot of sense. At least they didn't, until various MSNBC hosts and commentators, most notably Rachel Maddow, put forth a new theory. This is a bit involved, so stay with me.

John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts and a former Presidential candidate. So was Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts law requires that when a senate seat becomes vacant mid-term, a special election must be held to determine who the new senator will be. When Kennedy died, a special election was held to fill his seat and the winner was Republican Scott Brown. But after finishing Kennedy's term Brown wasn't re-elected. That seat went back to a Democrat, Elizabeth Warren.

Now we come to the why of it all.

If Susan Rice isn't confirmed as Secretary of State, the next most likely nominee would be John Kerry. If Kerry accepts this nomination, and is confirmed, that would leave a senate seat in Massachusetts open. There would have to be a special election to fill it.

This is where Republican Scott Brown, now an ex-senator from Massachusetts, reenters the story.

Brown has already shown that he can win such an election in Massachusetts. The GOP thinks he could do it again. This would give the Republican Party one more seat in a closely divided Senate.

Well, that's Rachel Maddow's theory, anyway. But I have a problem with it, and that problem lies in what such maneuvering won't accomplish. Can't accomplish. It won't give the Republicans a majority in the Senate. It won't change the balance of power between the two parties all that much.

Still, a Senate seat is a Senate seat, and worth something even when it's in the minority. Enough to justify all the effort that the Republicans are making? I don't know, but I am going to be a bit hard to convince.

It's worth noting that Rachel Maddow herself doesn't seem to be entirely convinced. On her show Wednesday night, she indicated that something else must be happening, that there must be some hidden dimension to all of this that we're not seeing. "I don't think we've gotten to the bottom of it yet."

In my opinion, Susan Rice would make a fine Secretary of State, but she and John Kerry can't be the only choices for the job. Wouldn't it stick in the collective Republican craw if Obama replaced Hillary Clinton with Bill Clinton? Or Colin Powell? Both are qualified - in Bill Clinton's case over qualified - and there must be other possibilities that haven't occurred to me.

John McCain would be beside himself. And after all his hard work...

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Maddow: GOP attacking Rice so Kerry will leave Senate (The Raw Story)

Maddow theorizes real goal Behind Susan Rice Criticism: Vacating John Kerry's Senate Seat (Mediaite)

GOP Senators 'Significantly Troubled' After Susan Rice Meeting (ABC News)

Key Republicans raise new questions about Susan Rice nomination (NBC Politics)

US Embassy bombing in Kenya haunts Rice (Daily Nation, Kenya)

Susan Rice in Wikipedia

2012 Benghazi Attack in Wikipedia

Cliff Notes

UPDATE 7-23-2014: I wrote this more than a year and a half ago, and since then we have tumbled over the cliff and clawed our way back up, at least as far as Congress would let us. I obviously underestimated the extremes that the Republicans in Congress were willing to go to in order to keep Obama from actually accomplishing anything. In short, they were (and are) willing to let America go to financial hell if it keeps Obama from being able to claim an accomplishment. Frankly, I never thought that the Republican-dominated House would ever allow America to fail in order to keep Obama from succeeding. My bad.

Ironically, when I said, "Certainly, going 'off the cliff' would be worse for the Republicans than the Democrats" I was, I believe, right. As I see it, the Republicans weren't just willing to let us go over the cliff, they were actively pushing us over the precipice. And everyone saw them do it. And everyone knows they did it. Except, of course, the Republicans, who see letting America fall into a financial Grand Canyon as their greatest accomplishment. 

But that's all my opinion. What is fact is that may of us thought that the "fiscal cliff" wouldn't be all that bad, and we were wrong. I think we were all engaged in a little political fantasy that would, it was hoped, keep the Republicans from making a terrible mistake that America would have to pay for. In this, we would appear to have grossly over-estimated them. And any general will tell you that over-estimating your foe is an amateur's mistake. That so many of us made the same mistake makes me feel no better about being wrong.

I am sick of hearing about this "fiscal cliff" thing. I am so sick of hearing about it I want to find it and throw myself off it. But everyone seems so scared of going over the damn thing that they haven't asked themselves just what the hell a "fiscal cliff" is.

So if no one else is going to ask, I will: What is the fiscal cliff, and should I worry about what's at the bottom?

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

At Midnight on December 31 three things happen:

1. Certain "temporary" tax cuts expire. These include a 2% tax cut to workers and certain tax breaks for business, as well as the end of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush II administration in '01, '02 and '03.

2. Deep spending cuts go into effect. Most of these were part of a debt ceiling deal struck in 2011. Congress (both houses) could have avoided these cuts by agreeing to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They didn't.

3. Taxes related to Obama's health care law kick in. Most people, however, have no need to panic. Actually, no one has a need to panic except the very rich (who can afford to hire people to panic for them); according to the Christian Science Monitor, "...this increase will mainly hit high-income Americans..." who have "...historically paid much lower tax rates than many middle-income Americans."

It should also be noted that "the cliff" includes deep cuts to a great many non-social programs, including cuts to defense. All of this means that many programs, including any near and dear to Republican hearts, will suffer deep automatic cuts on Day One of 2013. It also means that such cuts will have their intended effect...they would significantly reduce the Federal budget.

"Give me a leverage and I shall move the world!"

In Washington these days, it's all about leverage. Ironically, both sides think that the looming "Fiscal cliff" gives them leverage. They both think that the threat of forcing the country "off the cliff" means that they can dictate that the other party resolve issues on their terms.

Many Democrats simply don't believe in the fiscal cliff. They're already calling it the "fiscal curb" or "fiscal mole hill." Republicans see it as an imposing precipice with all the fires of hell at the bottom. They're both right, from they're own points of view.

(Certainly, going "off the cliff" would be worse for the Republicans than the Democrats. There are signs that the public, most of it anyway, would be ready to blame them were we all to fall from "the cliff.")

The "fiscal cliff" came about for two primary reasons. First, because the tax cuts from the GWB era were set to expire now, when GWB was safely out of office. (Coincidence? I think not!) Second, because Obama, to get certain reforms through a bitterly divided Congress, allowed many of his new reforms to be deferred until his second term, and since the Republicans never actually believed he'd have a second term and anything he fathered could be aborted (who says Republicans don't believe in  abortion?).

So the Republicans, thinking that they'd never have to deal with the cliff, didn't deal with the cliff. And the Democrats, who never really believed in the cliff, have had less incentive to avoid it.

Taxing issues

If the question of the impending tax changes could be resolved, the rest should be easy. (It should be, but won't be.)

Obama's position is that we should cut taxes for all Americans right now; for the 2% or so who make over $250K annually, their first $250K would be taxed at the same rate as everyone else and any income over $250K would be taxed at a higher rate. In other words, everyone gets a tax cut now on all income up to $250K; if you make $250,001 you would pay a higher rate on $1 and that rate has yet to be determined (and don't imagine that debate would be over quickly).

The Republican position is that everyone should get the same tax cut right now, no higher rates for extremely high incomes. (Well, it's not quite that simple; the Republicans also want deep cuts, if not outright cancellation, of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Democrats are dead set against devastating social programs so...well, devastatingly.)

Conclusion

It comes down to this: the Republicans have more to lose from going over the cliff because they perceive it to be a cliff. The Democrats have less incentive to avoid the cliff because they don't think it will be so bad.

My own opinion: with regard to taxes (and that's what most people are worried about), don't worry about it. If you're making less than $250K you don't need to worry; the tax increases aren't that big and politics being what it is you'll probably get another tax cut before it comes due. If you're making more than $250K you don't need to worry, because YOU'RE MAKING MORE THAN $250K, NIMROD!

As for the larger issues, I suppose it depends on where you already stand. Personally, I see "going over the cliff" as difficult but not that dangerous. It's more a matter of politics than economics, anyway. The real difficulty is the across-the-board tax and spending cuts that will go into effect, and isn't that what Republicans are always howling for? (Except that the "automatic cuts" include deep cuts to military and defense spending...a notion that the GOP hates.)

I think that the "fiscal cliff" is more of a wall, a wall with an enormous "STOP!" sign painted on it, a wall that in spite of that sign Republicans have continually accelerated toward. If Humpty Dumpty were sitting on that wall, the Republicans would be milling around nervously at it's base with all the Crazy Glue they could carry.

Can I get an omelet?

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Fiscal Cliff definition (Investopedia)

What is the Fiscal Cliff? (About.com)

An Extremely Simple Explanation of the 'Fiscal Cliff' (US News and World Report)

There Are Worse Things Than going Over the Fiscal Cliff (US News and World Report Opinion)

Public ready to blame Republicans if fiscal cliff talks fail (Daily Kos)

Is the Obama health-care law a huge tax increase? (Christian Science Monitor)

Pat Robertson is a tool

I have never made a secret of the fact that I am an Atheist. But according to Pat Robertson, I am also a Nazi. Who new?

On Pat Robertson's television program last week (The 700 Club) he made a very interesting statement, especially interesting to an atheist such as myself:

"Atheists don't like our happiness, they don't want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They're miserable so they want you to be miserable."

Well, I'm not surprised to find out that I'm miserable (if you count depression as misery), but I certainly don't want anyone else to be miserable. Or depressed. It sucks. But back to Pat. He went on to say:

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It's the same thing. It is happening all over again."

OK, now I've got to call him on this. In what way am I like the Nazis? Have any Atheists launched an extermination campaign lately, against Christians or anyone else? Have our brown-shirted thugs run riot in Christian neighborhoods, dragging people from their homes and beating them senseless? Is there one Atheist-run concentration camp? Has any Atheist called for the mass murder of evangelicals, forced them into gas chambers, attempted to eradicate them from the face of the Earth? Is any of this happening? Is any of this likely to happen?

I have to admit that there are people out there who claim that we're up to precisely such shenanigans. Those people are just that...out there. They believe such nonsense without any evidence. Not even bad evidence. (If anyone has such evidence, don't keep it to yourself.)

(It's also possible that I don't know about such doings on the part of Atheists because I haven't been going to meetings. In which case, my bad.)

OK, back to Pat. Having just said some bizarre shit, he went on to blame Democrats, homosexuals, and the media equally:

"It's the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media, and the homosexuals whom want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

In all honesty, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to this, especially that "More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." How do you respond to nonsense like that? When faced with something so outrageous, so unsupportable, so obviously wrong, is it appropriate to respond at all?

I have a friend who, in response to something I once wrote about Rush Limbaugh, said "Yer just fanning the flames by addressing him. ;-)" (Yes, that ridiculous "winking" smiley was his.) As I read it, he felt that the only appropriate response was to ignore it; drawing attention to it only, as he put it, fanned the flames.

(You can read that article, and my friend's response, and my response to his response, here.)

In my opinion, he was wrong. Very wrong.

In the early 1930s the German government tended to view the Nazi party as little more than a bunch of thugs and malcontents, and ignored them. They were wrong; history had better teach us that if it teaches us nothing else. The Nazis, as I'm sure you don't need to be told, perpetrated some of the most extreme horrors in human history. No comic book super-villain was ever as destructive, as dangerous, as purely evil as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

Pat Robertson didn't say that I am that bad; he said that I am worse.

It would be easy to rant and rave in response. It would be easy to argue against this notion. It would be easy to summon all the verbosity at my command to demean, to ridicule, to belittle, to show Pat Robertson as the religious bigot he is. In fact, I just did...and deleted most of it. The truth is, I can do no more to show him in a demonic light than he himself has done with his statements. Go back and re-read them, and judge the man for yourself.

For my part, I'm just going to tell you a story.

One day this past summer, I was sitting in the Napoleon Cafe digesting my lunch, reading a book and sipping a diet cola. (I do this a lot.) A middle-aged woman came up to me, having seen me limp in on crutches, and asked me what had happened. I told her that I was in a car accident more than twenty years ago. Had I been on crutches all these years? No, but as my hips deteriorate my mobility becomes further compromised. It was a pleasant conversation about a less-than-pleasant topic, and after living with this handicap for so long it didn't bother me at all.

Then she asked me if I minded if she prayed for me, and asked me if I would pray with her.

Once upon a time, when I was more militant about my beliefs, I would have said no. I might even have been curt, if not actually nasty. I would have loudly and proudly proclaimed my Atheism, and my pride would have stood as a silent challenge to her Christianity.

I am not that person anymore; I am no less an Atheist (more of one, probably) but I am not as confrontational as I used to be. Besides, this woman wanted to do something nice for me, and in her world this was as nice as it could possibly get.

I said of course she could, and of course I would pray with her.

So I sat there in the Napoleon Cafe holding the hand of a woman I didn't know, head bowed and respectfully silent, as she prayed for my health and well being.

We said our thanks and good-byes, she left and I went back to my book. I imagine we both felt better for having had that moment; I know I did.

Pat Robeertson said, and he was referring to me, "Atheists don't like our happiness, they don't want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They're miserable so they want you to be miserable."

I suggest no lesson from this story. You will, I hope, judge me as you know me. If you don't know me, judge me by what I write. I would take great offense if you judged me as Pat Robertson sees me, though he does not (and will never) know me as anything other than a godless Atheist worthy only of his contempt.

I'm going to say one last thing before I close this. My mother grew up in greater London. She was ten years old at the start of WWII and grew up with large amounts of German ordinance exploding all around her. It's a good thing for Pat Robertson that she did not live to hear her oldest son compared to the Nazis; she would have torn out the bastard's heart and fed it to him.

Good on you, Mum.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Pat Robertson: 'Miserable' Atheists Trying to 'Steal' Christmas (The Huffington Post)

Pat Robertson claims 'miserable' atheists are stealing Christmas (Examiner.com)

Pat Robertson on Atheism at About.com

Egypt, Gaza, Israel...peace?

It was a typical day in Israel and the Gaza Strip. 

Typical for the last two weeks, anyway. Hamas launched rockets at Israel, Israel launched rockets at Hamas, and there was a terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv, all of which added to the body count that has mounted rapidly since last week's escalation of violence (nearly 150, as of tonight).

Then a cease-fire brokered by Egypt went into effect (at 19:00 or 7:00 PM, GMT) So far, it's holding.

This is significant for a couple of reasons.

First, because anything that keeps people from dying has to be significant. I'm not going to say that it's certain to be a lasting peace; if I were to judge by history alone, I'd say the odds are against it. But it's a reason to hope. Any cease-fire will save lives, even if it's just a few over a couple of days, and I feel that that is significant.

Second, because Egypt came down on the side of peace.

Since the "Arab Spring" revolt against its totalitarian government, Egypt has been considered a wild card in Middle Eastern politics. Their new President, Mohamed Morsi, came from the Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that though officially banned has come to dominate Egyptian government. No one was really sure in which direction Morsi would lead Egypt. No one really knew how he's react to Israel. (His recall of Egypt's ambassador to Israel over the Gaza air and missile strikes certainly didn't put anyone at ease.)

But now there's hope for peace. Maybe it's no more than a faint hope, maybe it won't last, maybe it's too fragile to survive in such a harsh environment. But as long as there is a hope for peace, there's a hope for peace. And it appears to be mostly Mohamed Morsi's doing.

Egypt was one of Israel's first, worst enemies, a situation that existed until 1979 when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin got together and decided that it might be a good idea to stop shooting at each other all the time. They visited each others' countries. They vacationed together at Camp David. They hung out with their friend Jimmy Carter.

And they sighed a peace treaty. A peace treaty that has survived either man. A peace treaty that Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, kept for decades.

And it has been uncertainty over the fate of that treaty that has been keeping Middle East politics lively. Without Mubarak's staunch support for the treaty, with Mubarak's old foes in the Muslim Brotherhood running the show in Egypt, the world has been anxiously waiting to see which way Egypt would jump.

In a lot of ways, it's still waiting. Egypt could still turn away from the treaty, the Muslim Brotherhood could call for its repudiation, Egypt and Israel could start shooting over Gaza any day now. In spite of these very real fears, today Egypt sided with peace. The world, while still wary, is breathing just a bit easier.

There is reason to hope.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Cease-fire declared in Gaza conflict (CNN)

Israel-Hamas ceasefire comes into effect in Gaza (BBC)

Israel and Hamas agree to Gaza cease-fire (Associated Press through Yahoo! News)

Egypt's President Morsi Wins U.S. and Israeli Gratitude in Gaza Deal (ABC News)

Islamic Fundamentalism Gains in Egypt (New York Times)

Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in Wikipedia 

A quick note on the continuing saga of Twinkie the Kid

...and are you as tired as I am of every damned writer on the web making a "Twinkie the Kid" joke?

It's been a bad few days for sponge-cake tubes filled with sugar and whipped lard.

It started last week when it looked like Hostess was going under, due to their bakers' union strike. Then just yesterday there was light at the end of the tunnel. First, several possible buyers for the beloved product came forward. Then a judge ordered both sides into arbitration. It looked like there was a bit of light at the end of that sponge-cake tunnel.

But today the arbitration failed. Now the company's owners (or rather, their lawyers; Im doubt that Wall Street firms can be bothered to actually show up in court since they're so busy voting themselves huge bonuses for mismanaging Hostess) will go into court on Wednesday and ask the judge for permission to shut down Hostess for good.

But it's still not over. While most potential purchasers don't want the baggage that goes along with Hostess, baggage like labor agreements and production facilities, one private equity firm wants to buy Hostess as a going concern, reopen closed plants and continue workers' contracts.

I think its time to retire Twinkie the Kid; I think we're all tired of all those "last roundup" jokes after the last few days. I think a better future mascot for Twinkies should be a zombie t5hat continually rises from its grave in search of whipped lard.

I posted this short piece as a new article rather than as yet another update to my previous post on the subject. If I hadn't, there would soon be more update than original article. I kept it short since I expect to need to update it a few times. Stay tuned.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Hostess Shutdown on Hold (CNN Money, Monday Nov. 19)

Twinkie talks fail as Hostess and baker's union are unable to reach agreement (NY Daily News)

U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers (Chicago Tribune)

The Great Shark Dinner

The Right is engaged in a feeding frenzy, hungrily circling their former candidate to scavenge from Mitt Romney's political carcass.

In an ongoing effort to find a reason for their decisive loss in the recent elections, Republicans and Conservatives are looking everywhere but at themselves. And focusing on Mitt Romney.

They blame Romney for his poor political judgement, his bonehead comments (The famous "47%" line comes to mind), his repeated flipping on issues (often flipping, flipping back and flipping again), but they don;'t seem to remember that they themselves were willing to go right along with them, even to campaign from his "new" positions, express the same sentiments.

In short, they're blaming Romney for their own inconsistency, as if it's all Romney's fault that they were forced to compromise themselves.

No one forced them. If they were unable to be true to their own convictions, it's because they were inconsistent; because they were willing to abandon their principles in order to defeat the dreaded monster called Obama. And they can't stand the thought that it was their willingness to abandon what they stood for that led to their defeat.

And to an extent it was; it's hard to have your disciples preach two (or more) completely different philosophies on two different days, then change back overnight. (People tend to see you as untrustworthy.) But there were other reasons for Romney's defeat, too many to go into here. So many that the Republican party has given up on trying to understand them; they've mostly chosen to focus on one simple explanation and ignore all others. To them, it's all Romney's fault.

Well, it would be nice to believe in the simpler explanation for Romney's failure, but politics abhors simple explanations. And if portraying all Republicans as refusing to deal with reality smacks of an overly-simple explanation...well, it is. The truth is that there are many Republicans who are looking closely at the causes of Romney's defeat, and not at all liking what they see. Looking at all the causes, that is, which is what they're going to have to do if they want to start winning elections again. I am actually hopeful that this Republican introspection will result in a genuine dialog on the issues that divide our nation. 

Probably not, though; those simple explanations are just too temptingly simple.

I won't say they're throwing Romney under the bus. (On MSNBC this afternoon, one commentator called it "throwing him under the clown car.") I think it's more like Mitt being pitch-forked into the Great Republican Manure Pile.

In other words...he's truly forked.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

What We Learned: Under the Bus (NationalJournal Magazine)

GOP Throws Romney Under the Bus (Real Clear Politics)

(This seems to have been originally a NY Times op-ed column titled: Anybody Notice a Pattern?

Did Chris Christie Just Throw Romney Under the Bus? (The Raw Story)

Five 2016 Contenders Who Are Throwing Romney Under the Bus (The National Memo)

Mitt Romney Is Now Officially the Most Hated Man in America (Mother Jones)

Catch XXII

Democracy has its flaws, one of which being the notion that it's perfectly all right for the majority to impose its will on the minority. But flaws and all, it's still a better system than the opposite...a system in which the minority imposes it's will on the majority.

That's what we've had in the Senate for years; a system where the minority can impose its will on the majority. And it's time for that to end.

The history of filibuster goes back at least to ancient Rome, where Roman senator Cato the Younger (95 BC to 46 BC), faced with legislation that he disagreed with, would obstruct said legislation by holding the floor of the Roman senate and speaking continuously until nightfall. It has been practiced, in one form or another, in most democracies right through today.

The U.S. Senate has its own variation. There, a senator or senators can speak for as long as they want on any topic, thus preventing the Senate from performing any business (and, of course, blocking whatever legislation they're opposed to) unless three fifths of the Senate (60 votes) votes to shut them up. You don't need to be a math wizard to figure out that, with a 55% Democratic majority in the Senate, any bill opposed by all (or nearly all) Republican senators ain't goin' nowhere. (In practice, they don't actually have to keep talking; the threat to do so is sufficient.)

Theoretically, any successful effort to block a filibuster would require a bipartisan effort; practically, in this bitterly divided Senate getting 60% to agree to halt the nonsense is not going to happen. And any effort to alter or eliminate the rules allowing filibuster would be subject to filibuster. (And you wonder why nothing ever gets done in Washington.)

But hang on...there's a way around this.

Specifically, changing the filibuster rules requires getting around Senate Rule XXII, which currently requires a two-thirds vote on any rule change. But there is a way around Rule XXII: what's called the "Constitutional Option" in which the Senate can, on the first day of a session, alter its rules by a simple majority vote. That's 51 votes out of 100. The Democrats can probably manage that.

(It's called the "Constitutional Option" because the Constitution requires that the will of the majority be effective on specific Senate duties and procedures. Just how "constitutional" it would be to skirt the 60% rule is somewhat debatable, and no one really wants that debate. It's also been called the "Nuclear Option" ever since the Republicans threatened to use it against Democrats filibustering against ten of GWB's judicial nominations back in 2005.)

No one wants to use this option, but the threat of it is always there. Obviously, no one wants to mess around with the Constitution without a damn good reason. This year, it appears that the Democrats feel that continual Republican obstructionism constitutes a damn good reason.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to change Senate rules on day one (well, that's the only day he could do it). Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, writing in The Huffington Post, has argued strongly in favor of filibuster reform. Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley are actively trying to line up the necessary 51 votes.

They don't have them yet. Not every Democrat wants the rule change, in part because some don't want to do this with Constitutional trickery and in part because filibuster is a powerful weapon in a Senator's arsenal and some of them just don't want to give that up.

It looks like the rule change just might happen. And it might not.

(I should point out that the proposed rule change will not end filibuster; filibustering senators will still be able to hold the floor and keep talking. And talking. And talking. With the whole nation watching.)

My own feeling is that filibuster should have no place in the Senate. Yes, I realize that I might feel differently if my party were in the minority, but that's not the point; it's wrong, no matter which party is in power. If the Nuclear Option is the only way to get rid of this abomination, I say duck and cover.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

Wikipedia on the Constitutional (Nuclear) Option

Filibuster reform: avoid the 'nuclear option' (Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah)

Elizabeth Warren argues strongly for filibuster reform (Daily Kos)

Democratic Solution to the Filibuster:  Make Them Talk (The Huffington Post)

UPDATED The Last Ride of Twinkie the Kid?

This bitter labor dispute may cost the entire Hostess workforce their jobs...and the workers are willing to take that risk.

UPDATED YET AGAIN 11/16/12 4:30 PM: I last updated this article after a sleepless night, and I was a bit, well, cranky. If the Update has a nasty tone, and that last line certainly does ("So next time..." and so on), I apologize. 

UPDATE 11/16/12 9:17 AM: When I wrote this article, there was still hope that the company could be saved. No such luck; this morning it appears to be all over. Management is saying that they're going to cut and run, selling off Hostess' assets. Which means that Twinkie the Kid may ride again, since Twinkies and their name/logo are one of the company's most valuable assets. So next time you bite into a Twinkie made by Sara Lee or Little Debbie or whoever, spare a thought for the unemployed whose young you're eating. Isn't that a pleasant thought to start the day?

A report on the closing: "Hostess Brands Says It Will Liquidate" (Dealb%k)

Hostess' press release: "Hostess Brands to Wind Down Company..." PR Newswire, United Business Media)

In case you haven't heard, a bitter struggle between labor and management may result in the death of Hostess, makers of Twinkies, Dong Dongs and Wonder Bread. While I don't much care for the confections (I can't really eat most of them) I do care about the labor, about the potential job loss, about the loss of income for thousands of Hostess workers across the country.

A friend of mine posted this to Facebook:

"I have never been a fan of unions. I grew up in a union house and saw how my father's union nearly cost him his life. Now, it seems that union overreaching may kill Twinkies and Wonder Bread. Where are the howls and screams about the taking down of America by unions?"

He also posted a link to this article on MSN: "Hostess may close down for good if workers do not return by Thursday"

What then followed was a bit of a discussion between us regarding these issues. My final point was this:

"I think the company and the union are being a bit bone-headed...but I am not going to morn the loss of Twinkies or Dong Dongs. I can't eat 'em, anyway."

I've done a bit of research since then. I've read a lot about this on-line and made notes on half a dozen articles, including several "sources" that I would never use or quote, both right and left. And I've changed my position.

If the company fails, it'll be nearly all management's fault.

Hostess is already in bankruptcy, and is now controlled by Wall Street interests that seem to be intent on wringing every last cent from this company before tossing it away. If I thought that any of these Wall Street companies had the slightest interest in truly saving Hostess, I might say (as I previously said) that Hostess and its labor force should work together more closely to find a way to keep Twinkie the Kid in the saddle. But it doesn't appear that management has any real interest in saving the company; rather, I think they'd rather run it into the ground, take a short-term profit and exit stage right.

Recently, the company's workers have rejected the company's "last, best and final" contract offer...with a 92% vote. That's important, so I'm going to say it again: 92% of Hostess workers voted to reject the company's "last, best and final" offer.

You can't blame this level of worker dissatisfaction on the union; just the same, I'm going to quote the Union president (Frank Miller of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers):

"Our members have seen this company squander more than $50 million that it was contracturally obligated to put towards our members' pension...have seen this company attempt to give millions of dollars in unseemly and unjustified bonuses to mamagers and supervisors in the midst of this bankruptcy...(have) reviewed the analysis of this company's busness plan provided by a highly-respected financial anylist which showed that the plan has little or no chance of succeeding in saving the business but would provide investors with a windfall..."

His statement concluded: 

"Our members know that this is a company controlled by Wall Street private equity and hedge fund firms, whose sole objective is to maximize their own returns, not rebuild the company for the long haul."

The company has already been through bankruptcy. During that round of reorganization, the company was surrendered to Wall Street, which has acted to squeeze a return on their investment without providing for the future of the company. Or the workers. The workers have looked at the company's actions, at it's offer, at it's attitude and resoundingly rejected them all. It would be silly to assert that they don't know what's at stake. I'm sure they know exactly what's at stake, what they're risking, and I'm sure they're very aware that the loss of they're jobs is not only possible but likely. And they still rejected the company's offer.

I don't see that you can blame the union for labor dissatisfaction at Hostess, and I don't see that you can use this as an example of how organized labor is dragging America down.

I hope that management threats against union jobs turn out to be just so much posturing, but right now things don't look good. I hope that management and labor will work together to keep Hostess Twinkies and Ding Dongs and Ho-Hos on store shelves. 

But I still can't eat 'em.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

18,000 Hostess workers facing termination (KSDK.com, St. Louis)

Hostess workers in St. Louis laid off after supporting nation-wide strikes (KMOV.com, St. Louis)

Hostess Workers Continue Strike Despite Threats of Closure (NewsOn6.com, Oklahoma)

Hostess workers will lose, any way you slice it (Portland Press Herald, Portland Maine)

Rice paper tiger

Are the Republicans so desperate for a victory that they'd attack Susan Rice just because they smell blood? Do they really think this is an opportunity for an easy victory? Do they hope to force Obama to defend a woman that they can then force under the bus?

Susan Rice is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and is a likely nominee for Hilary Clinton's job as Secretary of State. She's also someone that the Right hates.

A quick tour of Conservative sites on the web turned up a lot of blog posts and articles about Rice. She was frequently called a "liar" and a "disgrace" (I say "frequently" even though many of them are merely reposting form each other). One article asked the question, "Susan Rice: Liar or Nincompoop?"

Mostly because of the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Republicans are threatening to do whatever it takes to stop any nomination of Rice. John McCain, for example, is threatening a filibuster. Senator McCain and others have said that Rice is unqualified for the post, as she is not prepared to discuss the attack. It is a fact that she gave a report based on faulty information she received through intelligence. The Right blames her for this; they say she should have known better.

Here's my problem with that. For years the GWB administration used "...but he was given bad intelligence!" as their excuse for many things -- 9/11 and those phantom WMDs in Iraq, for example -- and now the Right is claiming that bad intelligence is no excuse. They're saying that someone in her position should have known better, and maybe that's a point...but if it is, then you have to conclude that GWB should have known better for both 9/11 and Iraq.

Frankly, I'm not willing to concede either point, and I don't place massive blame at either her or Bush's feet because the intelligence let them down. And I'm not exactly a fan of GWB.

And then Obama addressed this issue, in his first press conference since the election. (That was today, Wednesday Nov. 14, 2012) What Obama had to say on the subject was telling. He praised Rice for her "toughness and grace," and he said this:

"If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But to go after the U.N. ambassador? Who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? To besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

That must have surprised the Republicans; they expected him to avoid discussion on this, not to invite it. I don't think they were expecting him to "put up his dukes" on this issue. I think they were expecting him to try to deflect attention away from Susan Rice and Benghazi, perhaps to sidestep the whole issue; at least they expected him to be defensive about it. But you know the old saying: "The best defense is a good offense." Obama went on the attack; I don't think they expected him to challenge them so strongly or openly.

By telling the Republicans to "put up or shut up" Obama is forcing his opposition to come up with hard facts to support their claims. Frankly, they haven't got a prayer. The facts simpkly dont support them. At least, I couldn't find any, and I looked. (If you know of any, please use the "comments" link at the end of this article.) The election should have told them that reading right-wing blogs that mostly repost each other to shore up their opinions is no way to try to tell what's actually going on. Should have, but didn't; the Right is still gleefully feeding off itself in an effort to keep seeing the world not as it is but as they wish it to be.

The Right is looking for an easy victory, and it's a time when they need one. They may actually get a victory here, but it won't be easy.

Be all that as it may, the Right continues to attempt to place Rice at the center of a huge conspiracy to hide/disguise the facts. I can find no evidence to support this, either. (Again, if you have better information please post it.) The Right is threatening to pull out all the stops to prevent Susan Rice from becoming Secretary of State. That they may actually do so based on the thinnest of evidence (no damn evidence at all that I could find) is something they should be ashamed of. Something we all should be ashamed of.

The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.


Obama: Attacks on Susan Rice "Outrageous"' (CBS News)

President Obama defends Susan Rice against criticism from John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte (Washingtom Post)

John McCain Pledges to Stop Susan Rice at All Costs (Yahoo)

Wikipedia on Susan Rice

Sometimes I amaze myself...

Sometimes I stand in awe of my powers of foresight. Most of the time, though, I'm just full of crap.

When "pundits"(defined as "a source of opinion; a critic" in the Free Dictionary...and I have to admit that I am one, albeit a small fry) get things wrong, they don't always admit it. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is famous for saying something then later (sometimes just a few days later) denying that he ever said that. When I was growing up, we used to call that lying.

Another approach is to double-down on your error, perhaps by claiming that you were actually right, that in a right-thinking world you would have been proven right, so it's everyone else's fault that you weren't right. Right?

Yet another approach is to totally ingore your error and hope no one notices. Or cares. Glenn Beck appears to be doing this; just before this past election he said, "I believe Mr. Romney prays on his knees every day...I believe that he's being guided...(a Romney victory would be) a sign from God." It would seem that God let him down...but Glenn isn't talking. At least I can find no evidence of him addressing this issue post-election. And I looked. Hard.

(Though I would have the election results on my side, I am not going to claim that God is a Democrat...but God certainly is no Republican.)

Me? Well, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. No point in denying it. (All of my blog posts are archived, so what would be the point?) Maybe if I get as popular as Limbaugh and Beck, I can cast a Change Reality spell on the public and ignore my gaffs too (at what level do you get that spell?). But I'm not, so I really have no choice but to own my errors.

1. Sarah Palin, reconsidered: "McCain Chooses Palin (Who?)" 8-29-08

My first big error was back in 2004, when candidate John McCain chose Sarah Palin for his running mate. I said: "...I hadn’t even heard of Sarah Palin when I got up this morning, and have never formed much of an opinion on Alaskan internal politics. So I’m going to give myself, and the country, time to get into the matter before I jump in." Well enough, but I also said: "...it’s a good choice...McCain didn’t cave in to the conservative wing of his party... It’s good to have a woman involved in the race..."

It was good to have a woman in the race, but not that woman. Overall, opps.

My real mistake here was not learning more about Palin before I wrote that article. I didn't know, but could have learned, just how Conservative she was. If I had known more about her past, I would have known just how flaky she was (I take no comfort in the fact that McCain made the same oversight). McCain was pandering to the Conservative wing of his party, and having a woman in the race (from a Republican standpoint, and referring to this particular woman) didn't prove to be such a good thing. Sarah Palin proved to be one more link in the anchor chain that dragged McCain to the bottom.

Ain't hindsight wonderful?

2. Unconventional rethinking: "Conventional Wisdom part III" 9-2-08

Sometimes I make the mistake of ignoring what I write. That was the case with an article dealing with the upcoming Republican convention in 2004. I asked the question (I paraphrase), "Can I report on this fairly, and should I bother to try?" The answer I came up with was "don't worry about it" (paraphrasing again), but I made several observations about the nature of politics: "...we all know that the candidates seldom turn out to be the people they appear to be during the election. I know that campaign promises will be forgotten soon after the election, that a candidate who stands staunchly for or against an issue may stand somewhere else entirely when the confetti is all swept up, that the realities of doing the job may change a candidate’s mind in important, and often disappointing, ways. I’ve seen it happen often enough."

I might be a bit less disappointed today if I had kept that in mind.

My mistake here was in daring to hope that the political mistakes of the past were just that...a thing of the past. Today, I make no attempt to deny that, in many ways, Obama has been a dissapointment. Promises made have not been kept, goals set have not been reached, ideals put forth so boldly have been compromised. But that's just politics-as-usual; I should have seen it coming. I did see it coming, but I chose to ignore it.

3. Never drink and blog: "Faith of the Faithless" 9-6-08

And this all brings me to my biggest mistake...the article I published while I was drunk.

I didn't write the article while I was drunk, but if I hadn't gotten loaded later I never would have published it (sometimes I just need to write about something to work it out in my mind, but for various reasons choose not to publish). It was an article about Atheism, about the public's lack of acceptance for Atheists, and to this day I stand resolutely behind every word of that article.

Almost every word. I also said this: "But Atheists have no advocates; no support networks, no churches, no community centers (well, there is Madalyn Murray O’Hare’s organization but even Atheists seldom listen to them)." And I also said: "This isn’t a call for Atheists United; such an organization would be against our natures..."

Unkind. Untrue. Certainly the kind of thing I would never have published sober. And not the kind of thing I should even have written...but I did.

Someone from an organization called Atheists United (and wasn't I surprised that there was one!) called me on it: "Hello I work for an organization called...Atheists United. Check us out. I think you might find that such an organization does exactly what you describe and it’s not 'against our nature.'" 

I made an immediate and full apology, including an apology to the late Madalyn Murray O'Hare's organization for the unkind things I had written about her/them. Believe me, I would never have published that article had I been sober; this does not excuse me for writing it in the first place.

(Let me point out again that I believed, and still believe, the rest of that article and I defend those sentiments to this day. If I am ashamed to have written part of the article, and I am, it does not diminish my feelings with regard to its remainder.)

Conclusion

This is getting overly long, and I'm only up to September '08. So I'm going to have to revisit this topic in the future. Unfortunately, there's never likely to be a lack of material for such an article. Occasionally I say things that I later regret; we all do, but it does no good to deny our missteps. I made them, and I regret them, but I did say them and made them a part of my body of work, even if they're a blemish on that body.

(By the way: I pulled that title and first line from an article I publish recently, Mental Cleaning Day, in which I documented my process of getting rid of old fragments of articles that were hanging around in my Google account. I wrote the title and opening, then entirely forgot what I was going to write about. But it was too good a title/opening to leave alone, so when I decided to do an article on some of the mistakes in my past articles, it seemed like a good excuse to resurrect it.)

The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

"It ain't over 'til it's over..."

...and even then, it ain't over.

Maybe you thought the election ended a week ago. Maybe you thought that everything was settled. Maybe you thought that people like me would finally shut up. No such luck.

In Florida, for instance, the vote tally in the Presidential race wasn't known until this last weekend. (Obama won, by the way.) Florida has had its problems, as you may have heard.

What with extremely long lines in 2004, the Republican legislature, led by a Republican governor, removed early voting opportunities across the state, a policy that had greater influence in African-American communities, which appears to be what was intended. (Remember that Florida Governor Rick Scott tried to get more than 180,000 eligible voters thrown off the rolls (more than 1600 in Miami-Dade County alone) as "ineligible"...that's typical of the shenanigans that Scott and his people were up to this year.)

And "tea party" darling Allen West is refusing to concede defeat to Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, despite the fact that 100% of the vote is in and the race has been called for Murphy. (With less that a 1% margin, I can't say I blame him.)

As it happens, Florida was the last state to certify the Presidential election results.

But besides the mess in Florida there's the mess in Arizona. ("Papers please" Arizona. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Arizona.) As of this weekend, about 30% of Arizona's 1.8 million votes were uncounted; more than enough to swing several key races.

The US Senate race between Jeff Flake (R) and Richard Carmona (D) is still undecided, even though it's been called for Flake. But the margin, as of 4:00 this afternoon, is less than 80,000 votes...with half a million votes uncounted.

At least 350,000 of those uncounted votes are in Maricopa County (Phoenix et al) where controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in a close race for re-election. Too close to claim victory...but that hasn't kept Arpaio from claiming victory. His opposition isn't conceding.

(Interesting character, Arpaio...an article in Rolling Stone called him "...America's meanest and most corrupt politician.")

I said it's a mess, and it is...but it's not any kind of Earth-shattering crisis. The outcome of Arizona's Senate race, for example, isn't going to change the fact that the Democrats have held on to the Senate, or the fact that the Democrats haven't received that magic "supermajority" they need so badly. The Joe Arpaio question is a local one; whatever you think about the man, and however silly his continual questioning of Obama's birth certificate makes him look, on the national stage he doesn't even carry a spear.

This mess is important because both of these states are at the center of massive voter suppression efforts. I've mentioned some of Florida's woes (read more here) but those in Arizona are as bad if not worse. An article in The Huffington Post today stated, "The national media should feature this situation as a classic case study of the voter suppression network in high gear."

Jeff Flake's campaign used "robocalls" to direct Democrats to vote in the wrong precints, where according to Arizona law their votes wouldn't count.

In Maricopa County, voting instructions were sent out in Spanish giving the wrong date for the election.

The Huffington Post article cited "...an unmistakable pattern of Latino voter suppression."

What's really sad about all this is that in Arizona it may all actually work. Arpaio's race, while far from decided, will probably go his way. Carmona, Arizona's first Latino U.S. Senator, may well lose his job.

(Yes, I said it...they're about to send a Flake to Washington.)

In a perfect world, such tricks wouldn't work. In a perfect world, everyone who wanted to vote would be allowed to vote. This ain't a perfect world. But it's getting better, even in Arizona. The new-found strength of the Latino voting block, for example, must force Arizona's government to pay more attention to Latino concerns. And those horrible long lines to vote in Florida have resulted in calls to reform the election process, not just in Florida but throughout the country.

But even voter suppression works in Arizona, this year anyway, it didn't work well in Florida and it didn't work well in the rest of the nation. I think, I hope, that we're finally beyond the days when an  election could be turned by preventing people from participating in their government.

Well, maybe not in Arizona...

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

If at first you don't secede...

Well, it's not as silly as that guy that wants you to "unfriend" all Democrats, but it runs a close second.

A Facebook post brought this "story" to my attention:

"15 States including Texas have filed a petition to secede from the United States" (Examiner.com)

I ran a quick Google search for the text of that title, and found that I had more than a million search results. Looking at the first few pages of the Google search showed that the vast majority of these sites were simply copy-and-paste reposts of that same article. (I have no idea where it originated, but the Examiner.com article appears as the source for most of them.) One or two had a different slant on the same material, such as the one that began "If at first you don't succeed, just secede!"

I am heartened by a post at a Prince fan site that prefaced the article with "LOL!" I also found repostings or links at a gay site, an Arabic site and a patriot "militia" site; what a strange place the Internet is.

But most of them were just reposting each other, or citing the Examiner.com article. And there's certainly enough reposts out there for every every red-blooded American God-fearing Liberal-bashing patriot militiaist (my tongue is so firmly in my cheek it hurts) with a computer to have read it. But I don't think that many Democrats or Progressives or Liberals (they're not all the same, you know) have had a look.

And actually, I don't think it deserves as much attention as it's getting, even if most of that attention consists of right-wing sites blogging at each other (they're supposed to be ignoring the rest of us, remember?). I think this "movement" is intended as more of a protest than as a serious attempt to withdraw from the Union.

(Or maybe not. A 2008 Zogby poll claimed that 22% of all Americans believed that any state has the right to secede. But then, Nate Silver has called Zogby "the worst pollster in the world." The only praise for Zogby that I found came from Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal. Judge for yourself.)

How legal is it for states to secede, anyway? You'd think that the Civil War would have settled the issue, but it didn't. Many people believe that the states that made up the Confederacy had every right to secede. But that tends to be an emotional argument, even though proponents often cite something in the Declaration of Independence as justification of their position ("...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it...").

The problem is that I don't think that the Declaration of Independence has any standing in US courts, being written long before the Constitution (thirteen years before, in fact) when the Colonies were still part of Great Britain. And the Constitution itself lacks any provision for secession. Saying that such a provision is implied by the Declaration of Independence just doesn't work.

(People think that Texas is a special case, having been an independent republic before joining the Union, but in 1869 the Supreme Court said otherwise.)

But even if you believe that states do have the right to secede, then it's the state's right. None of this current crop of secession petitions come from the states themselves; rather, they come from individuals or groups within the states. The right of these persons/groups to take this action unilaterally is at best dubious and at worst ridiculous.

Which leaves us with this "secession" movement being just another form of protest. Little more than a paper tiger. And a soggy one at that.

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.