Samsara Samizdat

Hemingway in Libya

2011-03-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

“Oh Jake,” Brett said, “we could have had such a damned good time together.”

Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The car slowed suddenly pressing Brett against me.

“Yes,” I said, “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

--Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

Have you ever heard of Ms. Abbe Lane? Me neither. But as dull as this note is, I need someone extra hot to preserve what little readership my notes have.

On March 28 2011, President Obama addressed the nation, explaining what all we were doing in Libya, and why. For big nerds, you can click on this link for a transcript of the President’s address. The President gave a very good speech, describing the forty years of Gaddafi’s reign, and how--all in all--Colonel Gaddafi is no Thomas Jefferson. “When our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act,” is how President Obama put it.

To the extent we have a dog in the fight that is Libya, President Obama did a good job of presenting his case: “Gaddafi declared that he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people…if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte [700,000 people]—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region, and stained the conscience of the world.” Additionally, such a massacre would have driven “thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful—yet fragile—transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” With the support of a United Nations Mandate, and working with NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), western Europe, a few Islamist nations (Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates), and some vagaries from the Arab League, the US is 1) NOT engaged in unilateral action, and 2) effectively blocking Gaddafi’s counter attacks on the rebels.

While I don't recall living with such a brunette, I do have lots of furniture like this. That counts.

Still, President Obama knew that not everyone would be happy with his actions. He addressed criticisms from two separate groups: 1) me, personal—which was quite nice, actually; and 2) morons, who apparently in a fit of nostalgia, want Libya bombed back to the stone age.

My Big Fat Greek Gripe

I fall into the group of people who oppose any outside military action in Libya. So far, after an extensive survey, I seem to be the only person on the planet (besides Colonel Gaddafi) who feels that way. President Obama chides me for asserting that I am creating a “false choice” for intervention, “even in limited ways.” Spoil sports like me are quick to point out—in the President’s words—that “there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government,” and the US cannot bomb every one of those nations.

The problem with me, according to President Obama, is that simply pointing out how life is still nasty, brutish, and short for most of the planet “cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.” This newly formed Coalition had a “unique ability to stop that violence,” and therefore grabbed at that chance.

Ms. Lane, having redecorated the apartment.

So—what is my problem? Well, even I have to admit this is a far cry from President Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Here, President Obama has authority from the UN Security Council, a real “coalition,” limited goals, and minimal lying. In March 2003, President Bush violated the UN Charter; sent a “coalition” of 1) US troops, 2) US “contractors”, and 3) some British soldiers; had no clue about the region or the operation; and couldn’t open the Presidential mouth without lying. So that is progress, I suppose.

Here’s what is not progress: we are bombing largely civilian populations in a “nation” where no one can be certain what is happening. That’s bad.

In sum, here’s my beef. First, before we talk about a “massacre that would reverberate across the region,” how about looking at a few regional massacres that not only failed to reverberate, but left no stain anywhere—let alone on the world’s conscience. Second, America has once again wheeled out our goldfish-like memory (ie it lasts for all of three seconds), showing willful ignorance as to what “Libya” is, and how the Middle East got to be the way it is. Finally—and most importantly—despite professed good intentions every time, the track record of America’s military interventions are abysmal.

Forget Ozzy--Hama Rules!

In Longitudes and Attitudes, Thomas Friedman’s 2002 published collection of his New York Times columns post September 11, one of the first essays is “Hama Rules.” Hama was (past tense intentional) the fourth largest city in Hafez al-Assad’s Syria. In February 1982, Islamists extremists were trying to topple Assad’s dictatorship. Believing the roots of this incipient rebellion to be in Hama (rightly, but even if he was wrong, that was beside the point), Assad pounded the entire city with artillery for days. Once the city was flattened (metaphorically), Assad flattened what was left (literally) with bulldozers. Amnesty International estimated that between 10,000 and 25,000 Syrians were killed.

Friedman describes how he visited the former city, and how far from hiding this atrocity, Assad WANTED Syrians to visit the site. Assad had a message he wanted to deliver, about the consequences of organized opposition. “This was ‘Hama Rules’—the real rules of Middle East Politics,” Friedman concludes, “and Hama Rules are no rules at all.” Prior to reading Friedman’s book, I had never heard of Hama. No reverberations, no stain.

Here’s a massacre I have heard of, though. Between September 16 and 18 1982, the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon were surrounded by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The IDF allowed Christian Lebanese Phalangists to enter the camps, and slaughter between 800 and 3,500 civilians. Israel responded by creating the Kahan Commission, to determine who was responsible for the slaughter. The Commission concluded that Israel bore “indirect responsibility,” that then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon “bears personal responsibility,” and that Sharon should be immediately dismissed from his post as Defense Minister. After reading the Kahan Commission report, Mr. Sharon became so chagrined, he left politics altogether, becoming a recluse too ashamed to show his face in public—because he reverberated from the stain he left on the world’s conscience. Well, sort of: Sharon refused to leave the cabinet, then Prime Minister Begin refused to fire him, and Sharon went on to become Prime Minister, eventually dying in that office (massacre reverberations & staining notwithstanding).

Ms. Lane, showing how to use a doorway to good advantage.

Ever heard of The Imposed War? How about the First Persian Gulf War? The former is the name in Iran, the latter in Iraq, of the September 1980 to August 1988 Iran-Iraq War. That eight years makes it the longest conventional war of the Twentieth Century. Over half a million people died on both sides. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq initiated the war, and was well on their way to losing it, when the Western Democracies got behind Saddam. The newly re-equipped Iraqi army was then able to push the Iranians back. Eventually, the exhausted nations allowed themselves to be forced into a UN brokered cease fire—one that preserved the same borders. Minimal reverberations, and even less conscience staining, all from a war that changed nothing.

I could do this all day (see, e.g. Lebanon, the Jordanian Civil War, Afghanistan, etc etc), but I trust you get the idea. Here’s my point: don’t shame me for being a Hard Hearted Hannah, hoping on the outside chance that I haven't noticed an endless parade of massacres.

There is a reason why the “middle east” (roughly from Morocco to Afghanistan) is screwed up. Back in the day, the United States decided to support the imperialist ambitions of Western Europe, and oppose the indigenous anti-colonial movements. Hoping to piss off the US, the Soviet Union supported the anti-colonial movements, thus turning those movements into “socialists” (unspecified). Once the colonial regimes collapsed, the new secular dictators (Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, et al) claimed to be “socialist,” because that was the secret word that made the Soviet duck drop down and give you money cf Groucho Marx’s You Bet Your Life. Now, the Americans and British did not like those professed “socialist” dictators, preferring dictators “capitalist” (whatever that meant). So, the US and UK started building up various fundamentalist Islamist movements, because the secular dictators could not easily suppress an Islamist-based movement (if you’re even vaguely interested in this history, Robert Dreyfuss’s Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam is an excellent book). Which then brings us to where we are today: crappy former socialist dictators, insurgent Islamist movements, and a generation of hip hop groovy cats from Nowsville unwilling to tolerate fifty years of economic stagnation.

Ms. Lane, showing how to use a doorway to better advantage.

My point is, there are no easy answers in the Middle East, and pretty much anything you do is going to result in a massacre—and shamefully, there is almost no chance of anyone’s conscience being stained, or reverberations felt.

“If You Don’t Know Where You’re Going, You’re Going to Wind Up Someplace Else”

So says my favorite Hegelian philosopher, Casey Stengel. What’s the problem with intervening in the Arab world? For starters, they only all LOOK alike (even the Iranians, who aren't even Arabs). But they're not all alike. I can’t give you the link, because a green curtain has descended over the New York Times (ie you need to pay to peek), but Thomas Friedman’s column on March 22, “Tribes with Flags,” was especially helpful.

Mr. Friedman quotes Mr. David Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The New York Times, asking rhetorically “is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?” There’s a big difference between the two. Friedman identifies two different types of states in the Middle East. One he calls “real countries,” because they have “long histories within their borders, and strong national identities.” In that group, Friedman places Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran. The second group, Friedman calls “Tribes with Flags.” Those “states” have boundaries drawn by colonial powers, containing “myriad tribes and sects who not only never volunteered to live together, but have never melded into a unified family of citizens.” What does that mean? That means those nations are more confederations of rival gangs, under the direction of an overlord. Why is that bad? Because those states have no real national identity or consciousness. In other words, democracy a la one person, one vote is virtually impossible, because each tribe holding power (in Friedman’s phrase) “lives by the motto ‘rule or die’ — either my tribe or sect is in power or we’re dead.” So who all are the Tribes with Flags? Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates—and Libya.

Ms. Lane, demonstrating how holes in the wall need not cramp one's sense of style.

Friedman concludes by pointing out that it was no accident that the three nations where the Middle East Democracy movement first took root were in Tunisia, Egypt, and Iran. Those are “nations,” where “citizens” are banding together to oppose a centralized authority. But as uprisings spread to some of the Tribes with Flags, all of the uprisers voice the same language of “democracy.” Hence the question: is that “democracy” as in “one person, one vote”? Or do you mean “democracy” as in “my tribe in, your tribe goes to hell”?

What do we know about the rebel opposition in Libya? Here’s a hint: it rhymes with “nothing.” What do we know about Gaddafi? Well, he's clearly not the James Madison of the Arab world—but that’s the wrong measure. Is Libya a nice place to live, especially if you are a woman? No. But I would argue, by any measure, day to day life is much worse in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (especially if you are a woman), than it is in Libya. For many years, almost alone in the Arab world, Libya was reclaiming land from the Sahara Desert, taking concerns over their environment seriously. Additionally, Libya was more “westernized” in terms of education, and allowing some individual freedom in cultural areas—such as modes of dress.

Am I saying Colonel Gaddafi is like Abe Lincoln, only more honest? Absolutely not. For example, Libyans really suffered through Gaddafi’s long and pointless wars, trying to annex Chad. Still, you could do much worse. No, Libya has not been a paragon of progress over the last forty years of Gaddafi’s dictatorship. Nevertheless, prior to Gaddafi’s coup when he seized power, Libya was in far worse shape.

Beating the high cost of gas, old school.

Finally, I do know this: Gaddafi will leave Tripoli, when six of his friends carry him out by the handles—as the old Frank Sinatra Rat Pack joke goes. President Obama can talk all he wants to about a “limited war,” but that note is not on Gaddafi’s trumpet. Gaddafi is one king that if you are going to fight, you are going to have to kill him, and I do not mean maybe. And if you do kill Gaddafi, what do you have to take his place? The record of peaceful transition in that part of the world is not good.

In conclusion, what I (me, personal) want is that in addition to asking “will the US intervention in Libyan save the people of Benghazi from a massacre?”, someone (somewhere) will think to ask “will US intervention in Libya result in massacre of the people of Tripoli?”

(An answer to the second question would also be nice).

First, Do No Harm

Much of President Obama’s speech included affirmations of what good people Americans are, with the best citizens, the best soldiers, the best diplomats…As a group, we’re good enough; we’re smart enough; and dog gone it, people like us! And why not? Face to face, we’re just plain good folks. Which is really a problem, because the further away people get from sitting down and having coffee with us, the bigger the bastards we really are.

Ms. Lane, showing the best way to keep people from noticing all your furniture has poorly fitting slip covers. Well, some people.

America has built up quite a record of military interventions, and for the most part, that record is not good. For example, in 1954, the US engineered a coup in Guatemala, destroying a democratic government. What followed was one of the dirtiest of dirty civil wars, from roughly 1960 to 1996, resulting in the brutal murders of over 200,000 people. Even today, Guatemala is largely an ungovernable war zone. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama—all of central America, (except for Mexico, Costa Rica, and Belize) has largely consisted of American created police states.

Moving to South America, “September 11” means something completely different in Chile. On September 11 1973, a US engineered coup d’etat destroyed the region’s longest running Constitutional democracy, with the military bombing the Presidential Palace. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Columbia…you pick any place you want, they’ve all had at one time or another vicious police states, largely created and maintained with US support. What is it like living under such a regime? Try reading Jacob Timerman's Prisoner without a Name, Cell without a Number.

Where has US military invention not made a bad situation worse? Not Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. Afghanistan is another nation that has suffered unimaginable devastation, beginning in 1978 when President Carter began supporting what would become al Qada and the Taliban, in an effort to needle the Soviets.

Sometimes, being upside down helps. Well, it does for SOME people...

If you’re looking for more specifics, Stephen Kinzer’s Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq examines a pile of precedents. We have—frankly—a terrible record when it comes to preventing “massacres.” Our good intentions (giving America the benefit of the doubt—which is, actually, undeserved) have paved many a road to hell.

Need one more illustration? Me neither, but here goes: this month we celebrated the eighth anniversary of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. President Obama gave a rough cost estimate of one trillion USD, which I think is low. But even at one trillion, how big a number is that? The 2009 estimates of Iraq’s population are roughly 31 million people (four times the size of New York City), with a gross domestic product (2009 estimate) of $111 billion USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity. If you care what all that means exactly, hit the link and read all about it at Wikipedia). That trillion dollars breaks down to approximately $30,000 per Iraqi—in a nation where the per capita income is $3,570. MAYBE it wouldn’t have worked, but for the same money, President Bush could have announced that if only everyone in Iraq promised to stay home, watching television and stop supporting the government, America would pay everyone’s bills for the next eight years. Saddam Hussein still might have been able to hold on to power—but that plan beats the hell out of anything Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) ever came up with.

But by any measure, the Iraq invasion and occupation was not money well spent.

Which brings to mind another column by Mr. Friedman. On March 29 (“Lucking for Luck in Libya”), Mr. Friedman concedes he doesn’t know Libya, but:

"[M]y gut tells me that any kind of decent outcome there will require boots on the ground — either as military help for the rebels to oust Qaddafi as we want, or as post-Qaddafi peacekeepers and referees between tribes and factions to help with any transition to democracy. Those boots cannot be ours. We absolutely cannot afford it — whether in terms of money, manpower, energy or attention. But I am deeply dubious that our allies can or will handle it without us, either. And if the fight there turns ugly, or stalemates, people will be calling for our humanitarian help again. You bomb it, you own it."

Ms. Lane demonstrating that if an outfit doesn't work on an unmade bed, it just might work sitting on a box. Probably not.

I don’t know Libya either—but I do know an air war hasn’t been enough to create a new nation state anywhere: somebody is going to have to play policemans (sic) on the ground. And if no one is willing and/or able to do that, tomahawk missiles will only make a bad situation worse.

When President Obama says “[G]iven the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right,” he has a point. But an even better point would be to look at the probable consequences before we leap, maybe even before deciding “what’s right.”

So no, Mr. President, I am not convinced bombing Libya—even with a UN mandate and the support of a genuine coalition—is the right thing to do. Yes, that is terrible the threat to Benghazi; but do not act like that is any more of an extraordinary situation than what it is. Or that if push came to shove, the exact same situation wouldn't arise in Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan...(you get the idea). Second, there are no easy answers in that region, especially in Libya. Pretending that there are will hurt not only us, but especially hurt the Libyans. And finally, America’s record of military intervention is nothing short of disastrous.

I just don’t see a way (but I could be wrong) that innumerable Tomahawk missiles could possibly save the day for democracy in Libya.

But isn’t it pretty to think so?

And Now For Something Completely Bent

Believe it or don't, I remember seeing a film clip of Mick Jagger, circa Some Girls, wearing this same exact outfit--only Mick's was royal blue.

The bulk of the President’s address went on to explain why it was important that America’s intervention in Libya needed to be “limited.” Or in the vernacular: moron chat. Feel free to see for yourself how the President answered those critics.

While President Obama did not sway me with his clear, and carefully thought out address, I can still say that I respectfully disagree with him—which is way more than I can say, regarding the responses from the potential GOP Presidential Candidates of 2012. Our friends atPolitico (speaking euphemistically) document their uniform (if less than coherent) condemnation. Private Citizen Sarah Palin (always one of my favorites) calls President Obama’s speech “dodgy and dubious” (maybe one or the other, but certainly not both!), and coloured herself “profoundly disappointed:” the President “did not articulate really what our purpose was except for some inconsistent humanitarian effort there…He did not make the case for this intervention.” Does that mean Private Citizen Palin agrees with me, and thinks we should not have intervened in Libya? Beats me. Last week, Palin denounced the President for “dithering.”

What? Don't all women fish with a bamboo pole, while sitting on posts soaked in creosote and their clothes falling off?

John Bolton (who I hate) called the President’s speech “a dog’s breakfast as far as [Bolton] was concerned…It wasn’t much that was new and what was new was trivial.” No doubt Mr. Bolton anticipated the President announcing that from now on, Libya would be a US protectorate, not unlike the Canal Zone in Panama, Palau, the Marianas Islands…and all those people only John Bolton can see.

Rudy Giuliani, operating behind enemy lines on CNN, said that “the President’s speech tonight has made things even murkier than they were before…The whole purpose of this was to clarify our mission. Our mission is just internally contradictory.” NOTE: Mr. Giuliani did NOT say that he was personally hurt and offended that President Obama did not ONCE reference the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but you know Giuliani was thinking it.

Commenting on the speech before the President gave it, Professional Empty Suit Tim Pawlenty said that a “no fly” zone should have been set up “sooner” than the time needed by President Obama: “They could have pushed [Gaddafi] out without much fanfare, I think, without much difficulty…They [the White house?] were indecisive and it (unspecified) lacked leadership in that moment.” Granted, Pawlenty is just nuts. If the US just unilaterally ran out and imposed a “no fly zone” (whatever that means) in Libya, that would have been an act of war, and a violation of he UN Charter. And forcing Gaddafi out of Tripoli without much difficulty or fanfare? Look what it took to get Norm Coleman out of the US Senate, for gods’ sake.

But I’ll give Pawlenty this much: he did say something concrete. Sure, it was stupid, but at least you see where he disagrees with the President. If you look at the statements of Palin, Giuliani, Bolton, and even Newt Gingrich, it is hard to tell where they disagree with the President—but they sure feel strongly about their disagreement. Do they want no intervention? Or do they want more intervention, including ground troops? Or are they opposed to the idea of a joint mission, preferring the US to do all the heavy lifting, militarily and financially? If you can tell, you’re smarter than I am (you probably are, anyway).

Ms. Lane showing the wonder of what a mere ten pounds of undergarments can do for the figure.

The single most mortifying news of the night, though, was the ugly spectre of the don Don Trump SEEMINGLY agreeing with me. Also on CNN, don Don expressed concern about who was supporting the Libyan rebels: “I really do want to know these people we’re fighting for, who they are…They call them the rebels like they’re these wonderful guys, but I hear they’re aligned with Iran, I hear they may be aligned with al Qaida…and to be honest, wouldn’t that be really very very sad if we’re bombing all of these things, killing all of these people one way or the other, and Iran ends up taking over Libya?” Yes Don, that would not just be merely sad or even very sad or even very, very sad. That would truly and sincerely be REALLY VERY, VERY SAD.

What’s even sadder, though, is The Don must be listening to The Little Man Inside his Pants again, because I am wholly at a loss as to who else would have told The Don that the anti-Gaddafi forces were Iranian or al Qaida affiliates.

Conclusion

What could go wrong, indeed...

In an effort to destroy what little interest there is in my notes, the powers that be don't allow pictures as thumbnails. Believing that the only possible reason for even scrolling to the end of this note (forget reading it) would be to download pics of Ms. Abbe Lane, copies suitable for downloading (if not framing) can be found at Hemingway in Libya.

This Week in Stoopid: CPAC

2011-02-13T03:52:00.000-08:00

Audrey Hepburn. Because this note is so dull & pointless, I'm starting with Holly Golightly washing a car.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) just finished their big party in Washington, with their ever-popular Presidential Straw Poll that always seems to say more than what anyone at CPAC really intends. Clocking in at thirty percent of the vote, and with the gold, was the hip hop happening groovy cat from Nowsville: Ron Paul, the 75 year old Texas congressman and iconic pop star. Second place, with twenty-three percent, went to Mitt Romney. Former Governor Romney would like everyone to believe the he is on your side. Really. No matter what side that is. Mitt Romney: Change You Can Believe In (because if you don’t, he’ll be happy to change again).

To the extent there was a bronze medalist—and there wasn’t—the winner probably would have to be former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, with six percent. Heard of him? Me neither. Also with six percent was new New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who keeps insisting he’s not running for President (some people think he’s just a big liar). Rounding up the also-rans were Newt Gingrich, Private Citizen Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and (presumably) Rick Santorum—all polling less than five percent each.

So—what’s the problem, and more to the point, why should anyone care? Here’s why: the results of the straw poll shows that CPAC’s professed unity lies somewhere just beyond theLost Horizon. And there’s no spinning that straw into a precious metal.

As Rick Santorum and his stool (an expression that sounds dirty, but isn’t really) so eloquently put it, the CPAC people would have you believe that the American conservative movement are three legs on that stool: the deficit hawks, the social conservatives, and “national security” people. By braiding those three strands together, conservatives will create a rope so strong, no liberal could possible break it. Too bad conservatives just go on to use that self-same rope to hang themselves.

Ann Sheridan. Ms. Sheridan will demonstrate the three branches of conservatism. Here, she is a social conservative.

Why? Because those three positions (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives) are largely mutually exclusive. The only point they have in common are amorphous yet meaningless platitudes about “freedom,” and a shared hagiography for a Ronald Reagan that never existed.

For example, look at the “freedom” promised by the social conservatives: government restrictions on abortion, government restrictions on same-sex marriage, government restrictions medical marijuana…oh, and less government. But you get the idea: for the social conservative, “freedom” means that you get to believe what THEY believe. The counter-argument, that “liberals” are forcing their views on the social conservative, is specious. You don’t believe in abortion? Fine—no one’s forcing you to have one. You don’t want to marry someone who shares a gender with you? No problem! But there is no principled reason for you to deny that option to someone else. And if you prefer the medical effects of cherry brandy to marijuana, go for it. No one’s making you to listen to Workingman’s Dead.

Ann Sheridan, as fiscal conservative (the "zero" is for spending goals).

But how well do the sentiments of the social conservatives fly with the libertarian wing, the most vocal of the deficit hawks? How well? Not well! (to coin a phrase). The deficit hawks who want a smaller federal government get upset (understandably) about the federalization of petty crime, and the growth of the police state. Why? In part, because they know how to count: the thirty plus years of the War on Drugs is still waiting for its first even small success. And talk about a ballooning federal government, just look at Department of Homeland Security: the last thing we need are more federal officials, telling us what to do and how to live our lives. But when you’re talking about real dollar amounts going right down the rat hole, look at thatthree trillion dollar (USD) war in Iraq, and its cousin in Afghanistan.

Anne Sheridan as national security conservative. Trust me--she's a real hard ass.

That’s when the third strand jumps up and yells “no, don’t look there!” John Boehner’s House Republicans insist they want to cut $100 billion USD from President Obama’s budget—while raising Defense (a brand, not unlike the “fruit” in Froot Loops) spending by two percent. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: the government that cuts domestic programs at the expense of Peter to benefit Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Which accounts for the popularity of such noted fiscal conservatives as Ted Stevens and Mitch McConnell: when it came to Alaska and Kentucky (respectively), they spent like the proverbial drunken sailors. Maybe people in Red States think all those cuts will only hurt the communists inhabiting Blue soviet strongholds, like California, Oregon, New York, parts of New England—but that’s not the way it works. Just like you can’t have your cake etc, you can’t have idiotic missile defense programs all over the planet, and balance your budget.

So, given largely mutually exclusive positions, what happened at CPAC? They played the old Arab game of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Patient Protection and Affordability Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (together aka ObamaCare) was roundly demonized. Left unmentioned was any kind of alternative, viable or otherwise. Also denounced was President Obama’s terrible record on foreign policy and the fact he’s Soft on Islamofascism (well, maybe not in so many words—but you knew that’s what they meant).

Interestingly, the only person who talked about the Egyptian Revolution (happening at the same time as the CPAC conference) was troublemaker Ron Paul. Congressman Paul excoriated thirty years of American foreign policy, for propping up and preserving the incompetent rule of Hosni Mubarak, condemning same as immoral, bad politics, and really just a plain waste of money. Everyone else either avoided the topic altogether, or followed the lead of Mitch McConnell, who on January 26 told MSNBC “All I can say this morning is that Egypt has been an extremely important ally of ours, since Anwar Sadat, and we’re all watching these developments in Cairo very carefully. Beyond that, I think I will not comment.” Sure—because maybe MAYBE Mubarak was right, all those years, how he was the only thing holding back a Sunni nationalist Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist Islamic al Qaida inspired Arab Egyptian Shiite Ayatollah Khomeini, who would drive Israel into the sea, then invade…I don’t know…Florida! You never know… Those brown people are notorious for voting for the wrong people. And that’s EXACTLY the kind of government President Obama would install in Egypt, as Michelle Bachman would be happy to tell you…if she were commenting on the Egypt thing—which she’s not.

Barbara Nichols. Ms. Nichols is here, only to catch those whose attention is starting to wander.

But clearly—the high point (or low point, if you’re not brimming with schadenfreude) had to have been when the “Defenders of the Constitution” award was given to Donald Rumsfeld. What had former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld done to defend the Constitution, at least lately? Well—he did write that book of his. That’s kind of First Amendmenty. Other than that, Secretary Rumsfeld did plow new ground—Constitutionally speaking—by introducing torture, “extraordinary rendition,” detention without trial in a system of gulags around the world, obstruct justice by covering up the murder of civilians, new levels of lying to Congress, invasion of member states of the United Nations (both in violation of the Charter, and the Nuremberg and Tokyo precedents condemning waging aggressive war). He also so mismanaged both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the point he almost lost them—but I’m not sure what impact that has on the Constitution; it just really pisses me off, though. Congressman Ron Paul’s people roundly booed both the Donald (No--the Secretary, not that other guy), and the award’s presenter: former Vice President Dick Cheney (what—Ted Kaczynski and Eric Robert Rudolph weren’t available to present the award to each other?), because both Cheney and Rumsfeld wasted lots of money.

But here’s my point: Senator DeMint, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Private Citizen Palin opted not to attend CPAC, because while all three constantly squawk about freedom like deranged parrots, the “libertarian bent” to CPAC just plain goes too far. For example, what was the big controversy at CPAC? The gay Republican group, GOProud were just not self-hating enough. And you remember New Mexico’s ex-Governor Gary Johnson, the man of bronze in the straw poll? The primary theme of his CPAC speech was legalization of marijuana, no doubt sweeping the Rastapublican vote.

Barbara Eden. I recently got into a quibble over who was the hottest sitcom babe, from back in the day.

So, what’s a principled conservative to do? How about stop pretending that social conservatives, libertarian budget cutters, and national security stooges are all brothers (even the women) under the skin, and want the same thing. They don’t. Mike Huckabee is not Ron Paul is not John Bolton, and they never will be. Conservatives, IMHO, will be better served to pick one of Rick Santorum’s stools, and run with it. Otherwise, if you try to embrace all three, you’ll just sound confused and wind up not standing for anything. In other words, you’ll be like Democrats.

Will CPAC ever decide to be principled, and do more than just mouth platitudes and spit insults, all in the name of a non-existent “Party Unity”?

No. They are just stoopid.

To find full size versions of pics illustrating this note (which is the only reason why anyone comes here), you can go to This Week in Stoopid: CPAC

This Week in Stoopid: Joe Miller

2010-12-12T02:30:00.000-08:00

A Salute to Those Who Efforts in Idiocy Go Far Beyond Average for their Height & Weight

For most weeks, competition is quite fierce—and this week was no exception. However, no one tried harder than Alaska’s own Tea Bagger extraordinaire, Joe “I only LOOK like Yasir Arafat” Miller.

Aileen Hailey. What Joe Miller sees when he thinks about Lisa Murkowski stealing his senate seat.

Background

If there’s anything to remember about the 2010 primaries, it was that this was the year when the traditional off year low turn outs produced a disproportionate number of low IQ candidates. In particular, four would be Senators really stand out. Delaware’s GOP, obviously untroubled by the candidate never having held a “job” before, introduced Christine O’Donnell to the nation. Nevada searched long & hard to find Sharron Angle: conceivably, the only person who could run against Harry Reid, and still lose. Most notable was the pride of South Carolina, Alvin Greene, selected with a paltry turnout of less than 30 percent of the registered voters, who then went on to garner 28 percent of the vote cast in the general election. Impressive, considering by pretty much all accounts, Mr. Greene appears to be quite mad.

Not Joe Miller.

But the star of this saga is Sarah Palin Favorite Son (as opposed to Alaska’s Favorite Son) Joe Miller. In the GOP primary, incumbent Lisa Murkowski showed little to no regard for the Tea Party Express candidate come lately, naively believing that lack of coherent thought and a complete inability to mount a sane campaign enough to doom any candidacy. But a low turnout proved Ms. Murkowski wrong.

Shut out of the traditional GOP, Ms. Murkowski believed that a second generation pork barreler such as herself had brought home the bacon enough times, that a plurality of voters would remember on which side their bread had been over buttered—and who did the buttering (hint: not that nice boy from Sitka, or the crazy man from Fairbanks). Heck, ifAmerica’s champion of apartheid could do it in 1954, why couldn’t the daughter of a former governor become America’s Next Write In Candidate for US Senate?

Not Yasir Arafat.

As the dust began settling in the days after November 2, 2010, the People had Spoken: Joe Miller: 90,740 votes; Write In Candidates: 102,252 votes—leaving 60,007 for that nice boy from Sitka and an additional 2,832 votes cast by people you wouldn’t want to invite to your house, regardless of how wild the party.

The Alaska Department of Elections (DOE) started counting just *who* the write in votes were for. Out of that group, the DOE decided that roughly 2,000 of the write in votes were cast for someone OTHER than “Lisa Murkowski.” In fact, 20 of the write in votes were for “Joe Miller”—which goes to show, that just because your drunk and/or an idiot, you can still muster up enough sense to show voter intent…at least in Alaska. Therefore, DOE declared that roughly 100,800 people voted for Lisa Murkowski. End of story—or so you’d think.

Shades of hanging chads as was, while each write in ballot was eyeballed by DOE, both Mr. Miller and Ms. Murkowski had their own stooges, fixers, and hired guns on hand…just to make sure everything was on the up & up. And Joe Miller’s people were extra diligent, claiming that roughly 8,000 of the votes the DOE credited to “Lisa Murkowski” were for someone else, OTHER than “Lisa Murkowski.” Be that as it may, the DOE was satisfied, and ready to bestow the crown.

But in the tradition of Go Big or Go Home, Mr. Miller declines to return to Fairbanks, and instead goes to court, seeking to have himself—and not “Lisa Murkowski”—crowned Senator from the forty-ninth state.

This week, on December 10, Superior Court Judge William B. Carey granted the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissed all of Mr. Miller’s claims. For anyone who doesn't trust me, the link to to a PDF of the opinion.

Ava Gardner. What does she have to do with Joe Miller? Nothing--but when your notes are as boring as mine are, you've got to go big or go home.

So What?

So what indeed. People file frivolous lawsuits all the time—and some of them even by people who aren’t political candidates. What makes Mr. Miller so special? How about the fact no one connected to the Miller campaign has a basic understanding of simple arithmetic?

This is one of the reasons why lawyers insist on large retainers up front. Here are the numbers again:

Miller—90,740

Murkowski—100,800 (according to DOE).

Number of votes for “Lisa Murkowski” disputed by Miller: roughly 8,000

…meaning there are 92,700 votes for Murkowski, NOT DISPUTED by Mr. Miller. For the arithmetically challenged among us, allow me to help: 92,700 is bigger than 90,740.

What WAS Mr. Miller’s Gripe?

If you guessed Miller filed an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the DOE, for suggesting that Murkowski handed Miller a ten thousand (or better than six percent) ass whoopin’, instead of a mild two thousand vote butt kicking—you’d be wrong. No, Mr. Miller insisted that Ms. Murkowski should NOT be declared the winner, because Mr. Miller still MIGHT have actually won. And a moron says “what?”

Here’s how Miller says he might have won. First, he needs to get just over ten thousand votes for “Lisa Murkowski” thrown out. To do that, his opening salvo is aimed at the 8,000 his people objected to, during the counting. The basis for this objection lies with the reading of Alaska Statute 15.15.360(a)(11), which provides “a vote for a write in candidate…shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.” Judge Carey concluded to be a valid “vote,” a write in vote needed to have:

1) the oval next to the name filled in, and

2) written on the line next to the filled in oval, either:

a) the name of the candidate as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy; or

b) the last name of the candidate.

Miller and his legions insisted that the statute meant that UNLESS the write in voter wrote down the candidate’s name as it EXACTLY appeared on the write-in declaration, then the vote was invalid. Why not? However, the court notes that even in Mr. Miller’s own pleadings, his arguments are inconsistent. On the one hand, Miller concedes that a vote for “Lisa Murkowski” would be sufficient, but Ms. Murkowski’s name “appears” on the write-in declaration of candidacy as “Murkowski, Lisa.” The substance of Miller’s contention, though, is that the DOE should not be able to use any discretion in regard to permutation of misspellings of “Murkowski.”

I'm using my particularly impressive Ava Gardner shots for the especially dull parts of the note.

Forget it, is Judge Carey’s ruling--not surprisingly. To adopt Miller’s position, the court would have to do two things. First, the statute does not use the word “exactly,” denying any discretion by the DOE to divine voter intent. The court (correctly) declined to re-write the statute to fit Miller’s desires. Second, under Millers interpretation, a significant percentage of Alaskans would be denied their vote. The history of statutory interpretation in Alaska (as everywhere else) holds that statutes are should not be interpreted such that the law disenfranchises large numbers of people.

In conclusion, the court held the eight thousand votes Miller’s people disputed in fact do count as votes for Ms. Murkowski, meaning Miller did lose by an ass whooping, as opposed to a simple butt kicking.

But What IF Miller Won on his Complaint about the 8,000? Wouldn’t He Still Have Lost?

Well—yeah. And the court noted as much, saying “Murkowski has won the election by over 2,000 unchallenged votes … No matter what interpretation this court makes, and even if the court finds that Miler (sic) is correct and only correctly spelled ballots for Murkowski are to be counted, Miller would not be entitled to relief because the outcome does not change.”

Technically, courts do not issue an opinion if there is no case and controversy. Where a claim is “moot” (i.e. filed by an idiot), courts will decline to rule. Nevertheless, Judge Carey did reach a decision on the eight thousand votes disputed by Miller, because of the strong “public interest” involved. Miller originally filed his claim in federal court. The federal court then remanded the case to state court, in part to get the state court’s interpretation of the state’s own statute. In general, federal courts defer to state court’s interpretation of that state’s statutes (which the most notable, bullshit exception is Bush v. Gore). So, Judge Carey does the heavy lifting on this case, and decides the issue.

Ava Gardner. AS IF you could ever have too many pictures of her.

And yet—had the court agreed with Miller, where was Miller going to find another two thousand votes? How about:

A. “My People Were All Really Stupid, So They Missed Two Thousand Otherwise Invalid Votes”

I’m not making that up; that was one of Miller’s arguments. It takes a special breed of weasel to throw all your people under the bus, wholesale, like that. Specifically, Miller claimed that when the DOE started counting the write in ballots on November 20, the DOE had “moved the date up by a number of days and that the preparation, training, and coordination of his observer team were thereby impaired.” Opinion, n.3. Not even a nice try, Joe: “This court finds no prejudice to Miller has been demonstrated or can be inferred by the timing of the count.”

B. It Was the Machines, Damn It! THE MACHINES!

So much for a “Constitutional conservative” who opposes “activist judges,” Miller insists there is an issue of “fundamental fairness” in that write in ballots get a hand count, but non-write ins are machine counted. The machines could be way off. Maybe. The court gives three responses to this argument. First, the Alaska legislature has written different statutes governing how “write in ballots” and “machine ballots” are to be counted. The role of the court is to interpret those statutes—not write them.

Second, if Mr. Miller is unhappy with the way the Diebold machines work (and, as the court notes in n.43, many people ARE unhappy), Miller’s remedy is to go to the legislature—not ask the courts to wholly redraft Alaska’s voting statutes.

Finally, Alaska responded to this “fairness” argument by explaining in the event of a ballot being rejected by the machine for being an “overvote” or an “undervote,” a poll person personally reviews that ballot to see if voter intent can be determined. So, there is no question of “fundamental unfairness.”

C. A Really Stupid Argument about Alaska’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that Doesn’t Bear Repeating (trust me on this).

D. VOTER FRAUD!

Miller tries to insist that his claim should not be dismissed, because he hasn’t had time to get all the dirt. APPARENTLY, at some precincts, the polling people did NOT check the little box next to where the voter signs the voter’s name, affirming voter identification: “[D]iscovery is necessary to ascertain why election officials at certain precincts neglected to check the box” because “there are various reasons why election officials … may have checked an identification option … for most voters, but declined to do so for certain voters.” J’ACCUSE!

I was trying to find a picture of Ava Gardner, illustrating the "sarcasm expressed by DOE workers" that Miller complained about. This was the best I could do.

The court notes that Miller “received notice of fraud allegations” by his observers on November 17. From November 17 to December 2, Miller had time to secure evidence to show that election officials not only acted illegally, but also engaged in malconduct. Instead, “Miller’s affidavits do not provide any facts of wrongful conduct at polling stations and not even circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing … Nowhere does Miller provide facts showing a genuine issue of fraud or election misfeasance. Instead, the majority of the problematic statements included in the affidavits are inadmissible hearsay, speculation, and occasional complaints of sarcasm expressed by DOE workers” Opinion, p.32.

But was Miller’s Argument on Statutory Interpretation Really THAT Stupid?

Yes: “The only support Miller provides for his interpretation is based on the nature of Murkowski’s campaign. Miller argues that Murkowski went to great lengths to advise voters of the spelling of her name and to make it easy as possible for voters to get her name right.” Opinion, p. 16.

Was there Anything Extra Stupid about Miller’s lawsuit?

Ava Gardner. While she is not in Alaska, she IS eating ice cream. That counts.

As a matter of fact, yes…..Alaska is a “big” state in terms of size, but tiny in terms of population: 47th out of 50. The whole state is smaller than the city of San Francisco. The vote differential we’re talking here seems close: two, eight, or even ten thousand votes. But that’s out of a total of roughly 253,000 votes. In Washington State, where Patty Murray handed Dino Rossi his third beatdown, over 2,251,000 people voted for senator. In my state of Oregon, 534,000 people voted for a sad sack Republican for Senator—and that was less than 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election, where they really WERE scratching for individual votes, out of a total of over 2,750,000 votes cast, Christine Gregoire won by 129 votes. Unless there is something grotesquely stupid going on, or you’re in Florida, Illinois, or Ohio (there’s some overlap between those two groups), you’re not going to flip a roughly six percent loss. Or show that over ten percent of the people who voted for the winner were somehow “wrong.”

But What if Miller IS Crazy—Crazy Like a Fox!

Could there be some other, nefarious reason for Mr. Miller to delay Ms. Murkowski’s retaking her senate seat? MAYBE………!

Ava Gardner. Because of all the money Ms. Murkowski got from the Alaska Natives corporations, Ms. Gardner reenacts the poor Miller people, painting their own signs!

In the December 3 edition of the Moonie-Owned, Arch-Conservative Washington Times (a brand name), Joe Miller published a bizarre editorial, Writing in Corruption. In it, Miller attacked Ms. Murkowski for “learn[ing] nothing from the message of the midterm elections.” What did Ms. Murkowski not learn? Millerfingers (sic) the Alaska Native Regional Corporations, whom he calls “multibillion-dollar (sic) corporations, formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.” Those bandits are “repeatedly protected from shareholder oversight by legislation shepherded by the Murkowski-Stevens-Young delegation.” Those self-same corporations “poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the tiny Alaska media market in a slimy, no-holds-barred effort to keep Ms. Murkowski in office.”

Miller’s not done yet: “Alaska Native 8(a) corporations … are no-bid federal contractors. They get billions in federal taxpayer dollars to undertake building and other projects not just throughout the state of Alaska, but across the country and overseas. … I argued during the campaign that this 8(a) program demanded reform, in large part because it was ripping off the American taxpayer. But I also argued that while the native corporations made dizzying profits using their 'disadvantaged' status to gain federal work, in practice they did very little to lift the lives of most Alaskan natives.” Damn those brown people! There they go, ripping off the white folks—and then they’re too dumb to even hang on to all that money.

Ava Gardner, portraying one of those rich Murkowski-Stevens-Young-Alaska Native corporation Democrats.

It gets worse: “There is something odious to the American political experiment in having corporations dependent upon taxpayer money for their very existence turn around and use that money to hire workers to teach people how to vote for one candidate over another.” Well, I certainly think so—that’s why I’m so furious about Citizens’ United v. Federal Elections Commission: defense contractors, oil companies, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the chemical companies…all of them are “dependent upon taxpayer money for their very existence,” and pour truckloads of cash into elections. But I don’t think that’s what Joe Miller is complaining about.

“The native population apparently got the message. Supermajorities of numerous villages that had gone strongly Democratic in previous elections voted for Mrs. Murkowski last month.” Damn those Murkowski-Stevens-Young Democrats!

You think I’m taking this quotes out of context? “If Mrs. Murkowski survives the inevitable recount of ballots (ballots that were transported and ‘secured’ by an Alaska Native corporation) …” Gee Joe—are you suggesting those brown people stuffed the ballot box, just to fix your wagon? Don’t be so subtle.

Now here’s where we’re at: here’s a guy who insists he’s an Alaskan politician, who hates the Alaska Natives corporations, Lisa Murkowski (and family), Ted Stevens, and Don Young. He then accuses all of them of ripping off “the American taxpayer” for the benefit of Alaska—and being “Democrats.” While I think Joe’s got a point (except for that “Democrat” thing), I live in Oregon, and believe that what’s bad for Alaska is good for me. But if I lived in Alaska, I’m throwing my gloves and stick to the ice and pulling his shirt up over his head. It’s ON, big daddy!

Could Miller be pissing in his own nest, at the bidding of some nefarious Dr. Evil?

Enter Dr. Evil

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Currently, there’s a struggle for the heart of the Grand Old Party (the soul was brokered away to the devil, forthe Willie Horton campaign for George HW Bush). On the one side, there are the totally disgusting, lying hypocritical sleazeball opportunists, led by Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell. The challengers are the batshit crazy wing, led by South Carolina’s Jim DeMint. Say what you want about Senator DeMint: the man’s not just merely stupid, he’s positively, truly & sincerely stupid. McConnell’s the kind of guy who’d sell his own mother into white slavery—if only his father hadn’t beat him to it—but will have some private reservations that MAYBE that’s not the best idea. He’s still doing it, mind you; but he knows he’s going to have to put some spin on that. DeMint, on the other hand, sells his mom and is damn proud of it, because he heard somewhere that it was a good idea to do so. Spin hell—he’s got it on his resume!

Not a RINO.

For reasons known only to people who think like Senator DeMint, Senator Murkowski is a RINO (Republican in Name Only—I guess sort of like Rudolph Hess was a NINO), so she and good ol’ Ted Stevens were tight with the Mitch McConnell people. Having lost Delaware’s O’Donnell, Nevada’s Angle, Washington State’s Rossi, California’s Fiorina (but he did win a few places—like Wisconsin. Bastard), DeMint is struggling, getting his ducks in a row. If DeMint is going to step up and be the kingmaker he wants to be, he'll need his people in as many positions of power as he can get.

So, if the certification of Senator Murkowski’s election can be put off long enough, could it be possible that she’ll lose her share of choice committee assignments?

Senator DeMint is raising money for Joe Miller, and standing behind him—unlike a certain former governor of Alaska who’s long forgotten who Miller is. Could Miller be playing the good soldier, crapping all over his soon to be former home state, damaging Senator Murkowski’s committee assignments, all in an effort to ingratiate himself to Senator DeMint and the Republican National Committee? Is Joe Miller the Manchuria Alaskan Candidate? Will Joe Miller fulfill his lifelong ambition, and become an apparatchik stooge for the RNC?

Conclusion

No. Joe Miller’s just stoopid.

Ava Gardner. Miller was going to use this snap on his campaign literature--but remembered in time to ask who "Stevenson" is.

A Post Without A Name

2010-05-01T03:37:00.000-07:00

So don't delay; Act now; Supplies are running out.
Allow, if you're still alive, six to eight years to arrive
And if you follow, there may be a tomorrow. But if
The offer's shun, You might as well be walkin' on the sun.........

Well everybody better move over, that's all
'Cause I'm running on the bad side
And I got my back to the wall
Tenth avenue freeze out..........

Get outta Denver better go, go
Get outta Denver cause you like just like a commie
And you might just be a member,
Better get outta Denver
Better get outta Denver

We didn't start the fire,
It was always burning since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire.
No we didn't light it, but we tried to fight it.

Why stay in college? Why go to night school?
Gonna be different this time.
Can't write a letter. Can't send a postcard.
I can't write nothing at all.

I see you got your fist out. Say your piece and get out.
Yes, I get the gist of it. But it's alright.
Sorry that you feel that way; the only thing there is to say:
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey.

Walk on your tip toes
Don't try No Doz
Better stay away from those
Who carry round a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a Weatherman
To know which way the wind blows..............

I can't dance. I can't talk.
The only thing about me
Is the way that I walk.

Oh the passenger
He rides and he rides.
He looks through his window
What does he see?

And Now, a Guest Editorial from Ignatius Michelangelo Krakpotus

2010-03-04T14:37:00.000-08:00

When stooping to include letters from nuts, you have to go big or go home. Hence, we're starting with a group of women supposedly trying to sell ammonium sulfate.

The Most Reverend Anatta of the Second Church of Deus Otiosus (Akusala), Webmaster and Editor, Samsara Samizdat:

I don’t want to be Captain Alienation or anything, but something happened yesterday that once again reaffirmed my lifelong loathing of computers, profanity, the corporate structure, and quasi-monopolies. Put them all together, and you find yourself stuck on a logarithmic curve of inconvenience and idiocy.

To begin, you need to understand (for reasons you don’t want me to go into—trust me on this) I happen to believe that the Vietnam War was one of the defining events of my generation. Reasonable minds may differ, but those like-minded of us are content to form our own clannish, insular communities at places like Nile.com (not its real name)…or Mazona.com (not its real name). Fine: Amazon.com.

At one of these Amazon.com virtual communities (“The Vietnam Community”), someone asked for recommendations of good books about the Vietnam War. Another person, writing under the name “Coolbunny.com” gave an extensive list of books, mostly from the strategic/military perspective. I then responded with a supplemental list, that filled in a few blanks from CoolBunny.com’s list. At least, I tried to.

Mae Clark and Jimmy Cagney. See what
happens when you send too much time
in Amazon's virtual communities?

My post was rejected by Amazon’s computer generated anti-hate mail/naughty word filter, for violating Amazon’s high standards for comments. If you haven’t ~~wasted your time~~ spent any time reading comments at Amazon, let me say that whatever Amazon’s “guidelines” screen out, they don’t include spelling, grammar, aptness of thought, or absence of social graces. That’s why I was shocked that my note was rejected. Here’s my response. See if you can find what’s “wrong:”

First, let me say that I impressed at the dignity and respect that this discussion has engendered. So before I give my recommendations, let me sat that I am an unabashed, unapologetic leftist. That said, I concur with virtually all of the Cool Bunny's suggestions--but with a couple of exceptions. I would not recommend Truong Nhu's “Viet Cong Memoir” (I think there are better books), and did not care for Herrington's “Stalking the Viet Cong.” At all.

[Boring discussion of books removed]

For human rights violations, I liked Bilton and Sim "Four Hours in My Lai," and Chong's "The Girl in the Picture." The latter is a biography of the young girl, running down the road, whose naked body was covered with napalm burns. I was a little disappointed with Sallah and Weiss's “Tiger Force,” though.

[Another boring discussion of books removed]

So--if I had to suggest a single book, the winner(s) would be “Novel Without a Name” (fiction) and “Fire in the Lake” (non-fiction).

Here's the hyperlinks to the books I mentioned:
Novel without a Name;
Memories of a Pure Spring;
No Man's Land;
When Heaven & Earth Changed Places (A Vietnamese woman's journey from war to peace);
Four Hours in My Lai;
The Girl in the Picture: The Story of Kim Phuc, the Photograph, and the Vietnam War;
The Tunnels of Cu Chi: A Harrowing Account of America's "Tunnel Rats" in the Underground battlefields of Vietnam;
A Companion to the Vietnam War (Blackwell Companions to American History);
Ho Chi Minh: A Life;
Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam.

**********************

After reading my note several times, the best I could come up with for bad words was “young girl, running down the road, whose naked body was covered with napalm burns” (emphasis added). So, I took out the word “naked.” No soap.

Amazon’s computer said if I had any questions, I should write to community-help@amazon.com . So I did, and promptly got a computer generated message saying that the mailbox community-help@amazon.com no longer exists, and I should go to Amazon’s “self-help” pages, where no doubt answers to all of life’s problems can be found.

After more searching, I found the e-mail address for Amazon’s “customer service,” and tried to write THOSE people about my problem. Unfortunately, Amazon’s screening computer would not allow me to send the e-mail, unless I included an ORDER NUMBER that I had a question about. So, I copied in an order number for some books I have already received, and sent a somewhat blistering e-mail, trying to find out WHAT GUIDELINE I was violating (in the naughty way, I’m sure).

Ms. Kim Phuc (center), June 8 1972.

I did receive a prompt response, which pointed out the error of my ways. Where did I go wrong? The truth is, I didn’t. The filter got hung up on one of the titles of the books: Denise Chong’s The Girl in the Picture: The Story of Kim Phuc, the Photograph, and the Vietnam War. Please note that **I** didn’t type out the entire title, complete with sub-title. That was generated by Amazon’s hyperlink program. But why was that title naughty? Because the NAME OF THE GIRL when pronounced phonetically by Anglo-Saxons is a homonym for a graphic expression for carnal knowledge.

The perfect storm. Here we go:

1. Computers

Mr. Peter Drucker. We have no idea if
Mr. Drucker ever recorded a version of
"Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer."

In the immortal words of Gene Autry (actually, it was Peter Drucker): “the computer is a moron.” Always was, always will be. You don’t need to master of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to know that “filters”—like those scams that ostensively keep kids from seeing nekkid people and reading words that mean “sex” and “potty”—can not, will not keep anyone determined to read about potty and sex, or see nekkid people. They WILL, on the other hand, generally make the rest of your computer life a pain in the ass.

2. Profanity
I can’t speak to the rest of the world, but Americans are going to be potty mouths—even if it means being a p*tty mouth, pooty mouth, photty mouth, poty mouth etc etc etc. No matter how clever of an algorithm you think you have, no matter how brilliantly depraved your programmer is at coming up with different ways to “spell” the dreaded EF-WORD, Americans will be able to indicate that their ideological foes are simply people who engage in multiple episodes of sexual congress, if not with their maternal parent, then with numerous permutations of large farm animals--and probably at the same time. In short, you don’t have to say “Senator Jim Bunning is an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker” in so many words, to get your point across. All of our current swear words started out as euphemisms for sex, bodily functions, or insults to the Supreme Being—until they stopped being symbols and began to mean exactly what they stood for. So, new euphemisms were created.

What I mean is, if I’m bound and determined to call Senator Jim Bunning an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker, I am going to find a way to call Senator Jim Bunning an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker, even if I have to spend hours with a thesaurus finding new and better ways to say Senator Jim Bunning is an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker. And no one will miss my meaning—least of all (I hope), Senator Jim Bunning.

So just quit pretending you can stop people like me from doing things like calling Senator Jim Bunning an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker.

3. Corporate Structure

Ms. Kim Phuc in 1997, in front of a
picture of herself, holding her child.
She currently lives in Canada.

I KNOW Amazon exists to sell books, and if they didn’t sell books, they couldn’t afford to set up a special site for people to rant about how Gustav Hasford’s books are all out of print. Nevertheless, I want to point out two growing trends. First, what used to be called “collections” is now called “customer service.” Second, what used to be called “customer service” is now called “FAQ.” In the tension between short term dividends to shareholders vs. building even a medium (forget “long term”) customer base, the customers are going to lose. And that’s bad—not just because I get shitty service, but that style of myopic idiocy is responsible (in large part) for the decline of America’s industrial base in general, and the Credit Collapse of 2008 in specific. But that’s another rant.

Senator Jim Bunning. All references
to Senator Bunning being an
"orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker"
should be taken as hyperbole and
for purposes of illustration only. We
have no reason to believe the Senator
is an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig
porker, and even suggesting that he
MAY be an orgiastic mutherfuckin’
pig porker is both crass and
irresponsible. We sincerely hope no
readers are left with the impression
that Senator Bunning is an orgiastic
mutherfuckin’ pig porker, because
it was never our intention that anyone
seriously consider Senator Bunning as
an orgiastic mutherfuckin’ pig porker.

4. Quasi-Monopolies
So, I don’t like Amazon’s customer service. Why don’t I go somewhere else? Well, I do—but there are fewer and fewer other places to go. As they said about fees banks charge on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: “Why do we [banks] do that? FUCK YOU, that’s why!” And banks get away with it, because ALL banks do that. They’re not the only ones.

Several years ago, I bought something on E-Bay, where the seller grossly misrepresented the quality of the item. I spent some time putting together my complaint, including text from the original ad, and several e-mails I had exchanged with the seller—all documenting what I was claiming was fraud. The seller didn’t even bother to respond (so far as I know). What happened? NO-THING. Then I got an e-mail, asking me if I was “satisfied” with the outcome of the dispute resolution. Fool that I am, I said no, and sent my complaint (complete with supporting documentation) a second time. Not only did nothing happen again, I got a second e-mail asking me if THIS TIME I was satisfied. I got mad, and sent my complaint a third time. That time, E-Bay did something: they stopped asking me if I was satisfied.

Since then, E-Bay has gotten worse. Here’s a quiz: suppose you bought something on E-Bay, and by mistake the seller sent you 15 pounds of weapons grade uranium 235—enough to make an atomic bomb. What’s the e-mail address, postal address, telephone number, window to throw a rock at, etc etc to bring this fact to E-Bay’s attention? You might try SucksToBeYouUnlimted.com, because nothing else works. Why does E-Bay operate like that? FUCK YOU, that’s why.

Another time, I’ll rant about what can be done about this. But let’s just say for now that I find “FUCK YOU, that’s why” not an acceptable basis for objectionable business practices.

What I mean to say is, yesterday I had a terrible day—and wasted a lot of time being terrible.

I remain:
Really cranky.
I. MA. Krakpot.

Batman, illustrating the dangers of going too long without cursing.

NOTE: Batman expose courtesy (ie "lifted from") our learned collegues at Retrospace. We encourage you to both visit the site and not tell the webmaster we're stealing all their best stuff.

Fear & Loathing On Sarah Palin's Trail

2010-02-25T09:29:00.000-08:00

Bill O’Reilly: At this point, it’s almost funny…that these people feel you’re such a threat to them…It’s almost amusing.
Sarah Palin: Well, I’m grinning today, and I’m so appreciative of the opportunity to get to work with you and the other team members here at Fox News to provide the fair and balanced reporting and analysis that voters in this country deserve.
O’Reilly: But it’s the threat I don’t get. You’re the…former governor of Alaska, the former vice presidential candidate. You’re a politician. You’re a mom. You’re an American. What’s the threat?...I’m not feeling it here…Tell me what the threat is.
Pailin: Well, see, Obviously, it’s not about me…personally, who I am from up there in Alaska…
O’Reilly: Yeah, but they’re going after you personally.
Palin: They don’t like the message. They don’t like the common sense conservative solutions that I think I represent and I articulate as I explain what I believe are some of the solutions to the great challenges facing America.
O’Reilly: That’s true. But there are a lot of conservative politicians giving that message, and none of them are as attacked personally and vehemently as you are. And that’s just a fact.

The gravitas of today's subject demands more than the usually cheesy snaps Samsara Samizdat is known for. Hence, we're featuring photographs of both Ms. Cyd Charisse--

And that’s just a fact, indeed. Of all the things happening seen and unseen in this universe, why devote so much time and energy on Private Citizen Palin? Now that she is no longer Governor of the smallest state in the union--or even mayor of a town so small, that outside of Alaska, it couldn’t even afford to fund a full time mayor—she is not in a position to goof up anyone’s lives (other than her own and the members of her extended family). Still, could Sarah Palin somehow stitch together enough of her run on, non-responsive, empty platitudes together, and build a political movement?

No, she could not.

Then why write about her?

After much thought, I’ve come to the following conclusion: because it’s fun and easy.

--and renowned actresses being
spanked. Here, Ms. Larraine Day
(aka Mrs. Leo Durocher) demonstrates
what "having one of those days"
meant, back in the day.

I mean, if I were really civic minded and cared about the Republic, I’d be writing about Senator Mitch “The Grift” McConnell, who routinely shovels huge barrels of pork to his old Kentucky home at the expense of the nation’s general welfare. Instead, it’s more fun to write about Alaska’s Ted Stevens, and how shocked SHOCKED he was to discover that the improvements to his mountain cabin were worth $410,000—as opposed to the $160,000 his oil industry executive/lobbyist cum general contractor billed him for.

But I’m not alone in my preference towards the cheap and easy. Why was the country so wholly focused on the timing of sex acts between consenting adults—one of whom happened to be President at the time—when anyone even vaguely paying attention could see the Dot.Com revolution and the NASDAQ were on the edge of tanking? By any measure, the collapse of the internet stock bubble did much more harm to America, than anything Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did. But stock markets just aren’t as much fun.

But some people and stuff are just magnets for negative attention—which is a piss poor transition to what I’ve discovered while reading Hunter S. Thompson’s immortal classic Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72.

Mr. Thompson may be Raul Duke, the sometime sports columnist for Rolling Stone, but he is no Theodore H. White—and that’s a good thing, I suppose:

This is one of the oldest and most effective tricks in politics. Every hack in the business has used it in times of trouble, and it has even been elevated to the level of political mythology in a story about one of Lyndon Johnson’s early campaigns in Texas. The race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumour campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.
“Christ, we can’t get away calling him a pig-fucker,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”
“I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”
--Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72

Spankee: Ms. Janet Blair. The Spanker
appears to be Mr. Red Skelton. If for
a minute, I believed such things were
part of the job for Fuller Brush men,
my whole life would have been
different.

The Making of the President 1960 contains no such stories—which is probably while Mr. Thompson’s books are still in print. Though not for long, I imagine. How many hip hop happening groovy cats from Nowsville have even heard of Edmund Muskie or Henry “Scoop” Jackson, let alone John Lindsay or Sam Yorty? It’s fortunate for the memory of the former L.A. Mayor that Yorty’s name has slipped from our collective unconsciousness, where his malicious idiocy and aggressive incompetence entertained generations. But there is no escaping the fact that for most everyone you meet, the struggles of Kennedy, Nixon, Humphrey, and McGovern are about as meaningful and relevant as the battle in The Illiad.

[The new series of TV spots for Senator Ed Muskie (D-Me.)] were definitely a bit queer. They depicted Muskie as an extremely slow-spoken man who had probably spent half his life over-coming some kind of dreadful speech impediment, only to find himself totally hooked on a bad Downer habit or maybe even smack. The first time I heard a Muskie radio spot I was zipping along on the Rickenbacker Causeway, coming in from Key Biscayne, and I thought it was a new Cheech & Chong record. It was the voice of a man who had done about twelve Reds on the way to the studio—a very funny ad.

Nobody I know of talks like that anymore. Not even Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Maybe Michael Savage, when he addresses his troops of would be fascisti known as the Savage Nation, but I don’t listen to that program. But I’m pretty sure that Mr. Savage wouldn’t use dated references, like Cheech & Chong, Reds, smack, Downers—or even Senator Muskie.

Still, I’m going to argue there are lessons to be learned from the Godfather of Gonzo.

First and foremost, Sarah Palin today is the George Wallace of 1972:

The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for knowing exactly which issues would whip a hall full of beer-drinking factory workers into a frenzy—and then doing exactly that, by howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions: Taxes? Nigras? Army worms killing the turnip crop? Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple, and that the only reason they had any hassle with the government at all was because those greedy bloodsuckers in Washington didn’t want the problems solved, so they wouldn’t be put out of work.
The ugly truth is that Wallace had never even bothered to understand the problems—much less come up with any honest solutions—but “the Fighting Little Judge” has never lost much sleep from guilt feelings about his personal credibility gap.

But there is a big difference between the Governors of Alabama and Alaska:

The main problem in any democracy is that crowd pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office and sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.

Ms. Jean Arthur. I can't be sure there
isn't a line forming at the left.

Okay—so opportunism is not one of the differences, as Private Citizen Palin shows when her “common sense conservative solutions” to the Tea Bagger Nation’s ills include more capital gains tax cuts, elimination of inheritance taxes, and increased defense spending.

What is different, though, is what made George Wallace such a potent force. Unlike Sarah Palin, George Wallace was not afraid to work hard. Even if you’ve never even heard the name George Wallace before reading it here, trust me when I say that this Alabaman would have gnawed off both his legs above the knee, before he’d resign the governor’s chair. And then to claim you HAD to resign because a few (and damn few) supposed dingbats had filed too many ethical complaints and freedom of information requests? Fuck that (to coin a phrase). Say what you want about the wild and colorful career of Governor Wallace, he never aspired to lie back on the couch, sipping a diet Dr. Pepper while admiring his Republican National Committee purchased Manolo Blahniks, under the shade of a rolling rack filled with Neiman Marcus garments, all the while soaking up royalties from a ghost written “memoirs”—like someone else I could name.

So, while Sarah Palin is many things—not the least of which is wildly amusing—she has achieved her Peter’s Principle level of incompetence as a low hanging piece of fruit, nothing more. And that won’t change, unless and until she’s ready to get (and keep) a real job. NOTE: Appearing opposite Bill O’Reilly on occasion to bob your head up and down does not count.

Spanker: Ms. Ida Lupino. I'm not sure
who the Spankee is, but he looks
like he belongs on the "naughty" list.

As The Daily Show has clearly demonstrated, idiocy makes for good television—mainly, because the alternative just cannot hold your attention:

The nut of the problem is that covering this presidential campaign is so fucking dull that it’s just barely tolerable…and the only thing worse than going out on the campaign trail and getting hauled around in a booze-frenzy from one speech to another is having to come back to Washington and write about it.

And that was Hunter S. Thompson writing about a race with Humphrey, McGovern, Nixon, Muskie, McCarthy, and Sam Yorty. Imagine a race with the likes of Mitt Romney, where the Parties’ candidates are decided by the late January Florida primary (or the first Tuesday in February, at the latest).

So, real politics is boring—but that’s only half the problem:

[Y]ou tend to forget now and then that about half the people you meet live from one day to the next in a state of such fear and uncertainty that about half the time they honestly doubt their own sanity.
These are not the kind of people who really need to get hung up in depressing political trips. They are not ready for it. Their boats are rocking so badly that all they want to do is get level long enough to think straight and avoid the next nightmare.

Which really is a bummer, as Hunter S. Thompson circa 1973 would mean, but put much better.

Ms. Angie Dickinson and Mr. Dean
Martin, in a scene that did not
appear in Rio Bravo. But if you
want to get technical: nylon pany
hose, stilettos, and cat suits weren't
part of the Olde West either.

Nevertheless, here’s a quote I’ve heard attributed to Nelson Mandela: Everything you do each day is meaningless; and yet, it is vitally important that you do it. I am sorry that so many people doubt their own sanity, but the stakes are too high not to overcome the dullness of what is important. In T.R. Reid’s The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, he cites statistics that more than 20,000 Americans die each year, in otherwise the prime of life, from medical problems that could have been treated—if they had insurance. That’s roughly three times the number of people who died in the September 11 attacks. Why have we spent hundreds of billions on “anti-terrorism,” when our bullshit healthcare system kills many more people?

If we don’t stand up to be counted, our futures will not be decided by opportunists (like George Wallace), idiots (like Sarah Palin), and people who think Bill Ayers really is a big deal (pick your own adjective)—but WILL be decided by lying pukes [NOTE: a value-neutral, non-judgmental term] like the Mitch McConnells, John Ensigns, John Boehners and Eric Cantors of the world.

And that’s just another fact.

Ms. Cyd Charisse. I don't think "Sweetheart of the Navy" carried the same cachet back then that it does now. Or maybe it's just me.

Hick on a High Wire: The Sarah Palin of Game Change

2010-02-15T13:55:00.000-08:00

By the time [Governor Palin] went on Saturday Night Live, the definitional war over her had ended. She retained the ardor and loyalty of her fans, who continued to turn out for her, root for her, and defend her. But in the eyes of the broader public—and even more so those of the national media and political establishments—any traces of her image as a maverick reformer had been erased. For them, Palin had been reduced to nothing more than a hick on a high wire.
--Game Change, p. 410-11

Ms. Zsa Zsa Gabor. Given the subject
of this rant, it's only natural that the
photos feature non-hicks on high
wires. Sort of.

Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, Mr. John Heilemann and Mr. Mark Halperin’s book on the 2008 US presidential election descended on the nation by storm. With more than a few (but not quite “many”) juicy tidbits, and a breathless roll out by Mr. Anderson Cooper and 60 Minutesfeaturing a visibly angry Mr. Steve Schmidt,Game Change promised (almost) to be (pretty much) one of the last words on campaign 2008. Maybe not The Making of the President 2008 that Mr. Theodore H. White would have written, were Mr. White still writing those books—but close.

But is it? Well—depends. For anyone who has a decent life and a significant other, Game Changeis good enough. But for the obsessive-compulsive who are entering their second presidential administration sans girlfriend (cough cough), Game Change really could have used another hundred pages or so. Just my personal opinion, based on The Battle for America 2008by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson, Going Rogue by Sarah Palin--and lots of episodes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

What’s right about Game Change? The Dirt, Baby!

Game Change has more juicy stories than Balz & Johnson’s Battle for America—but not a lot more. For example:

Senator Harry Reid v. Senator Trent Lott

The story that’s gotten the widest ranging press was the racially insensitive quote attributed to Nevada Senator Harry Reid. While Senator Reid publicly insisted he played no role in encouraging Senator Obama to run for the Presidency, Game Change reports “[Senator Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama—a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.” (p. 36)

When Governor Palin appeared on Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s program, both of them were 1) rending their garments over the horror of it all, 2) Shocked SHOCKED that Senator Reid appeared to be getting a pass on this, and 3) those statements were “just as bad” as the statements that then Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) said—but Senator Lott was “forced” to resign his leadership positions. Here’s the clip:

Conspicuous by its absence is any specificity of just what it was that got Senator Lott into so much trouble. For those of you who don’t remember so good, did Senator Lott say the word “negro” or mention anything about dialect? To be fair: no, Senator Lott did not. To be more fair, though, the occasion was Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100 birthday, during a quasi-public gala celebration of the milestone. The tributes and praising of the South Carolina scion were flowing freely, and Senator Lott (apparently caught up in the moment) said that it was just a crying shame that Strom Thurmond was not elected President in 1948—because if he HAD been President, we would have not have had all of “these problems” (unspecified). No doubt those of you who have significant others with whom you sleep with on occasion have been able to set aside any residual anger you feel about the 1948 U.S. Presidential election, and aren’t blowing gaskets at Senator Lott’s asinine statement. Let me help you.

Ms. Gina Lollobrigida. If you're going to
be talking about high wire non-hicks,
you KNOW you need to highlight the
best in the business.

The 1948 election was a wild four-way race, featuring incumbent Democratic President Harry Truman, Governor of New York Tom Dewey (with then California Governor Earl Warren as vice president) nominally the GOP candidate (but actually running on the “I’m not Harry Truman” ticket), former FDR Vice President Henry Wallace on the “Progressive Party” ticket, and South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond on the “States Rights Democratic Party” or Dixiecrats. What did the Dixiecrats want? It all started when the mayor of Minneapolis—a trouble maker named Hubert Humphrey--introduced a platform plank at the Democratic convention, supporting civil rights for African Americans: "The time has come for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!" was how Mayor Hubert put it. Apparently preferring to stay out of all that sunshine, Governor Thurmond led a walk out southern delegates from the Convention. Those delegates created a party dedicated to racial segregation and the Jim Crow laws which preserved the state governments that served as the model for the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws. While Governor Thurmond did not win the Presidency, he did win 2.4% of the vote and carried four states (South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana).

The question becomes, Senator Lott, what exactly WERE “these problems” that an avowed racist President Thurmond would have guided our nation to avoid? If you guessed the trauma over the civil rights movements of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, culminating in the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and a battery of other civil rights’ legislation—you’d be wrong! Senator Lott later INSISTED what he MEANT was that a President Thurmond would have guided our great nation in such a way to avoid (also in a manner unspecified) the “problems” of President Clinton’s impeachment, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and pull my finger (Okay. I made up that last one). Sure…Uh huh….Whatever you say, big guy.

Private Citizen Palin: "Pot Calls Kettle
Anti-Black."

So, in handing out awards for “Open Mouth—Insert Foot,” Senator Reid’s private comments about skin tone and flexible “negro” dialects barely rate a mention—especially compared to Senator Lott’s lavish public praise for Amerika’s champion of South African styled apartheid.

In short, but for all the flapping at Fox News, the Senator Reid story is not even VAGUELY juicy.

So, What are the Juicy Stories from Game Change?

Here’s one:

“FUCK YOU! FUCK, FUCK, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck!!!”
McCain let out the stream of sharp epithets, both middle fingers raised and extended, barking in his wife’s face. He was angry; she had interrupted him. Cindy burst into tears, but, really, she should have been used to it by now.
Game Change, p. 279

Like anyone else who pays attention, I had heard references to Senator McCain’s “explosive” temper in general—but nothing specific. Game Change has a fistful of specifics. To be fair, the book mention several exchanges between Senator McCain and his wife Cindy that are sweet enough to make a person say “Awww……” (Well—I did, but I’m a softy), but still—eleven (count ‘em: eleven) shouted fucks in the face with a double one fingered salute to the Mrs.? Especially a Mrs. like Cindy McCain? That is not something that today’s hip hop happening groovy feminist cats from Nowsville would put up with—not even vaguely.

Ms. Betty Hutton. Second only to Ms.
Lollobrigida when it comes to the high
wire. Unfortunately, for reasons I am
unable to fathom, I am unable to find
any pictures where she does not look
slightly silly....

Here’s another one:

“The McCains fought in front of others, during small meetings and before large events, to the amazement and discomfort of the staff. Things could escalate quickly. She cursed him; he cursed her. She cried; he apologized. Cindy fought back, too. I never wanted you to run for this, she said. You ruined my life. It’s all about you. When it came time to film campaign videos of the couple, the camera crews had to roll for hours to capture a few minutes of warmth.” (Game Change, p. 280).

Or how about this one?

“At a scheduling meeting to discuss [daughter] Meghan’s college graduation, McCain learned that the commencement was a multiday affair that would require him to make several round trips to New York. ‘How many fucking times do I have to go to fucking New York this week?’ he yelled. ‘How many fucking times can you fucking graduate from fucking Columbia?’” (Game Change, p. 283).

For example.

All in all, Game Change details three aspects of Senator McCain that really surprised me. First, the many specific instances of crazy temper: “During a rehearsal for the first GOP debate in 2007, [McCain aide Brett] O’Donnell pressed [Senator McCain] on a question to the point where McCain finally snapped. ‘John, what is the difference between a gay marriage and a civil union?’ O’Donnell asked. McCain replied ‘I don’t give a fuck.’” (Game Change, p. 390). Second, I was familiar with the Senator McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign and flying to the Capitol crying “Here I come—To save the day!” (c.f. Underdog), but from the perspective of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Wall Street Bankers. At another time, I’ll go into detail (trust me—exhaustive detail) about the Great Economic Meltdown of September 2008. But I had no idea just how spectacularly unhelpful Senator McCain was. Game Change quotes Secretary Paulson’s chief of staff Mr. Jim Wilkinson saying “I’m a pro-life, pro-gun, Texas Republican. I worked all eight years for Bush. I helped sell the Iraq War. I was in the Florida recount. And I wrote a letter to John McCain asking for my five hundred contribution back, when he pulled that stunt and came back to D.C. Because it just wasn’t what a serious person does.” Mr. Wilkinson is then quoted as deciding he would be voting for Senator Obama, to Mr. Wilkinson’s “amazement.” (Game Change, p. 393).

What surprised me the most, though, was Senator McCain’s bizarre disorganization. Much more so than Senator Obama, Senator McCain had the luxury of long deadlines to make crucial decisions—but (according to Game Change) pointedly avoiding making decisions, until forced to do so. For example, Senator Obama didn’t secure the Democratic nomination until June third, when he won the Montana primary (to Senator Clinton’s South Dakota), and enough “superdelegates” decided to commit to Senator Obama. Nevertheless, by the first day of the Democratic National Convention on August 25, the Obama campaign had all their ducks in a row, especially vis-à-vis the vice presidency.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, first squandered his position as front runner prior to the campaign, so that by the end of 2007 was lagging badly behind Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, for a variety of good and bad reasons, on January 4 2008, Governor Romney stumbled badly in the Iowa Caucuses, losing to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Governor Romney never recovered, losing to Senator McCain in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. To the extent there was going to be any question who the 2008 GOP nominee would be, the January 19 South Carolina primary and the January 29 Florida primary would make or break the Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson campaigns. Senator McCain won both primaries, thus facing only nominal opposition in the 24 primaries and caucuses that made Tuesday February 5 “Super.” After Super Tuesday, Senator McCain had won the GOP nomination.

Ms. Debra Paget. Remember her?
Me neither. But that is NOT the
smile of a hick, believe you me.

The point is, Senator McCain had a four month lead on Senator Obama to select a vice presidential candidate. Nevertheless, seven months after Senator McCain had sewed up the nomination, he was still dithering over choosing between Senator Lieberman, Florida Governor Charlie Christ, or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. With the GOP convention on September 1, on August 27 the McCain campaign flies in a 44 year old Governor with twenty months of experience, from a state whose population is smaller than San Francisco. And a moron says “What?”

In both The Battle for America and Game Change, the sloppiness and rank idiocy behind selecting a vice president was emblematic of the McCain campaign, with the responsibility laying square on Senator McCain’s cranky shoulders.

Any Good Dirt on Sarah Palin?

I thought you’d never ask:

Following the August 27 meeting with Team McCain, where the VP is offered to Governor Palin and she accepts it, Governor Palin and McCain Campaign chief of staff Mr. Steve Schmidt are flying back to Alaska. Governor Palin is described as appearing “perfectly serene:”

“Five days earlier, this woman, for all her success in Alaska, had been living in relative obscurity, without the faintest inkling that she was being seriously considered to be McCain’s running mate. And yet here she was, totally unruffled, utterly unflustered, not even terribly excited.
‘You seem very calm, not nervous,’ Schmidt said to her quizzically.
Palin nodded and replied ‘It’s God’s plan.’
(Game Change, p. 364)

In Going Rogue, Governor Palin also makes numerous references to the hand of “God” reaching out, and how the will of Providence took an active role in bringing the Governor to the national stage. Unfortunately, no one asks what I want to know: Was that also God’s will that Governor Palin look like a moron in her interview with Katie Couric? (God and that wacky sense of humour of His!) Was it also part of “God’s Plan” that Governor Palin be selected as Senator McCain’s running mate, with the two of them go on to be badly spanked in the November election, and then Governor Palin would find herself so unable to govern a one of the smallest states, and then resign in virtual disgrace? Now that’s one Mysterious Way….

Ms. Claudia Cardinale. Not necessarily
known for her high wires, she is by any
measure not a hick.

Here’s another one: Prior to the GOP convention, ABC News’s Charlie Gibson asked Senator McCain about Governor Palin:

“‘Can you look the country straight in the eye and say that Sarah Palin has the qualities and has enough experience to be commander in chief?’
‘Oh absolutely,’ McCain said—and then cited Palin’s largely ceremonial role as commander of the Alaska National Guard, an argument his own campaign had rejected as ludicrous.”
(Game Change, p. 368).

More? On Tuesday, the day before Governor Palin was to make her GOP Convention speech, the scene in Governor Palin’s hotel suite is described as follows:

“Boxes of Manolo Blahniks were piled up four feet high and stretching twenty feet along one wall of the living room. Neiman Marcus bags were everywhere, along with several rolling garment racks loaded with suits and dresses—maybe sixty outfits.”
(Game Change, p. 369).

The beginning of the scandal known as “Clothes-gate” to the cognoscenti (that sounds better than “loser nerds”). But what does Governor Palin say about Clothes-gate?

“The first wardrobe story hit on October 22: ‘RNC Shells Out $150K for Palin Fashion.’ The headline was highly misleading, as was the article itself, which said according to campaign finance disclosures, the McCain Campaign had spent $150,000 ‘to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family.’
“I never asked the New York stylists to purchase clothes, many of the items were intended for the use of other people, and in the end the wardrobe items were all returned.”
(Going Rogue, p. 314).

Ms. Joan Collins. Before Dynasty, she
had to do SOMETHING to bring home
the bacon...I suppose.

(“Returned” where? Back to Neiman Marcus? Doubtful. Game Change also describes how Governor Palin’s suite also included a seamstress, who was working steadily altering and tailoring outfits, specifically for Governor Palin).

Governor Palin continues:

“My family is frugal. We clip coupons. We shop at Costco. We buy diapers in bulk and generic peanut butter. . .So the portrayal of my family wasting other people’s money on clothes was a false one. And many wondered at the same time why no other candidates or their spouses were being asked a thing about their hair, make up, or clothes.
“Elizabeth Hasselbeck had a theory . . . 'Now, with everything going on in the world, this seems a bit odd,' Hasselbeck said from the podium before a crowd of thousands. 'But let me tell you, this is deliberately sexist.'"
(Going Rogue, p. 325).

(And here I thought it was part of Jehovah’s Master Plan that campaign finance disclosures listing expenses of $150K for a vice presidential candidate and her family are newsworthy. Apparently, God’s a bit of fuck up).

“’I’m glad Elizabeth brought it up because it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to tell you the whole clothes thing,’ I told the cheering crowd. “Those clothes are not my property. Just like the lighting and staging and like everything else the RNC purchases. I’m not taking them with me. I’m wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska.’ There, simple, it was over, and it was truthful.
“Word quickly came back from headquarters that I’d done it again—I’d gone rogue. What I had actually done was speak up to defend my ethics and my family, but still, the hammer came down.
“. . . [T]he campaign folks, especially those who had vetted and chosen me, also knew the truth. But as the story grew legs, they didn’t lift a finger to correct the record. I couldn’t understand why until I realized that by the end of the campaign, the wardrobe fairy tale [sic] had become convenient.”
(Going Rogue, p. 317).

What? Don’t all candidates announce that the campaign’s mandatory financial disclosure statements are a pack of lies?

As I write this, MSNBC’s request for e-mails from Governor Palin’s office shows (among other things) that the frugal Palins not only charged Alaska to purchase and set up a tanning bed in the Governor’s mansion, the Palins tried to hide the fact by “disguising” the electric bills for the mansion. Maybe then Governor Palin was billing the State for her tanning bed, so she could afford to buy name brand peanut butter.

Ms. Joan Leslie. What? Who says you
can't swing in four inch heels?

But is Governor Palin that Stupid?

“. . . Schmidt, Wallace, and other members of [Governor Palin’s] traveling party . . . found that, although, she’d made some progress with her memorization and studies, her grasp of rudimentary facts and concepts was minimal. Palin couldn’t explain why North and South Korea were separate nations. She didn’t know what the Fed did. Asked who attacked America on 9/11, she suggested several times that it was Saddam Hussein. Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank.”
(Game Change, p. 397).

Well…..yeah. On 60 Minutes, Steve Schmidt also said (which is not mentioned in Game Change) that Governor Palin did not know Africa was a continent, as opposed to just one nation. In her chats with Bill O’Reilly, Governor Palin hotly denied that she didn’t know about the two Koreas, and insisted she knew all about Africa. However, she did admit that she knew as much as the “average American” knew about Iraq, so conceded that much was true. (Governor Palin also uses the same weaselly language in Going Rogue, about how she knows what “average Americans” know, and countless times brags on her “common sense conservatism” and “common sense solutions.”)

But how ignorant is Governor Palin? In Game Change, McCain chief of staff Steve Schmidt assigns Mr. Steve Biegun (who is not mentioned in Going Rogue) and Randy Scheunemann to tutor Governor Palin. “You guys have got a lot of work to do…She doesn’t know anything,” Schmidt is quoted as saying. Game Change continues:

“Scheunemann and Biegun took Schmidt at his word. They sat Palin down at a table in the suite, spread out a map of the world, and proceeded to give her a potted history of foreign policy. They stated with the Spanish Civil War, then moved on to World War I, World War II, the cold war, and what Scheunemann liked to call the “the [sic] three wars” of today—Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror.”
(Game Change, p. 370-71)

Brief interjection: Now, weirdos like me honestly DO think the Spanish Civil War was damn important—but to start there? I think the Game Change editors/proofreaders whiffed on that one, with Palin’s tutors beginning with the Spanish-American Warinstead of the 1936 Civil War.

Here's what Sarah Palin said about Mr. Schmidt to Mr. Bill O'Reilly:

Be that as it may, the question remains: is Sarah Palin smarter than the average bear? Probably—but I do know that for someone who aspires to be a political player on the national state, Sarah Palin’s intellectual capacity is abysmal. Here’s why I think so:

Ms. Gina Lollobrigida. I could hear
rumblings from the peanut gallery that
a swing was not a high wire, so I better
slip in another Ms. Lollobrigida. Happy?

First, Sarah Palin has a Bachelors in “communications,” attended five (count ‘em: five) different colleges, and took ONE class in economics (“Macroeconomics,” she says in Going Rogue), where she scored a D. Now, none of those things in themselves spell “idiot,” but that’s a whole lot of “idiot” smoke.

Second, Going Rogue is wall to wall generalities about “common sense” and what the “average American” thinks, and nothing more specific than that. Those are also huge red flags.

Third, looking at the specific allegations of idiocy from Game Change and Mr. Schmidt’s 60 Minutesappearance, the fact Governor Palin doesn’t understand the concepts on that list is not terribly surprising. Beginning with the “two Koreas,” I am sure that Governor Palin knows the name Kim Jong Ill, and that North Korea is “communist” and South Korea is “free”—but not anything more than that. The Korean War, Syngman Rhee, Kim Il Sung, and the 38th Parallel probably mean less than nothing to her—even if she has watched a whole bunch of Alan Alda on MASH.

As for not knowing what the Federal Reserve does—I can see how the vagaries of our nation’s money supply is probably a closed book to most Americans (and probably Governor Palin as well). There’s not one word about the banking system in Going Rogue, and her platitudes regarding the 2008 credit crisis are mealy mouthed and nonsensical in the extreme. Still—I don’t think it’s too much to expect the Governor of Alaska (and the mayors of San Francisco and all cities larger than The City) to know SOMETHING about the banking industry. I mean, doesn’t anyone issue government bonds in Alaska?

Not Saddam Hussein. But also not a
key architect of the 9/11 attacks.

As for the 9/11 terror attacks, despite the best efforts of President Bush, Condeleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney, if you think any of the following were connected to the sky jackings, you are an embarrassment to the genus primate: Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Vladimir Putin, orBooberella. So, considering that Private Citizen Palin admits she thought Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks puts her square in the the “idiot” box. Moreover, the fact Governor Palin’s SON was shipping over to Iraq, the fact she did not know the difference between Shiite and Sunni (and probably Iran and Iraq as well) is disgraceful.

Moving on to the “Africa” story, several of Private Citizen Palin’s defenders insist that the Private Citizen knew all about Africa, from the missionary work her church did, as well as collections to combat AIDS. My personal opinion: most Americans don’t know squat about Africa, and Sarah Palin would have no reason to be any different. On the one hand, I think Mr. Schmidt may be overstating the case when he said that Private Citizen Palin didn’t understand that Africa consisted of several different countries. But on the other, I would bet money that prior to her special tutorials, Private Citizen Palin could not have named five African nations.

Again, is Sarah Palin an idiot? Yes—in the sense that she doesn’t even know the limits of her own ignorance, and views the degree to that she’s uninformed as a strength. That point is stressed in Game Change, The Battle for America, and even in Palin’s own Going Rogue.

But Are Ms. Palin’s Pants Really on Fire?

Big time, as Vice President Cheney would say:

“The first signs of trouble appeared immediately after the convention, when the campaign staff began digging in a systematic way into Palin’s background, and noticed that she had a tendency to shade the truth. Had she really said ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to the Bridge to Nowhere? Well, no. Had she really sold the state jet on eBay? Not exactly. Had she and Todd really been without health insurance until he got his union card? Actually, the story was more complicated…The campaign quickly discovered that consulting her about any issue…invariably yielded a sanitized version of reality.”
(Game Change, p. 396)

Battle for America presents almost an identical laundry list of occasions were Private Citizen Palin looked reality square in the eye, and denied it. Regarding the line in her stump speech about how Alaska said “Thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere, and how if Alaska wanted a bridge, they’d build it themselves—what was left unsaid was that Alaska still received the all the money, they were just not required to build a bridge with it. Palin told the campaign that she had “no recollection” of whether the town of Wasilla charged victims of sexual assault for rape kits and examinations. “McCain’s advisors could not believe that” (Battle for America, p. 359).

Ms. Gene Tierney. Just because
someone has you dress like an
idiot, that does not make you a
hick. It does not hurt if you
also happen to look like Ms.
Tierney.

Both Game Change and Battle quote the McCain campaign as surprised and embarrassed when the final report came out regarding “Troopergate” (when then Governor Palin pressured (and ultimately fired) Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper who was also Palin’s ex-brother in law. Governor Palin immediately claimed the report wholly vindicated her, when it did nothing of the sort. Even in Going Rogue, Private Citizen Palin fuzzes over what the report actually said: “The ‘independent’ investigator ultimately issued a strained and nonsensical decision in October that actually declared that I had been well within my legal rights to reassign Commissioner Monegan” (Rogue, P. 369).

And then there’s the story about the Alaska Independence Party:

“…Palin got into a fight with Schmidt when she insisted that the campaign put out a statement denying Todd’s involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party. Palin contended that Todd had mistakenly registered with the party and rectified the error; she also claimed that the party had nothing to do with secession. Schmidt curtly informed her that secession was the party’s reason for existence and that, according to the party’s records, Todd had been a member for seven years” (Game Change, p. 410).

Or as Palin puts it in Going Rogue: “My husband, for example, isn’t registered with any party, for sound reasons, having been an eyewitness to the idiosyncrasies of party machines” (Rogue, p. 384). Sure. And how about this one? “Piper Indi Grace was born March 19 [2001], a Monday. Todd flies a Piper plane, but I just liked the name. ‘Indi’ for ‘Independence’ (though the Indy 500 is pretty cool too)…” (Rogue, p. 76). Right—Your daughter is named “Indi” because of a motor race in Indiana, and not because Todd was active in the Alaska Independence Party at that time.

But Private Citizen Palin gets right to the heart of the problem: "It was one lie after another--from rape kits to Bridges to Nowhere. All easy enough to disprove if the press had done its job" (Rogue, p. 237). See? The problem was not Ms. Palin; the problem was the mainstream media's bad habit of pointing out discrepancies. It's a running theme in Going Rogue that it's the media's job to make Ms. Palin look good--not that it's Ms. Palin's job to make herself look competent in front of the media.

Rest assured, not only are Ms. Palin’s pants on fire, she is also hanging from the proverbial telephone wire.

What Does Game Change Miss?

What Game Change (and to a lesser extent, Battle for America) misses out on are three areas: the Democratic Convention, the GOP Convention, and Private Citizen Palin’s performance in her debate.

Democratic Convention

Given that the last time a political convention actually meant something was the Democrats in 1960, where there really was a question as to who would be nominated, I’ll concede that it is difficult to stage a convention that is worth a damn. Perhaps because there wasn’t a “convention bounce” in the popularity polls, the size and substance of the 2008 Democratic Convention does not get the play it rates. Nevertheless, that convention was a replay of the Iowa Caucuses, meaning that it was going to be bad news to be a Republican in 2008. While a respectable 119,188 people showed up for Iowa’s GOP caucuses, that number was dwarfed by the 239,000 odd people who attended the Democratic Caucuses. If the Republicans were going to hang on to the White House, Iowa was a state they’d need—and the numerical disparity of caucus attendance was not a good sign.

Ms. Adele Jergens. Just because you
have a really big hat, that does not
make you a hick.

Similarly, the numbers attending the Democratic convention in Denver were huge. Not only was the convention hall filled, but when then Senator Obama gave his acceptance speech, he gave it before a filled Mile High Stadium. That’s a whole lotta people committed to go work in the so-called swing states. Additionally, sharing the stage with Senator Obama were a large number of military men, all of whom endorsing Senator Obama’s ability to be commander in chief. While the McCain campaign certainly tired, they wouldn’t get any traction over the fact that Senator McCain was a former POW in Vietnam, and Senator Obama had never served in the military. At any given time, Senator Obama had more (and higher ranking) military officers endorsing his candidacy that did Senator McCain.

Just seeing the size and scope of the Democrats at their convention meant they were going to be a formidable force in the election, regardless of the immediate polls.

GOP Convention

While this isn’t really the time for me to go into a rant about how the GOP’s 2004 Convention was the sleaziest in recent memory, there’s no question (well, in my mind) that the GOP’s 2008 Convention was the saddest. The Bush-Cheney team had set new records (the bad kind) in popularity, such that none of the (at one time) fourteen GOP contenders ran as a member of the incumbent party. Every one of them (Governor Romney especially) were running on a platform of “change.”

When it came time for the convention in Minneapolis, candidates stayed away in droves. From the Pacific Northwest, both Oregon incumbent GOP Senator Gordon Smith and Dino Rossi, Washington GOP challenger to Governor Gregoire both claimed “scheduling conflicts” prevented them from attending any part of the convention (both went on to lose their respective races anyway). The only candidate in a close race who played a significant role was Senator Tim Palwenty, host of the convention (who also went on to lose his seat).

During the convention itself, the GOP lighting people set bright lights on the small number of people on the main floor, leaving the bulk of the hall in darkness—all in an effort to disguise the small turnout. The sitting President made a brief statement via camera, and other than that, his name was not mentioned. Ostensively, both the President and Vice President’s speeches, which were scheduled on the opening day of the convention, were nixed because of an approaching hurricane—and could not be rescheduled. Given the number of hicks and dips who didn’t hold elected office but nevertheless spoke at the convention, the fact that a two-term sitting President couldn’t be wedged in is a little suspicious…..

All in all, the 2008 GOP Convention was a convention without either a message or an audience.

Ms. Adele Jergens. Okay--Admittedly,
sitting on a pile of hay, chewing on a
piece of straw is pretty hick-like. But
not if you're also wearing heels.

The Vice Presidential Debate

What all parties make clear (even Ms. Palin herself in Going Rogue), by the time the vice presidential debate rolled around, expectations for Governor Palin couldn’t be lower if she were a third grader—as opposed to someone sitting a heartbeat from the Presidency. Nevertheless, the pressure was on Biden not to be condescending or rude regarding what was sure to be a streams of Palin-style idiocy.

“The debate went well—from my perspective, anyway,” is how Ms. Palin puts it (Rogue, p. 297), once again invoking the immortal Ronald Reagan quote about how we don’t pass “freedom” on to our children: “We have to fight for it and protect it and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending out sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America back in the day when men and women were free.”
“That’s what I wanted Americans to remember,” Ms. Palin concludes (Rogue, p. 297). What Ms. Palin DOESN’T want America to remember is that when Ronald Reagan made that speech, the programs that were going to destroy freedom for his children, and their children’s children were Medicare and Medicaid. So, is Ms. Palin calling for a repeal of Medicare and Medicaid? Oddly, she doesn’t say.

There are two points that infuriate me about that debate. First, the fact that Ms. Palin largely received a “pass” as to whether she would answer a given question. Several times, Ms. Palin gave a series of non-responsive platitudes instead of answering a question—and then she flat out SAID that she very well might not answer the question the moderator asked. At that point, it’s the role of the moderator to call the rogue (to coin a phrase) participant to task. Unfortunately, Moderator Gwen Ifil might have felt she was hamstrung, because the McCain Campaign had questioned Ms. Ifil’s integrity, because she was writing a book on African American politicians (including Barak Obama).

Nevertheless, if any other candidate at any time deigned to declare it was within the candidate’s sole discretion to answer any question, that campaign would be over before the debate was finished. But not Sarah Palin: “Well, she’s pretty stupid—so we’ll let her pick and choose which questions fit best with her memorized platitudes.”

The second point that angered me beyond the power for rational thought was Ms. Palin’s persistent winking during the debate. At first, I thought I was seeing things—but she did it several times. What is THAT supposed to mean? Is she being cute? Who is she supposed to be winking at? What the hell was the point of that? What if Mitt Romney or Chris Dodd winked while they debated? I don't even want to think about it......

In conclusion, I thought Game Change was weak on the conventions, and gave Ms. Palin a pass on her “performance” in the debate.

Ms. Ginger Rogers. I chose this photo to show that she didn't HAVE to do everything in heels and backwards....

So—Where is Governor Palin Headed?

Not a regular gig on Fox News

Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Bill O’Reilly et al, but not just any idiot can wander in off the street and do their job. Sarah Palin just does not have the intellectual depth to be a talking head. She couldn’t even be one of the flock of idiots on Fox & Friends. For example, when Glen Beck asked Private Citizen Palin who her favorite “founding father” was, she gave the deer in headlights flash, and then spit out “George Washington.” Not to dis on the “Father” of our country, but if Washington is your “favorite,” then you’ve got an excellent malpractice suit against your high school history teacher.

During her brief sojourn with Bill O’Reilly, virtually all of Governor Palin’s comments were “uh huh” and platitudes about “common sense solutions” (and not anything more specific than that). She couldn’t hold up her end of the conversation, something that both Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly agreed on:

Another position in electoral politics?

Forget it. If you can’t be Mayor of Alaska (there’s not enough people who live there to support a “governor”) because of (literally) a handful of ethics complaints, you can’t do anything else. That’s the easiest ride out there. Moreover, if your idea of “unfair, got ya” questions are the softballs Katie Couric handed Governor Palin, what would she do with all the Helen Thomas wannabes?

A missionary position?--Wait, that didn't come out right

Governor Palin is positioning herself to take over some large evangelical foundation—like Focus on the Family, founded by James Dobson. One of my favorite Alaska bloggers, The Immoral Minority, first suggested that career path, and it makes sense. What is Sarah Palin good at? Reciting crap that she’s memorized by rote. She can’t think on her feet, because of too shallow of an intellectual base and too jumpy of a personality. Heading up a group like Focus on the Family allows her to work with a variety of ghostwriters, the luxury of never having to move off a set stump speech, plus you make lots of money. Beats working.

How Sure are You that Governor Palin’s Political Career is Over?

Pretty sure:

“In late October [2008], Obama’s focus group maestro, David Binder, was conducting a session with a group of swing voters in a Cleveland suburb. A middle aged woman let loose with a string of not-unfamiliar broadsides against Obama. He’s a Muslim. He’s soft on terrorism—because he’s a Muslim. He doesn’t put his hand on his heart during patriotic rituals. We’re not even sure he was born in this country.
“Binder was confused. This was supposed to be a group of undecided voters. If you think all those terrible things about Obama, he asked the woman, how can you possibly be undecided?
“Because if McCain dies, Palin would be president, she said.”
(Game Change, p. 416)

Ms. Laraine Day. Ms. Day is a graduate of the Sarah Palin Correspondence School of Debate.

Books cited in this note:

Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin (Harper 2010)
The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election, by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson (Viking 2009)
Going Rogue: An American Life, by Sarah Palin (Harper 2009)

Signs of a Misspent Youth

2010-01-12T18:18:00.000-08:00

I was watching Ms. Annabelle Gurwitch's documentary Fired! which features many talented people confessing about how at one time they were fired from jobs they were eminently qualified for. One of the featured speakers is Mr. Andy Borowitz, who explains how he was fired as a writer for the television show "The Facts of Life." With understandable bitterness, Mr. Borowitz declares that "The Facts of Life" was "the worst television show ever produced."

Mr. Muntadar al-Zaidi, expressing his contempt for American policy towards Iraq--and American television.

Now, I have read some of Mr. Borowitz's writings, and have heard several of his commentaries on National Public Radio. Mr. Bororwitz is clearly a clever person, and does have a better than average knowledge of the scope and dreck of American popular culture. But "The Facts of Life" the worst television show ever? No Mr. Borowitz, I'm sorry; it's not even close. But am I saying that "The Facts of Life" was a "good" show? Not even vaguely. In fact, a newcomer to American television could certainly believe that no program could *possibly* be more miserable to sit through than "The Facts of Life"--but that person lacks the imagination that is the bane of bad American television.

Not Jay North.

So, how DO you decide what is the "worst program ever" on American television? As a long time TV watcher, I offer the following criteria. First, you need a starting line to separate the wheat from the chaff: pick a really crappy program as your baseline, and then ask yourself "Would I rather watch this program, or the baseline program?" All shows better (no matter how crappy) are out of contention. As a base, I like the old "Dennis the Menace" program, which starred Jay North. Why? Because as a program about a small boy who was supposedly a "menace," that show was so inoffensive and bland, just watching it your could feel the wrinkles in your brain starting to smooth out and your IQ drop. Would I rather watch "The Facts of Life" than "Dennis the Menace"? Yes, I would. In fact, I would get up from a comfortable chair, walk across the room, and change the channel from "Dennis the Menace" to "The Facts of Life" (the fact I would be reading even a bad book before watching either program is of no moment). Back in the bone pile for "Facts of Life."

No, piecing together truly terrible television is not something to be taken lightly. That's why I offer a second criteria to ease the struggle: look to categories or types of shows. Why bother deciding between "The Gong Show" or "Hee Haw," when you haven't even decided which is the worst game show, or which is the worst whatever the heck kind of a show "Hee Haw" is. For those of us who lived through the 1970s, the genre of "musical variety" programs leaps to the forefront of any consideration of "bad television." For you Gen Xers and beyond, you might be familiar with "The Carol Burnet Show," "The Sonny and Cher Show," or even "The Flip Wilson Show." On occasion, those programs were good. Quite good, in fact. But what about such notables as "The Hudson Brothers Razzle Dazzle Comedy Hour" (don't ask), "The Mandrell Sisters' Show," or "The Tony Orlando and Dawn Show"? I would argue that all three of those shows were WORSE than "The Dennis the Menace Show"--nevermind "The Facts of Life." But dive even deeper into this inferno, and you'll find abominations like "The Donny and Marie Show" and "The Mac Davis Show." Why were all these shows an hour long? I would have to guess they were the "reality tv" of the 1970s: barely popular enough to pay for themselves, and cheap to produce. But for the worst of the worst, you have to be a true afficionado. I'm talking about "The Brady Bunch Hour" and the now legendary "Pink Lady."

Many theologians consider the fact this
program was scheduled for a full hour
to be proof Jesus died in vain.

The Brady Bunch Hour ran for nine episodes in 1976 to 1977, and involved a plot explanation of how an extended family of step-siblings became stars of a musical variety show that is best left unsaid. Various clips of the show are on YouTube, and show that whatever talents Robert Reed (Pop Brady) and Ann B. Davis ("Alice" the maid) have, they don't include singing and dancing. Not even vaguely. Most notable, however, is the fact that one of the Brady kids turned out to be quite a talented singer and dancer. Unfortunately, that child was Geri Reischl who became "Jan" when Eve Plumb (the original "Jan") declined to participate. How did the show explain Jan's transformation? They didn't, I guess hoping the original show's core fan base just wouldn't notice. Well, **I** noticed, being a long time fan of both Eve Plumb and the REAL Jan (You shut up. Jan understands). Nevertheless, Ms. Reischl has achieved considerable internet acclaim (well deserved) as "Fake Jan," and I'm guessing it's because her talents so outshine the original actors, that one couldn't help but wish replacements were cast for the other eight parts (that's what I remember thinking at the time).

But "Pink Lady"--now there's a program that cut new ground. Brought by those two great misanthropes Sid and Marty Kroft, Pink Lady featured two attractive Japanese women who were a sensation in their native Japan. Mitsuyo Nemoto and Keiko Masuda, the singing duo who made up "Pink Lady," were certainly young and attractive. I guess they were also talented singers--but it was hard for American audiences to tell, because what they did not do was speak English. While they learned their songs and few English speaking lines phonetically, it was still difficult to understand what they said through their heavy Japanese accents. I remember some shows just gave up, and had the singers speak Japanese with English subtitles. Cast as the straight man to Pink Lady was the immortal Jeff Altman, ostensively a "comedian" whose resume included a small reoccurring role on "The Dukes of Hazzard."

For everyone who thought I was just
making this up.......

Pink Lady ran for four immortal episodes in 1980. Recently, I was stunned to find at my local "weirdo" video rental store VHS copies of all four shows. Watching them again, I was not surprised to find that the show was as bad as I remembered, and a little surprised at how dated the material was. Of the two women, "Mei" (Mitsuyo Nemoto) was the "smart one," who tried to move the show along and introduced the upcoming songs and skits. "Kei" (Keiko Masuda) was the "sassy one," who following the Sonny and Cher format, frequently insulted Jeff Altman. Mr. Altman's then responded to these "insults" with a Jackie Gleason "Honeymooners"-style pulling back of his fist, threatening to punch Kei in the face. The threatened beatings made Kei visibly uncomfortable--which probably was not supposed to be part of the gag.

But all in all, the high point of all four shows was when Keiko Masuda had to introduce (and then thank at the end of the show) Teddy Pendergrass. If you haven't seen a Japanese person try and say "Teddy Pendergrass," you haven't lived.

Also worse than "The Facts of Life" were the flurry of "talk shows" in the 80s, the godfather of the genre being the now immortal "The Morton Downey Jr. Show." Who was Morton Downey Jr.? You don't know, and trust me on this: you shouldn't care. Mr. Downey Jr. was an angry, surly, mean-spirited conservative whose mission in life had to have been booking the dumbest people in creation as "guests," so they could all yell at each other. This show ran for two years in the 80s, but where it really broke ground was with its studio "audience." As mean, rude and crude as Mr. Downey's show persona was, his audience consisted primarily of thirty-something men who were not only even ruder and meaner than Mr. Downey, they were much louder and had to have been screened to eliminate anyone with an IQ in the upper two digits. Those flocks of morons make Jerry Springer's studio audiences look like Dale Carnegie Honours Graduates.

Morton Downey Jr. Accept no substitutes.

Also in Talk Show Hall of Infamy are the shows that tried to be Johnny Carson and the Tonight Show. Those shows weren't aggressively offensive (as was Morton Downey), but they were so completely mind numbingly boring, you'd find yourself changing the channel BACK to Morton Downey. I'll highlight two such programs in particular: "The Chevy Chase Show" and "Thicke of the Night," hosted by Alan Thicke. Now both Mr. Chase and Mr. Thicke are bright and talented entertainers--but in comparison, Public Broadcasting's Charlie Rose comes across like Wrestlemania. Sadly, I fear those shows will be lost to history, because they are just too dull to revive--even in a society that sees fit to offer "Pink Lady" on VHS. Well, maybe it's not so sad.

Moving directly to the format that American television is best known for, the immortal "situation comedy" or "sit-com" to the cognoscenti, there is truly an embarrassment of riches when it comes to bad television. For example, in naming the worst show ever, do the temporary summer time "replacement" shows that consist of failed pilots and cancelled series count? There's a reason those programs are unofficially known as "Garbage Time Theatre." I am going to argue no, they don't count. For sit-coms, just getting on television is not enough. To be in contention, the show must not only be crappy, it must have legs. In other words, some sizable group of idiots at some time must have followed the program.

Eva Gabor--I guess this is how she
dressed in New York, because I don't
remember seeing her wear this outfit
in Hooterville (a name that sounds
dirty, but isn't really).

No doubt everyone will have their sentimental favorites. There are the shows that are not only stupid, but broadly offensive, like "Hogan's Heroes" and "The Flying Nun." Then there are the shows that star stupid people doing stupid things, usually with a rural format: "Green Acres," "Petticoat Junction," and the early "Beverly Hillbillies," for example. Why do I have such a low opinion of people from the "red" states? I watched a lot of "Green Acres" as a kid.

But my pick for worst sitcom ever (far worse than Facts of Life) is "Full House." For me, Full House is a pantheon to the America of Ronald Reagan: an America that never existed, but like Voltaire's god, for some reason had to be invented. Three guys (Bob Saget, John Stamos, and Dave Coulier) raising three little girls (one of whom were Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen), using "plots" that had to have been discarded by the writing staff of "Family Affair" as too pointless and schmaltzy. In the interest of full disclosure, while Full House SOMEHOW managed to run from 1987 to 1995, I never saw an entire episode--mainly because I could never watch more than about seven minutes before wanting to tear my own ear off.

Full House. Not quite gay porn, not quite pedophilia--but somehow worse than both combined.

There are other formats I have not discussed, namely game shows, the "reality" show craze, and dramas. But I'm feeling nauseous right now, and I'll have to write about them at another time. Sorry.

But in conclusion (for those of you not paying attention, or the great majority of you who got bored and skipped to the end), my pick for the three worst shows on television (each representing a particular type) are Pink Lady (musical variety), The Chevy Chase Show and Thicke of the Night (tie--talk show), and Full House (situation "comedy"). Of course, "Best in Show" has to go to Full House. Trust me on this one.

Note: According to the Wikipedia, on TV Guide's list of "The Worst Fifty Shows of All Time," Pink Lady is ONLY number 35. What on earth could be the 34 shows WORSE than Pink Lady?

Designer Desperately Seeking Intelligence--Will Travel

2009-12-09T05:16:00.000-08:00

Going Rogue, An American Life by Sarah Palin (HarperCollins 2009)
The Day the Universe Changed by James Burke (Little, Brown & Co. 1985)
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (Houghton Mifflin Co. 2008)
The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond (Harper Perennial 1992)
The Republican War on Science (Revised Edition) by Chris Mooney (Basic Books 2005)
Judgment Day—Intelligent Design on Trial (NOVA and The American Experience, WGBH Boston 2007)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, opinion by Hon. Judge John E. Jones III, (District Court, Mid D. PA 2005)

In Ms. Palin’s book where she details her life as a Merry Rogue, at one point she opts to take a brief digression while describing her job "interview" for vice president. Mr. Steve Schmidt and Mr. Mark Salter, two of the McCain for President staffers, ask Ms. Palin about “theories of origins” (Ms. Palin’s expression). Ms. Palin describes her “position” (again, her word) as follows: “I believed in the evidence for microevolution—that geological and species change occurs incrementally over time. But I didn’t believe in the theory that human beings –-thinking, loving beings—originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea. Or that human beings began as single celled organisms that developed into monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees; I believed we came about through a random process, but were created by God. Finally, I believe that for every drop of rain, a flower grows.”

Ms. Jayne Mansfield, posing for a
photo illustrating the concept of
"microevolution" for the Intelligent
Design textbook, "Of Pandas and
People."

Okay--I made up that last part. But then, Ms. Palin states that the following exchange occurred:

“But your dad’s a science teacher,” [Steve] Schmidt objected.
“Yes” [by Ms. Palin].
“Then you know that science proves evolution.”
“Parts of evolution,” I [Palin] said. “But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt.”
Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows . . .
I had just dared to mention the C-Word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.” (Rogue, p. 217).

Reading that section, I have to say that like Mr. Schmidt, I also winced—and not just because I think of a whole different reference when people mention the “C-Word.”

Ms. Palin then goes on to describe how her family spent many a meal time, chatting about the planets, the periodic table, and the defining characteristics of various Alaskan fauna “between forkfuls (sic) of caribou lasagna.” She then suggests that in the “fossil proof of evolutionary patterns . . . one could actually view [the patterns] as evidence of a grand design[.]” She adds that “. . . [I]n eighteen years of impromptu supper-table lessons and expert-guided field trips to American national parks, never had Dad or anyone else convinced me that the earth had sprung forth conveniently stocked with the ingredients necessary to spontaneously generate life and its beautify and diversity; in fact, I thought the idea flew in the face of the evidence I saw all around.”

Ms. Irish McCalla. My pick for the
goddess of the faux leopard print.
She almost invariably looked better
than the faux leopard did.

In defending her version of “creationism,” Ms. Palin writes “I know the word ‘creationism’ evokes (sic) images of wild-eyed fundamentalists burying evidence of any kind of evolution under an avalanche of Bible verses. But I needed the campaign to know they weren’t going to put words in my mouth on this issue. I would go with them reasonably to a nuanced position, based on facts. But I wouldn’t parrot a politically correct line just because some voting bloc might get upset.” She concludes that if “William F. Buckley—a devout Catholic and a world class intellectual—could believe in the divine origin of man, why couldn’t I?” (Rogue, p 216-218).

Here’s why not. Speaking as a member of the voting bloc that would find Ms. Palin’s reasonably nuanced position upsetting, my concern has nothing to do with political correctness, and everything to do with scientific correctness.

So, What Does Ms. Palin “Believe” About Evolution?

Giving Ms. Palin the benefit of the doubt (i.e. that she is being sincere, and not simply pandering to morons professing divine inspiration), she doesn’t have a clue what she really believes. For Ms. Palin, the earth may very well have been created in six days, with “god” creating all manner of animals, vegetables, and minerals. However, Ms. Palin is also aware that some things that may have been present at "the creation” are not here now (like triceratops) and some things that are here now were not present at the creation (like goldfish, roses, and plutonium). Therefore, “some changes” (unspecified) are possible (the so-called “microevolution” of the creationist/Intelligent Design community) but change to the extent different animals became new species (“macroevolution”) is not possible.

Unfortunately, as to where the line should be drawn between “micro” and “macro” evolutions, Ms. Palin has no idea. But regardless of wherever that line may be, the whole process of “evolution” (to the Sarah Palins of the world) is directed by a conscious intelligence, who created this “grand design.”

Ms. Palin is not alone in both her scientific confusion and misunderstanding of natural selection. A poll taken by the Pew Research Center in 2005 found that 42% of Americans believed that human beings were “created” by “god” in basically their present form, as opposed to evolving over time. That same year, the Gallop Poll found 45% of Americans held that view.

Ms. Bettie Page. Popular opinion may
have her queen of the ugly leopard
outfit--but my heart still belongs to
Irish McCalla.

“You Can’t Prove There Was No Creation by God—You Have to Take It On Faith”

In a word: no. god (sic) did not create Adam and Steve and Eve and Adele (I almost went with Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.) How do I know this? Because, as Mr. James Burke points out in his wonderfully entertaining book The Day the Universe Changed, people in the eighteenth century faced the very real possibility that God had made a mistake. From that question about God's mistakes, arose the field of evolutionary biology. The following is a summary of Mr. Burke’s history of the Marvel Comics-styled Awesome Origin of natural selection.

In 1687, Isaac Newton published Principia Mathematica, explaining how the universe worked. It wasn’t the hand of God pushing the oceans that caused tides (for example), tides were caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. So, having discovered a grand design accounting for planetary motion, etc etc, it was logical to do the same with flora and fauna. Which is why in 1752, Carl von Linne, a Swedish naturalist writing under the name of Linnaeus, published the Philosophia Botanica, where he catalogued all plants according to class, genus, and species. For Linnaeus, the universe was static and unchanging: there were an exact number of plants and animals, and that number was a constant: there were neither too many, nor too few species. Why? Because it was self-evident: the number of species was part of the Grand Design (by now a proper name). The Grand Design was perfect, because God the creator was perfect. For there to be a “mistake” in the Grand Design, that meant to eighteenth century intellectuals that God would be capable of error—and that (by definition) could not be true.

At that time, the growth of the industrial revolution created an increased demand for metals. In an effort to satisfy this demand, specialists in both mining and analysis of the various forms of geological strata stepped forward. Following this new attention to geology, there was also the discovery of a variety of fossilized plants and animals in different levels of strata. It become apparent that some of the fossils present in the higher (and presumably younger) strata were not present in the older, deeper layers of strata. Then, in March 1793, a canal builder named William Smith noticed that the layers of strata were often in continuous, integral layers. While cutting one canal, Mr. Smith was able to identify three distinct layers of strata, by recognizing the different fossils in each layer.

Ms. Ava Gardner. You know when she
didn't look good in an outfit, that was
one butt ugly outfit.

In 1814, Smith published his findings about fossils in a book entitled Strata Identified by Organised Fossils. Without asking the question himself, Smith’s book set off a firestorm of controversy. If there were fossilized plants and animals that no longer existed, then did God change God’s mind about creating those organisms? Were those now extinct organisms God’s “mistakes”? And what did that mean if God made mistakes?

A French biologist named Georges Cuvier offered a partial solution. Mr. Cuvier had developed a technique where he could reconstruct the shape of an entire animal, just using only a small number of bones. Cuvier’s method was that immortalized in the song “The toe bone’s connected to the foot bone. The foot bone’s connected to the ankle bone. The ankle bone’s connected to the…” you get what I mean. Cuvier called this process “comparative anatomy.”

Cuvier went on to describe how some parts of animals are so basic, that those parts were common to all animals. However, each species’ environment demanded that those common characteristics adapt and become specialized. Cuvier then identified four branches of animals: vertebrates, mollusks, jointed, and radiates. While Cuvier still believed each animal species would remain fixed within its branch, he did suggest that there was the possibility of individual species developing and changing. Following Cuvier’s conclusions, the principle of simultaneous creation became suspect.

Lots of other really fascinating stuff happened, so if you care, you owe it to yourself to read Mr. Burke’s book. The whole book is a blast and a half—as are all his other books.

The Biblical view of creation took its hardest blow at the hands of Charles Lyell, a friend and intellectual forerunner to Charles Darwin. Lyell was a talented botanist and a creative geologist—but a horrible barrister. Lucky for him though, that didn’t matter: Lyell’s family was rich. Forgetting about law, Lyell traveled to Italy to study limestone strata containing marine fossils. Lyell was able to identify a particular layer of strata that was comparatively more recent, because it contained fossilized marine life that were identical to present day forms. "Older" strata were layers that contained extinct forms of animal life; that is, the fossilized animals no longer existed.

Lyell was shocked to find a particular layer of limestone strata that contained only present forms of marine life (and none that were extinct) continued underneath a mountain named Etna. While digging at the base of Etna, Lyell discovered that mountain had been built up over time, from literally thousands of separate and distinct lava flows. Etna (at that time) was 10,000 feet high and ninety miles wide, so forming that mountain (given the rate of individual lava flows) had to have taken millions of years. Therefore, if a strata containing only contemporary fossils passed under a mountain (a mountain that had to take millions of year to form), then the current population of marine species must have existed for millions of years—meaning the strata with extinct species had to much older than even that. Lyell (and lots of other folks) concluded that the Christian Bible’s account of a 6,000 year old earth was untenable.

Ms. Jayne Mansfield. She will always
be one of my favorite thinking, loving
beings--despite all the mean things
tree swinging monkeys have to say
about her.

By 1830, Lyell gave up his law practice, brutally disappointing his mother (okay—I made that up). But he did start writing what would become a three volume work, Principles of Geology. At the conclusion of the third volume, Lyell suggested a way to “measure” the age of the earth. Beginning with the premise that uniform actions through time implied a uniform rate of change, Lyell proposed that the “age” of the earth could be calculated by the ratio of fossils of extinct species to the number of fossils of species that still existed. To “calibrate” his geological clock, Lyell uses mollusks to determine his ratio of extinct to surviving species of clams, and showed that the earth was really, really old (I hope that jargon wasn’t too technical for you. Read Burke’s book. He’s way smarter and a much better writer than I am anyway).

Lyell’s work introduced two other radical ideas. First, the fact that some species continued to survive while others disappeared suggested that the species that died out were not able to survive because of changes in their environment. For the species that did survive, they survived because they were able to adapt to whatever environmental changes that occured. Second, just as the evolution and change in geological formations could be explained as a response to a changing environment, so too could the changes in animals and plants be attributed to the species' responses to a changing environment. In other words, Lyell had suggested a rational, materialist explanation could account for how the world came into being. As with Newton’s explanation of how the tides were not created by the hand of god, Lyell tried to explain how the growth and destruction of species were not unfathomable mysteries, attributable only to unknowable supernatural forces.

Ms. Leslie Parrish. Her nice smile
carried not only many ugly outfits (for
example), but also several really
awful films.

Then, in 1831, another guy (luckily from a rich family, just like Lyell) signed up as the unpaid “naturalist” aboard the HMS Beagle. In 1844, that naturalist’s thirty-five pages of notes from the voyage became The Origin of Species—and the rest is history, as they say in the funny papers.

Both Burke’s The Day the Universe Changed andConnections give a wonderful and detailed history of the impact of Darwin’s work, both in Darwin’s time and today. The point I want to make, though, all the very same exact objections raised by Ms. Palin (complete with face flying evidence) about evolutionary biology were raised, debated, and discarded before the end of the nineteenth century. So, you may ask, why hasn’t any of this history and scientific research convinced Ms. Palin of the error of her ways? Because—in a word—Sarah Palin is the worst kind of idiot: she’s remains convinced in the truth of her incorrect position, only because she is too lazy to actually crack a book and learn something. But to be fair, throughout Going Rogue, Ms. Palin shows that her modus operandi regarding evolutionary biology is not limited to that area. She’s proud to be a fool in a wide variety of disciplines.

But What About All Those Mean Things Shouted from the Peanut Gallery?

FOR EXAMPLE:

Good story. Only what you said proves nothing, except there IS such a thing as microevolution. And I was lying about the “good story” part.

First, read The Day the Universe Changed. I’m giving a very crude summary, leaving out many key contributions, such as Thomas Robert Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population. If you need a bigger picture, James Burke will provide it. Next, another biologist and contemporary of Darwin named Alfred Russel Wallace, after working in the Malayan archipelago, independently reached the same conclusions that Darwin did. So even if Darwin had listened to his mom (and not snuck off on that fun cruise), evolutionary biology still would have been “discovered” at that same time. The intellectual development in Western Europe dictated that SOMEONE (if not Charles Darwin) was going to “discover” both "micro" and "macro" evolution at that time, so all the same arguments against evolution would have been raised and discarded, regardless if the "discoverer" was Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, or some other disappointment to a set of rich parents.

But the point remains: because of the work Smith, Cuvier, Lyell, Darwin (and dozens of others I did not mention), there is a rational, materialist explanation for how we got here from there--as opposed to the supernatural explanation: “god did it, and it was a miracle!” Therefore, anyone who isn’t convinced about evolution, that person is unconvinced only because they are too lazy to look at the science.

Ms. Mamie Van Doren. See what
happens when you go right from
fish to human, without stopping
at monkey?

There is still no proof of macroevolution, because there are no fossils of animals that are transitions between species.

Actually, every fossil and every animal is a “transition” from one species to the next. Evolution does not happen by a snake laying an egg one day, and the next day, from that egg out jumps Daffy Duck. Snakes and dinosaurs became birds over innumerable small adaptations, from generation to generation.

Here is a crude example I read at Roger Ebert’s web site. Imagine that we are flipping a coin, with each flip a new generation of a species. If the coin comes up heads, that is an adaption that will give that generation an advantage. If the coin comes up tails, there is either no change (or the adaptation is a disadvantage). Next, let’s say that for a species to “change” and cross the line from “microevolution” to “macroevolution,” there needs to be a hundred (or a thousand or a million or a trillion—pick the number as big as you want) coin flips that come up heads. Can there only be macroevolution if there is a million “heads” in a row, and no tails? Of course not. Because while all the “tails” generations will die out (they are the genetic losers), each one of the “heads” generations will continue to out-reproduce the “tails,” until a hundred “heads” (or a thousand, million, gogol-gazillion) have been flipped. The number doesn’t matter, because the time it takes to go from a fish to a fish with legs to a tree swinging monkey to a thinking, loving being to an obnoxious, egotistical jerk (I’m the acme of evolution, if you haven’t guessed)—that’s the time it takes.

After all, what really is the difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”? If you are going to allow for adaption and change within the “branches” (as Cuvier did), then the only difference between the “micro” changes and the “macro” changes is that the macro changes take longer.

But you have no proof of macroevolution. Show me your proof!

Let’s go back to what Lyell speculated about, and Darwin saw: islands (like the Galapagos and Falklands) contained organisms that are related to—but nevertheless distinct from-- plants and animals on the nearby mainland. The island animals adapted and evolved in response to different environmental conditions than their mainland cousins faced. Whether you call that “micro” or “macro” evolution, the point remains: the only difference between the two is time and succeeding generations’ response to different environments.

But here’s another proof that Darwin did not know about: closely related species have more DNA in common with one another than more distant relatives. How close and how much DNA? In The Third Chimpanzee, Jared Diamond points out that human beings (homo sapiens) are a species of big mammal (if you don’t accept that, look up “mammal” in Wikipedia). However, there is a big stinking difference between homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom. What is it that creates that difference?

Ms. Elaine Stewart. You can tell she's
trying as hard as she can, but a body
can only do so much to carry an
outfit.

Diamond suggests a reason for those differences, by pointing out if an Outer Space zoologist decided to categorize mammals on earth, that zoologist would list “humans” as a third species of chimpanzee—along with the pygmy chip in Democratic Republic of Congo and the common chip in the rest of Africa. Why? Because homo sapiens share 98% of our genetic program with the other two chimps. We are closer to the other two chimps than such closely related bird species as the red-eyed and white-eyed vireos.

Diamond then points to taxonomy (DNA) studies showing that common chips and pygmy chips are more closely related to homo sapiens than those chimps are related to gorillas. And those chimps' relation to “tree swinging monkeys” are even farther away than their relation to gorillas. My point is, from a genetic perspective, the line between our propensity as “thinking, loving beings” and monkey “tree swinging” is much finer than Ms. Palin appears willing to admit.

Later in Third Chimpanzee, Diamond explains that roughly six million years ago, a generic “upright hominid” split off from the rest of the “apes” family. Following that split, there were a few intermediate stages in our development as a species, with two branches of “humans” not surviving: Australopithecus robustus and what Diamond refers to as a “third man.” Identifiable homo sapiens began to appear roughly 500,000 years ago. Two hundred thousand years ago, identifiable Neanderthals appeared—and then died out approximately 40,000 years ago.

Here’s something unusual about Neanderthals. They lived in western Europe, though southern Russia and the Near East, extending through Uzbekistan to its border with Afghanistan. If you dig up different camp sites/residences of Neanderthal communities, there are no cultural variations between the different sites: the tools and shelters built by the communities in France are virtually identical with the communities in Russia. Neanderthal tools from 100,000 years ago and 40,000 years ago look essentially the same: after 60,000 years, nothing in Neanderthal life changed or improved. So, what was it about our ancestors (the non-Neanderthals) that gave us the ability to become the thinking, loving beings we are today (well, some of us), while Neanderthals stayed not all that different from their cousins, the tree swinging monkeys? Here’s what: some roll of the genetic dice that we (okay me) don’t understand.

But the fact remains there are many who do understand, and the evidence is there for Ms. Palin so she too can understand—if she’s interested.

In the immortal almost words of Jerry Maguire: Show me the monkey! You can’t, can you?

Well, not me personally. But since On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Manwere published, fossilized bones of hundreds of creatures that were various intermediate “steps” between the tree swingers of yesteryear and today’s thinking lovers have been discovered. In 1974, Lucy Van Pelt—I’m kidding, Lucy (Australopithecus) was discovered: approximately 40% of the skeleton from a hominid who lived 3.2 million years ago. In 1984, Turkana boy was discovered: a nearly complete skeleton of an eight to twelve year old hominid boy who lived 1.5 million years ago.

Not Lucy (Australopithecus).

For kicks, go look up List of Human Evolution Fossils in Wikipedia. There’s lots of bones of hominids who stopped being tree swinging monkeys but weren’t yet thinking loving beings.

But what about Piltdown Man? I notice you jerks never mention THAT one!

I talk about Piltdown Man all the time, because it’s a hilarious story. So does James Burke (Universe Changed, p. 322-323). For those of you too lazy to even click on the hyper link (and don’t think I don’t know who you are. Okay, I don’t know you personally, but I know your type), Piltdown Man was a notorious hoax perpetrated by an amateur paleontologist named Charles Dawson. In 1912, Mr. Dawson presented parts of two skulls, that Dawson insisted were “evidence” of prehistoric man, and confirmed Darwin’s theories. Nearly FORTY years later, fluorine tests discovered Dawson’s skulls were (at best) medieval in origin. The skulls had been stained with iron to give the appearance of age, and the teeth PAINTED brown.

I’m too lazy to summarize how Burke explains how the creation and continued belief for something as silly as Piltdown Man fits within Burke’s theory (essentially, when belief in a theory is strong enough, “evidence” will be found to support that theory, whether there is evidence or not), so you’ll have to read the book. Burke also gives several wonderful, terrible—yet ultimately hilarious—examples of scientific whoopsies, like the N-ray.

But the fact that one hoax lasted until the late 1940s, in and of itself, does nothing to negate the existence of all the other positive (i.e. non-fraudulent) evidence.

But none of this changes the fact you believe in “evolution” like Ms. Palin believes in God.

No, dear.

When I finish reading all the books, I will write a quick and dirty analysis (okay. I’m lying on the “quick” part, but it will be DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY!) of Karen Armstrong’sThe Case for God, Christopher Hedges’s god Is Not Great, and The God Delusion, by my favorite evolutionary biologist and troublemaker, Richard Dawkins.

Until then, in the preface to the paperback edition of The God Delusion, Mr. Dawkins quotes geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane. Haldane was asked what kind of evidence would he (Haldane) have to see that would change Haldane’s belief in evolution. “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian,” Haldane said.

Ms. Bettie Page. I can't tell you what
it is about her, but those stupid bangs
and clear eyes--there has never been
a lewd or untoward picture of her,
ever. I am ready to go to the wall
on that one.

So, not to tip off my hand or anything, there are no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata. In other words, there were no rabbits some time after life began on earth—but there are rabbits now. How did the earth go from no rabbits to rabbits? Because God said "Let there be rabbits!" I'm kidding--it was the forces of natural selection and random probability: rabbits became rabbits over time, in response to environmental conditions. No faith in supernatural forces required.

How is everything you just said different from Ms. Palin’s assertion that she “believes we came about through a random process, but were created by God”?

Ms. Palin (again, giving her the benefit of the doubt) appears to be trying to have it both ways: There IS a random process of evolution, BUT the hand of God hovers over all. And what’s wrong with that? Here’s what: if there is a rational, non-supernatural explanation for a phenomena, what is the point of adding a superfluous magical component? That’s like teaching a physics class about the moon’s orbit, and how gravitational pull from the moon causes tides on earth—also, the hand of the Flying Spaghetti Monster helps push the water around.

Or how about if in a chemistry class, the teacher explains how the ionic bonds that hold sodium together with chlorine are broken apart in water, so when salt “dissolves” in water, the water has individual sodium and chlorine ions floating freely. Plus the Cowboy Buddha sends legions of angels armed with nutcrackers to help break up the more stubborn bonds.

Superimposing a magical, spiritual component does not explain or help predict anything. Which is why Chris Mooney quotes an evolutionary biologist who dismisses Intelligent Design as “an unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow for no apparent reason. That is not a model.”

But what about the “holes” in evolutionary theory? What’s wrong with teaching kids about the holes, and letting them make up their own mind?

First, the purpose of “school” is not to teach students different options, and then let the students make up their own minds. Have you ever taken a class that operated that way? I have, and it sucks butt.

Not all arguments are equally valid and merit equal attention. That’s why we have teachers and historians, to tell us what is important. Personally, I’m not going to take the time to wade through tens of thousands of pages of documents, just to make up my own mind if Franklin Roosevelt was a better president than Warren Harding (that’s what grad students are for). No, the role of schools—especially in the sciences—is to teach “science;” in other words, give us the answers.

Finally, even if you believe there are “holes” in evolutionary biology, I can’t imagine how introducing a supernatural component is supposed to be an improvement. Neither, I am reasonably sure, can Mr. Sidney Harris:

But that’s not what they say in "Big Daddy?"

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m flattered and appreciate the attention and all—but if your education on evolutionary biology comes from Chick Publications, why are you reading Samsara Samizdat?

If William F. Buckley—a devout Catholic and a world class intellectual—could believe in the divine origin of man, why can’t Sarah Palin?

There are actually three different points to this question.

First, regarding the fact that Ms. Palin chooses to DON’T STOP BELIEVING, that’s between her and her gods. As a self-identified Marxist-Buddhist-political dissident-economics-legal-peacenik-feminist-internationalist-environmentalist-secular humanist-social gospel kind of guy who is also dedicated to the principle thatmanuscripts do not burn (рукописи не горят, baby!), I am in a poor position to tell ANYONE what they should or should not be believing in. Nevertheless, as noted boxing aficionado Oliver “Ollie” Wendell Holmes says “Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose” (Holmes was calling the play by play in that immortal fight, “Kid” Chapinsky vs. “The People” New Hampshire). In other words, take your VISA, but leave your beliefs at home. Or, if you have the money and time to kill, go ahead and bore the crap out of all who know you by leaving long notes on your Facebook page (cough cough). But keep your supernatural beliefs out of the public square.

Second, did Bill “The Devouter” Buckley not believe in evolution, preferring the literal truth of a six day creation complete with talking snake? Frankly, I don’t know. But I do know someone who did not.

If you watch Mr. Bill Mahr’s film Religuous, of the many stand out characters, George V. Coyne S.J. is someone whose charm and intelligence will catch your attention. Father Coyne is a Jesuit priest and astronomer, and at the time of the filming, was the director of the Vatican Observatory. When the conservation turns to “fundamentalism,” or the belief that the words in the Christian Bible are the literal, historical truth (including the one about the talking snake), Father Coyne points out that Pope John Paul II had said that the theory of Darwinian evolution was beyond dispute. In other words, if the Pope rejects the argument that Ms. Palin is putting into Mr. Buckley’s mouth, then Mr. Buckley can’t be THAT devout of a Catholic—because as they say where I come from: You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.

Ms. Mara Corday. Some faux leopard
can be smashing (sort of) . . .

Finally, as to Mr. Buckley’s street cred as a “world class intellectual,” just like most people who live long lives saying and writing lots of stuff, I would argue that more than a fair amount of what Mr. Buckley asserted (looking back from the perspective of someone in the 21st century) puts Mr. Buckley firmly in the category of “asshole.” See above, point one re “belief,” but it is my personal opinion and belief that a strong case can be made that of all the assholes in the world, William F. Buckley was an asshole’s asshole of an asshole, standing head and asshole above his contemporary assholes, in the field of being a real asshole. I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain. HA HA HA! But we digress.

But what about where Ms. Palin writes about her idyllic school days (oh, those golden rule days!) when “. . . [a]t least sixty of us met in public classrooms for Bible study and inspirational exchanges that motivated us to focus on hard work and excellence. In those days, ALCU activists had not yet convinced young people that they were supposed to feel offended by other people’s free exercise of religion”?

Or as they say where I come from: let’s play Poke the Bear!

If anyone thinks I am making that up, the quote is on page 28. After reading it, I had to wait three days or so before continuing, because the risk of brain aneurysm was too great.

This might be a good time for you skip the rest of this note (and go back to looking at the pictures), because I am about to go off on a rant about the first amendment.

. . . While other leopard just cannot
be made to look good, regardless.
Ms. Martha Hyer, here taking one for
the team.

In the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution (which are the first ten amendments), one of my favorites is the first amendment, because it presents a very broad check on state power. One of those checks involves a proverbial one-two regarding religion. First, the federal government (and now State and local governments as well, via the fourteenth amendment) “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If you want to sound hip (and don’t care about scoring with babes), you call that the “establishment clause.” The “two” comes in the form of the very next clause: “. . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (the “free exercise clause” for the hip and celebate).

After 217 odd years of jurisprudence, those two clauses have come to mean the following: do what you feel (free exercise clause), but don’t expect public funds or a state endorsement in what you do (establishment clause). And damn it—Sarah Palin knows this. She is just being a jerk here.

Here’s how the rules espoused by these two clauses work. Let’s say I found the First Church of Bert Russell is GOD, and spend much of my days reading Why I am Not a Christian and “praying” to Old Man Bertrand. I do this in the privacy of my own home, at shopping malls, in government owned office buildings—even on the property and in the classrooms of the local community college I attend. It’s all good (and not just because nobody cares), because the state is not prohibiting the exercising freely of my religion. More to the point, have I OFFENDED anyone at the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU)? No.

Now, let’s say I just got done watching The Blues Brothers, and have decided that I’m on a mission from Bertrand. For me to able to go forward and teach all nations, unbaptising them in the name of---you know what I mean, I demand the following: Government money to build and maintain a shrine to Bert on public land, and all my leftwing America hating commie pinko fellow traveling friends employed by the public schools must now spend some class time talking about why Bertrand Russell is God. NOW have I offended anyone at the ACLU and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? Big Time (as Dick Cheney once said). For me to get any of those things would mean an “establishment” of my religion.

Ms. Eartha Kitt. Back in the day, all my friends idolized Billie Holliday, but I preferred Eartha Kitt--and was roundly mocked for it. I still like Ms. Kitt (and am still mocked).

Here’s the point: manger scenes complete with Baby Jesus are just ducky--as long as they are on private property and maintained by private funds. But they are NOT okay when the displays are on public property, using public funds, or have the endorsement or approval of a state actor, acting in that person's official capacity—especially in the schools. The fact I am prohibiting Sarah Palin from using MY resources to promote HER religion in no way interferes with her free exercise. Again, Ms. Palin knows this, but here she is pimping on that part of her readership who don’t know.

But what about Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989) and Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984)?

Shut up.

Still, don’t you have to admit (in the immortal words of the Forty-Third President of ‘Merika) that the jury is still out on evolutionary biology?

No. Not only is the jury not out, but summary judgment has already been granted [Note: Trust me on this one: that’s a hilarious joke in legal circles. A real knee-slapper]. If you are even remotely interested in this stuff, one of the best episodes of WGBH Boston’s American Experience is Monkey Trial, on the 1925 trial of Mr. John Scopes for (apparently) teaching evolutionary biology. The web site also has atranscript of the show. It’s fascinating.

Ms. Barbara Eden. I'm not saying you
need to be a genie to make leopard
print look good on you--but it
certainly can't hurt.

Since the Scopes Trial, the US Supreme Court held in 1968 that bans on teaching evolutionary biology violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution (Get it? Get it? Establishment Clause? I thew that in just to see if you were paying attention), in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968). Later, the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 US 578 (1987) held that teaching “creation science” was unconstitutional. What to do? What to do?

Taking a step back, some folks tried arguing that some parts of biology are TOO COMPLICATED to have naturally evolved. Examples include the autoimmune system and the function of some single celled organisms, such as the flagellum of E. coli. That argument would be impressive—but for the fact it’s the SAME ARGUMENT that the Reverend William Paley raised and Darwin answered in the second edition of On the Origin of Species. Paley had insisted the function of the eye, with it's ability to change focus without conscious effort by the observer, meant that the eye was "too complex" to have evolved, so (minimally) the eyeball must have been created by a divine power. James Burke’s The Day the Universe Changed includes a section of how the same objections now raised by the Intelligent Design movement were raised—and put to rest—in Darwin’s time.

But never say never. In 2004, a flock of goons (using a value neutral, non-judgmental expression) on a local school board in Pennsylvania adopted the following resolution by a 6-3 vote: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.” Before you could yell “Screw MTV—I want my Thomas Jefferson!”, everyone was in court before the Honorable John E. “Johnny Angel” Jones III, of the federal district court.

Where I come from, it’s a tried and true cliché that hard cases make bad law. But Judge Jones, perhaps heeding the call of Bob Marley to Get up, stand up for your right. Get up, stand up, don’t give up the fight (or perhaps not), cut through the crap and delivered a phenomenal opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. If you are at all wondering just how “Intelligent Design” is not a science, and is instead a “supernatural” belief, read Judge Jones’s opinion. If you’re not a hopeless law nerd with no friends or even hope of having any, you might find the beginning sections describing the Parties (and the procedural background) tough sledding. Skip them, and jump right to section E.

Ms. Cleo Moore. Okay, so she's not WEARING the leopard skin per se, but there is one in the photo. I can't be sure, but I think this is a still from a film about the hazards of choosing the wrong bed & breakfast.

For me, reading that opinion is like watching a great Arnold film—only with more action. But if you are a normal person, NOVA and American Experience teamed up to present Judgment Day—Intelligent Design on Trial (NOVA and American Experience, WGBH Boston 2008), a tremendous documentary on the controversy and trial. I especially loved the scenes where WGBH recreates the trial, and then breaks to get opinions from the actual people involved.

By the way, here’s a tip kids: do not lie to federal judges. They don’t like it. If you are still not sure why lying is “bad,” watch Judgment Day.

The point is, though, that from the perspective of the science community--and now in the legal community—the jury is not “out” on evolutionary biology.

Disproving the Existance of an Intelligent Designer. A Fun Dice Game You Can Play at Home!

A few months ago, I was wasting time quibbling with some idiot about Intelligent Design. Somehow, the concept of dice came up, and this Idiot insisted that the simple existence of dice “proved” Intelligent Design, because some intelligence had to design the dice. I immediately stopped talking to that person (because in that direction madness lay), and began to wonder how to structure an experiment to test for “Intelligent Design.” This is what I came up with.

Begin with a pair of dice. After rolling them bones, the dice total would be a number between two and twelve. If the outcome of my dice rolling was dictated purely on the basis of random probability—meaning there was no intervention by an “designer" (intelligent or otherwise)—I would expect the following results:

For a total of 2, the odds are 1 in 36
For a total of 3, the odds are 2 in 36
For a total of 4, the odds are 3 in 36
For a total of 5, the odds are 4 in 36
For a total of 6, the odds are 5 in 36
For a total of 7, the odds are 6 in 36
For a total of 8, the odds are 5 in 36
For a total of 9, the odds are 4 in 36
For a total of 10, the odds are 3 in 36
For a total of 11, the odds are 2 in 36
For a total of 12, the odds are 1 in 36

Ms. Chili Williams. Instead of all that
dice rolling, Ms. Williams's outfit alone
demonstrates no intelligence in this
design.

Now, say I threw about 5,000 rolls, and discovered that instead of rolling a total between seven and twelve roughly 21 out of every 36 rolls, I was hitting a seven or higher about 27 times out of every 36 rolls. Perhaps some Intelligent Designer is putting their supernatural thumb on the scale, and effecting my dice shooting? But no, that is not the case. Having watched a lot of westerns back in the day, I smash the dice with a hammer--and discover some scallywag has “loaded” the dice by embedding lead shot inside each die close to the number one face of each die. The number one side of each die is heavier than any of the other five sides (because of placement of the shot), so the number one side lands face down on the table a disproportional number of times—meaning that I will be rolling more sixes than would be dictated by pure chance. AH HA! I cry. There is an outside force effecting the outcome—but it’s not supernatural (or “god”): it’s the cheating scumbag who sold me bad dice.

So, I correct for the loaded dice (I get new dice and shoot the varmint who did the loading—see above re watching too many westerns), and try again with new dice.

After another 5000 rolls, my score is now averaging a roll between two and six about 20 out of every 36 rolls. That’s also a sign of something wrong, because probability dictates I should hit those numbers only 15 (as opposed to 20) out of every 36 rolls. So, I x-ray the dice. They are clean (no loading). But with a fine tuned laser measuring thingy (I have no idea how the thingy works, it just does), I discover that each die has been milled at a slightly awkward angle, so that the size of the number one face is a slightly smaller surface area than the number six. As a result, each die will roll more when the number one side is face down (as opposed to how the die will roll if I am using a set of dice milled evenly on all six sides), and the dice will not land with the number one side down (facing the table) as often as expected. The poorly manufactured dice, and not a supernatural force, is the reason my dice rolling varied from what would be expected by chance.

So, I throw those dice away, stop being such a cheap-o, and buy good dice.

Ms. Carole Landis. I KNOW this isn't a
LEOPARD skin--but come on!

By now, you get the idea: when my dice throwing outcome is different that what would be dictated by randomness, I could say “It’s the hand of an Intelligent Designer, intervening with the Designer’s will to alter the outcome!” Or, I could find some rational (ie non-supernatural) explanation: the dice are loaded, or the dice are machined incorrectly. Or I have such an all-powerful intellect, my brain can exert a telekinetic effect on the dice, making sixes come up more often (which is why I always win at Risk, by the way). Regardless, every time there is some variation from the anticipated statistical outcome, I find some rational, materialist explanation that causes the variation.

So, if my dice rolling follows the outcome anticipated by random probability, then there is either no otherwise unexplained supernatural force (ie an Intelligent Designer or creator's will) at work—or if there is such supernatural force, then that force is remaining silent. With the latter possibility, I would argue a perpetually silent force is a non-existent force. So, for my dice rolling to show the presence of Intelligent Design, there must be some variation from what is expected by randomness, and that variation cannot be otherwise accounted for.

Now, if there is going to be a force at work, altering the results of my dice rolling, that force can make itself known in one of two ways. First, there could be a consistent, predictable outcome that could not be explained by any other source. I would argue that a consistent, predictable, and yet unexplainable outcome does not happen. The physics of our existence cannot be random: objects fall at a rate of 32 feet per second per second (absent air resistance and any otherwise immeasurable variations in gravity). The effects of air resistance can be taken into account. However, no matter how hard I tried, I have been wholly unable to convince any physics instructor on the principle of variable gravity (I insisted that I should be excused from having any degree of accuracy in labs, due to the unstable nature of gravity at my particular lab table. If you don't know, physics instructors are notoriously unsympathetic to that line of argument, the callous bastards). Therefore, a predictable and regular distortion of experimental outcomes due to an unknowable supernatural presence cannot, and does not, happen. If it did, our planet would dissolve into unpredictable chaos. On the plus side, though, I'd finally pass those stupid physics labs.

The other possibility is that a non-predictable, random, and non-reproducible event occurs, that can be attributable only to supernatural forces: The oil in the lamp burned for eight days! It’s a miracle!

Ms. Allison Hayes. When the 50 Foot
Woman Attacked, she was the woman.
I am forced to concede that if there
has to be an Attack of a 50 Foot
Woman, designing Ms. Hayes as same
is clearly evidence of intelligence.

If God, the Wonder Intelligent Designer, makes God’s present know via non-predictable and non-reproducible events, “proof” of God (or an Intelligent Designer) is still not possible. Here's why. I “know” salt dissolves in water because of a chemical reaction, and salt will continue to dissolve until the water solution becomes super-saturated. Then, salt crystals will still continue dissolving, but the "salt" will also precipitate out of solution at the same rate that other crystals dissolve. How do I know this? Because I have had to take first year chemistry three times, that’s why. In other words, I’ve seen that experiment done lots of times, and it's worked every time. To prove an event in terms of cause and effect, that event must be both predictable and reproducible. Miracles, by definition, are not reproducible nor predictable, and therefore cannot be proof of any proposition.

But then, how do I explain the fact that (apparently) some (but not all) people who visit Lourdes throw their crutches away and go on to run marathons? This way: I don’t know why that is.

My point is, I either “know” because an event is predictable and reproducible, OR I do not know why an apparent miracle has occurred. Those are your only two choices. You can feel, think, believe, have a mystical revelation, guess, or even fool yourself—but you cannot “know” about about non-predictable, random, and non-reproducible events.

The concept of “knowing” is a product of the scientific revolution, and exists in (sort of) opposition to “belief.” “Belief” is defined in the Kierkegaard sense, in that you “believe” some concept to be “true,” even though all your reason and experience would tell you that that concept cannot possibly be true. With belief, you take a leap of faith in order to accept a proposition. On the other hand, if you "know" a proposition is true, because it is predictable and reproducible, there is no reason for you to “believe" it: your experience and reason confirm the proposition is true.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the possible presence of a divine intervention or the will of an Intelligent Designer, individual ants still can't move rubber tree plants, either in a predictable fashion or as a random miraculous event (irrespective of high hopes). You certainly are free to believe ants can move rubber tree plants—but your beliefs are spiritual in nature, and belong in the spiritual realm. Your beliefs must not be confused with my knowledge, and have no place in a rational and secular forum—like a school.

So, until someone finds a fossilized Precambrian rabbit, don't talk to me about “holes” in the theory of evolution.

Not a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian.

Dedicated to three budding young evolutionary biologists who are an endless source of pride and inspiration to me, but who should remain nameless--because they probably would be embarrassed to not only learn how much they inspire me, but also that I think of them as budding evolutionary biologists . . .