Tomorrow's New York Times Magazine cover story:



It's only eight years too late, and probably too late to make a difference this fall. But at least it isn't only "those crazy bloggers" and the banished-from-American-media Greg Palast talking about the voting machines anymore.

After you read this article, think about Florida 2000. Think about Ohio 2004. Think about how the world would be different if the strange goings-on in Volusia County in 2000 had been made public before the Supreme Court handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Imagine how the world would be different without the Ohio voting shenanigans of 2004. We have been presided over by a lunatic for the last eight years because of a voting apparatus that doesn't work, that's run by partisan hacks, using technology that precinct workers don't understand, that doesn't work properly, that is not secured, and that is built by companies led by open partisans. And only now has it gotten into the mainstream press.

And this is the country that has been spouting "democracy" at the rest of the world.

Pathetic.

Labels: 2008 election

It has begun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still an Edwards girl, but after reading Glenn Greenwald today I'm reminded of the Mark Alan Stamaty cartoon that ran in the Village Voice during the 1988 campaign that depicted a hysterical George H.W. Bush jumping up and down and waving his arms frantically, screaming "Killer negroes (sic) are coming to get you! Liberals want to take all your money! Read my lips! Read my lips!"

The "killer negroes" meme worked in 1988 because of the infamous Willie Horton ad, and the concept hasn't gone away. Conservatives aren't relying exclusively into turning Barack Obama into a cocaine-addicted Muslim terrorist (though I expect that to play an important role in their general election strategy if Obama is the nominee). Instead, they're trotting out the "killer negroes" meme again, as Greenwald notes:

Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a "theory" about what might help Obama win in the general election. After noting that Obama will be "the first serious mainstream black contender for the White House," Goldberg warns (emphasis added):

I think it's worth imagining a certain scenario. Imagine the Democrats do rally around Obama. Imagine the media invests as heavily in him as I think we all know they will if he's the nominee -- and then imagine he loses. I seriously think certain segments of American political life will become completely unhinged. I can imagine the fear of this social unraveling actually aiding Obama enormously in 2008.

I wonder: in Jonah Goldberg's "imagination," which (ahem) "certain segments" of the American population exactly will "become completely unhinged" if Obama loses and thereby spawn "social unraveling"? And who are the people who are going so deeply to fear this "social unraveling" that they vote for Obama just in order to keep those "certain segments" in line and well-behaved?

Goldberg, of course, doesn't have the courage to say explicitly who he means -- he just implies it with ugly innuendo -- but Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds helpfully fills in the gap, approvingly quoting and praising Goldberg's warning ("He's right"), and then adding that if Hillary "outmaneuvers" Obama to win, "that'll probably alienate a lot of people and cause them to stay home in November." Just to make sure the meaning is clear, he then links to one of his own prior posts warning that a Hillary win might anger "black voters" and cause them to abandon the Democrats.

My reservations about Obama have nothing to do with his race. They have to do with the fact that while he does a great job talking the talk, I have yet to see him walk the progressive walk. In the few days since the Iowa caucuses, he's appropriated more of John Edwards' language (which makes Edwards' continued presence in the race important even if he is not the nominee); even topping Edwards' 9-month timeframe for troop withdrawal. At this point I'm wondering which Obama are we going to get – the one appropriating John Edwards' courageous progressive populism, or the safe, don't-rock-the-boat Joe Lieberman protegé we've seen in the Senate. But whichever we get, Obama's pan-racial, indeed, I would say post-racial candidacy is something new. It's exciting to Democrats, even those of us currently supporting other candidates. But it scares the living daylights out of Republicans, whose bread and butter has been fanning the flames of racial fears since the early 1960's. That the first thought out of the fetid, rotting cesspool that is the Conservative Brain is race riots if "THEY" don't get what "THEY" want, it tells you far more about conservatives than it does about black voters.

Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, racism

If you've liked having Dick Cheney as vice-president, and you like the idea of an unaccountable vice-president who switches off among the executive, legislative, and a self-contained branch of government operating outside the Constitution, you'll LOVE what Rudy has in store for us:

Would a Rudy Giuliani administration be populated with a cabinet of Republican rivals and a powerful, all-knowing vice president like Dick Cheney?

Possibly, according to musings Giuliani shared in answers to questions from New Hampshire voters Wednesday evening in Hooksett.

[snip]

Later, Giuliani pivoted from a question about potential picks for secretary of state to this: "Let me answer with the question of what you would look for in a vice president first -- again without any presumption that I'm going to be the nominee."

In an answer that mentioned Cheney more than once, Giuliani said, "A vice president has to be a partner in the administration. The vice president has to know everything that's going on, just in case the vice president has to step in at a moment's notice," he said. He added that during a conversation with Cheney on Sept. 11, 2001, he felt the vice president "had a sense that he knew what he was doing."

I guess Rudy relies on his gut too. (h/t)

Labels: batshit crazies, Dick Cheney, icepick meet forehead, Rudy Giuliani

Tweety: Media Putz of the Decade. Kudos to Elizabeth the Great for swatting him around like a pesky fly.

Labels: Chris Matthews, hack journalism

Reality:

Wary employers clamped down on hiring and pushed the unemployment rate to a two-year high of 5 percent in December, an ominous sign that the economy may slide into recession. President Bush explored a rescue package, including a tax cut, with his economic advisers.

Gripped by uncertainty, government and private employers last month added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls in more than four years. In fact, employment at private companies alone actually declined. The Labor Department's report, released Friday, provided evidence of an economy greatly strained by a housing slump and a credit crunch.

The disappointing employment figures sent Wall Street into a nosedive, thrust the White House into damage control and ratcheted up the blame game as Republicans and Democrats battle for the presidency. The employment numbers also sparked expectations that the Federal Reserve will have to lower interest rates again. As expected, the Fed took action to make cash more available to banks.

Uh...perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't "the Fed took action to make cash more available to banks" mean "the Fed printed more money"? Isn't that what Jimmy Carter did that conservatives have been blasting for years?

More reality:

Wall Street fell sharply again Friday after the government's much-anticipated employment report showed weaker-than-expected job growth and a rise in the unemployment rate. The Nasdaq composite index, also pummeled by a downgrade of Intel Corp., skidded more than 3.5 percent, while the Dow Jones industrials fell more than 1.5 percent.

And more reality:

Talbots Inc. will close its 78 children's and men's apparel stores to focus on its core middle-aged female customer, a retrenchment that follows disappointing sales at Talbots as well as other specialty women's apparel retailers amid tough economic conditions.

Friday's announcement of the closures, affecting 800 employees, came as Talbots also warned that fiscal fourth-quarter sales have so far fallen below expectations at its 1,157 Talbots stores, and the 271 J. Jill locations it bought in a 2006 acquisition.

And still more reality:

The nation's service sector grew in December at a pace slightly slower than the month before, providing more evidence that the U.S. economy is struggling because of higher oil prices and a tight credit market.

...and even more:

If you're looking for bad news related to the housing market, it's not hard to find.

• At bubblemeter.blogspot.com, for example, I learned that one of the nation's wealthiest counties, Loudoun County, Va., is facing a budget shortfall of a quarter of a billion dollars, thanks to the slumping housing market. Property values have fallen about 10% there over the last year, and they're expected to fall nearly as much in the next two years. The county is considering charging fees for ambulance usage, among other ideas -- such as a big property-tax hike.


• Meanwhile, according to an AP story, single-family home construction fell 5.5% in November, hitting its lowest level in 16 years. Building permit applications dropped for the sixth month in a row. "The overall construction decline left home building 24.2 percent below the level of activity a year ago," the story reported.


• At the thehousingbubbleblog.com, I read that "the median price of a home in Los Angeles County and the rest of California (recently) plummeted a record 12% percent from a year earlier," with sales falling by more than a third.

In BushWorld, however, everything's just fabulous:

President Bush said Friday that while there is some uncertainty about slowing economic growth, the nation’s “financial markets are strong and solid.”

Bush spoke after getting an update from his top economic advisers, who are helping him decide whether to offer a package to stimulate the U.S. economy as it weathers the housing slump, rising oil prices and an uptick in unemployment.

“This economy of ours is on a solid foundation, but we can’t take economic growth for granted,” Bush said. “And there are signs that will cause us to be ever more diligent and make sure that good policies come out of Washington.”

So what's his answer to keeping this "solid foundation"?

Wait for it....

Here it comes...

Any minute now....

You guessed it...

TAX CUTS!!

President Bush said Friday that while there is some uncertainty about slowing economic growth, the nation’s “financial markets are strong and solid.”

Bush spoke after getting an update from his top economic advisers, who are helping him decide whether to offer a package to stimulate the U.S. economy as it weathers the housing slump, rising oil prices and an uptick in unemployment.

“This economy of ours is on a solid foundation, but we can’t take economic growth for granted,” Bush said. “And there are signs that will cause us to be ever more diligent and make sure that good policies come out of Washington.”

Yes, folks, Bush's answer is to shovel some more government cash into his buddies' pockets, while you'll see perhaps 46 bucks a year in your pocket.

But after all, why should the president bother his beautiful mind about what real Americans are suffering?

Hope is a wonderful thing, folks. But hope has a "wing and a prayer" aspect to it that doesn't solve the problem of a profligate president raiding the national treasury to give to his friends and bankrupting the country. I'm going to be watching all three of the Democratic frontrunners to see how they plan to get us out of this mess.

Labels: economic death watch

Hard to believe that at one time the Iowa Caucus was the kickoff to the presidential campaign, isn't it? It seems as if the campaign has been going on ever since John Kerry took his $14 million in leftover campaign cash in November 2004 and went home before the vote count was even certified.

There isn't much to say about the Republicans, other than the near-historic collapse of Mitt Romney, who spent a mint of money in Iowa and lost to Elmer Gantry. There's a certain "chickens, home, roost, etc." feeling I have about Huckabee's win; that he is the Frankenstein monster created by the Republican Party's embrace of the most lunatic fringe of the religious right for so many years. The party hackocracy has always been able to keep the flat-earthers in the fold by giving lip service to their values and then virtually ignoring them in the arena of actual policy. In Huckabee, they have Their Guy -- a guy who talks life where blastocysts are concerned, but brags about how many people he killed as governor; a guy who says wives should submit to their husbands and then frees a rapist because his victim was distantly related by marriage to Bill Clinton; and a guy who thinks the earth was created in six days just as it is today by a Big Alpha Male in the Sky. The few mainstream Republicans left are appalled at this, but they have no one to blame but themselves. They put up with this for years; now they have reaped their just rewards.

On the Democratic side, all I can think of is that ModFab is one happy guy this morning, and if he weren't such a good and generous soul, he'd be perfectly within his rights to be smug as hell. Apparently we were at the wake when Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were running things at MSNBC, and I wasn't about to watch Brian Williams and Pumpkinhead, so instead we alternated between Air America's coverage (which included the intelligent and learned David Bender trying mightily to cut into Mark Green's obvious spinning for Hillary Clinton and The Odious Lionel being far better than he is on his own show) and the Sammy Cam.

This was a HUGE win for Obama, one in which he was the choice of half of voters under 45 and 57% of those aged 17-29. Despite the perception among everyone born after 1964 that the baby boom generation has a sense of entitlement to all the marbles in perpetuity, any progressive boomer with half a brain knows that even if the candidate you supported didn't win (and mine didn't), that first-time caucusgoers showed up in droves and voted for a candidate that gives them hope for the future is great, great news. The political process has become so cynical, and the processes of government have become so debased, that the sound repudiation of the corporatist Hillary Clinton by young voters last night is wonderful to behold, and the enthusiasm of those young Iowa voters who caucused for the first time last night and those from out-of-state who went to Iowa to spend their Christmas break going door-to-door to stump for Obama is something that should be nurtured and encouraged to carry over into other states and into years to come.

In February of last year, Bill Maher asked John Edwards, "Since your competition is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, mainly, do you think it's unfair baggage that you're a white man?". It was a joke, of course, but for all that Edwards has been channelling Paul Wellstone this year, and for all that before all this started, the Democrats were touting Mark Warner as the Great Southern White Hope for 2008, there does seem to be a strong desire this year to do a soft-storm of the Bastille and move away from anything that smacks, however remotely, of the Washington cesspool of the last seven years. And despite his message, the fact remains that John Edwards is still a Southern White Guy, and no matter what he runs on, you can't tell in five seconds of television imagery that he DOES represent something different.

Watching Edwards speech last night (which at one point veered dangerously close to Howard Dean's misrepresented rally from 2004 with its litany of states), his studied avoidance of words like "victory", and his (from what I could see) framing of the night's results as a resounding message of change, I had the sense that before this is all over, one way or another, Edwards and Obama are going to be able to do business. Whether it's a one-two punch one way or the other; or some other kind of good cop/bad cop relationship, my sense was less that Edwards is believing he's going to win this thing, and more one that he's bound and determined to continue the message right through February 5 and possibly beyond. For John Edwards, this is less about an Edwards presidency than it is about putting an end to the corporate control of the United States Government, and that ultimately he's not going to care how it gets done as long as it does.

Ezra Klein, who despite looking twelve years old on television is rapidly becoming one of the smartest political analysts around, has this to say:

Barack Obama won tonight, but, in a sense, John Edwards' campaign also triumphed. The progressivism of the race, the focus on ideas, the courage of the Democrats -- all were products of his early example. He began the campaign by talking about poverty, announced his candidacy in the mud of New Orleans, set the agenda with the first universal health care bill, and closed Iowa speaking of the uninsured. This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved. But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda and finished second, ahead of the Clinton juggernaut. He said his role was to speak for the voiceless. He now barrels towards New Hampshire with ever more volume. And while his shot at the nomination is long at best, his candidacy, even if it fails, will have been far more successful than most.

This is not to say that he's out of this thing; that he squeaked by ahead of Hillary Clinton, who has far more money and far more media coverage, shouldn't be underestimated. Even Time regards his second-place finish as a boost:

John Edwards went into the Iowa caucuses last night a fighter and he emerges from them as scrappy as ever. In other words, don't assume, because he lost to Barack Obama, that Edwards is down for the count. After all, as his campaign advisers are quick to point out, by finishing second Edwards's David can claim victory over at least one Goliath. "The person hurt in all this is Hillary Clinton," Joe Trippi, an Edwards senior advisor, told TIME minutes after his candidate claimed the silver medal in Des Moines. "The former president of the United States flew all around this state and so did she. They outspent us three-to-one at least. And we beat her."

[snip]

All that's now left to decide, said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' top strategist, is what kind of change the country wants. "Are we going to have a philosophical version of change, or are we going to have a fight to bring about the change we really need?" Prince asked in a rhetorical flourish meant to contrast philosophical change (Obama) with the real thing (Edwards). Edwards' populist message has focused on stamping out the power of corporate greed in Washington, and he argues that Obama's Kumbaya inclusiveness cannot get that job done. "Asking lobbyists to simply give up their power by asking them? In whose world? Not in the real world. That is a complete and total fantasy, it'll never happen," Edwards told a crowd in Ames Tuesday.

I suspect we're going to see younger journalists sounding the death knell of baby boomer politics in Hillary Clinton's third place finish. But I think that it says far more about how wrong the punditocracy is that suddenly Hillary Clinton, after fifteen years in which they regarded her as the yokel from the hicks who wasn't fit to eat off of Nancy Reagan's dishes, became the shoo-in, the anointed nominee, by virtue of having been in Washington for a decade and a half; and that they were 100% wrong all along.

Even if Obama isn't your first choice, there IS something terribly exciting -- and hopeful -- about the fact that a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama" was the first choice of a predominantly white population in a flyover state in a post-9/11 world. Even the fact that Mike Huckabee, as much of a willfully ignorant, theocratic moron as he is (and arguably the Mirror Universe version of Bill Clinton, a theory for which Lower Manhattanite makes a compelling case), won on the Republican side is a hopeful sign that perhaps we are getting past the reptilian-brain mindset that too many Americans have had over the past six years; one fed by the media and right-wing politicians, that Killer Muslims are Coming To Get Us™ and that this fear should occupy our every waking moment. I'm not saying that there aren't very real dangers in the world, but it's clear by now that the Bush/Cheney/Giuliani methodology of attack first and ask questions later is one that no longer resonates with the American public, no matter how many right-wing talk radio hosts and TV talking heads try to perpetuate it. I'm not saying that Huckabee's win is a good thing; I'm with tristero in that I think that in a group of utterly batshit crazy Republicans, he may be the most dangerous of all. But his victory in Iowa, I think, is less about evangelicals in that state and more about the fact that "Vote for me or die at terrorists' hands" isn't resonating the way it used to be.

I'm still not sold on Obama being tough enough to fight effectively back if he's the nominee and the Republicans start painting him as a Muslim spy who's also a cocaine addict. I still think he's frighteningly naïve about the reality of today's Republican Party, whose goal is not just to crush the opposition, but crush it, mangle its corpse, then have sex with it, then cook it and eat it with fava beans and a nice chianti for dinner. I still think that he vastly overestimates the feasibility of consensus with greedy corporate executives who are loath to see their taxpayer-funded gravy train derailed. And I'm troubled by his use of right-wing framing on issues from Social Security to trial lawyers. There is a kind of incipient Joe Liebermanism in him that troubles me.

I've heard some Obama supporters say that I needn't worry, that this is just how he sheathes the sword before applying the death blow, and I suppose we can always hope. But while hope may be enough for young voters who haven't lived through the assassination of their generations' heroes (and I hope they never have to) and watching their hopes of what America can be dashed time and time again; you can't blame the rest of us for saying "I'm from New Jersey....show me."

However, I AM willing to be shown.

Labels: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards

Sorry to be a bit off my game, folks, but here at Chez Brilliant we're dealing with a death in the family so energies are directed elsewhere for a couple of days. That's why the Brilliant of 2007 list and Critics over Coffee isn't up yet. Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that I can't spend the day and evening glued to the TV, though; after all, it was just four years ago that after the Iowa caucus was over, I was do depressed that for three weeks I could hardly drag myself out of bed in the morning to go to work.

But others are on the case, and here are some observations as we head into caucus day that are worth your time:

Brad Friedman on how the election in Kenya should remind Iowans of the importance of decentralized, precinct-based vote counting.

eRiposte has a ton of posts to help uMitt Romney's World of Pure Imaginationndecided Iowans sort it all out, such as a three-part series on whether Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat.

It isn't just Democrats caucusing today. For those following which one of the Republican nimrods, crazies, and theocrats (not that the three characteristics are mutually exclusive, mind you) is the choice of beleaguered Iowa Republicans, Americablog's Iowa correspondent reports on.

In case you missed it, the New York Times' Michael Gordon (no friend to Democrats) interviewed John Edwards on foreign policy. If you think Edwards is a lightweight, read this and be enlightened.

Note to Walter Shapiro: Why are you joining the MSM in burying John Edwards before anyone even gets to the school all-purpose room? Want to know why I'd rather sit at a wake than watch the television coverage that's going to be even worse? This is why.

Eric Stern, former executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, reminds us in this Salon compendium of celebrity prognosticators that when Gen. Peter Pace called gays and lesbians "immoral", John Edwards was the only candidate to immediately speak out. Overcompensating for his "internal struggle"? Perhaps. But the words are what people see.

Mike Caulfield makes a compelling case for Chris Dodd (who would be my #2 choice).

Jeff Fecke looks back on the Manly-Man Campaign that Wasn't of Fred Thompson.

DistributorcapNY discovers that political pundits are run on faulty operating systems.

Steve Benen on the splintering of the unholy alliance between the greedmonsters and the Jeebofascists of the Republican Party.

So we go into today with no idea what the citizens of Iowa have in store for us tonight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Iowa, please don't fuck this up. The future of the Republic is in your hands.

Labels: 2008 election, bloggers

On Saturday I went to Harmon to pick up one of those temporary "cover the gray" sticks to use till I get to the hairdresser this weekend. Those of you who have Harmon stores in your neighborhood understand why I put this particular chain in the pantheon of other emporia without which one simply cannot live a civilized existence: Trader Joe's, World Market, and Tuesday Morning. Harmon always puts those bins of travel size packages of every toiletry product you can imagine near the front door, but once you've successfully navigated that particular gauntlet, you get to the seasonal merchandise.

Most of the year, this stuff is pretty innocuous -- cheap gift sets, Whitman's Samplers in heart packaging, plastic hollow Easter Eggs, sunscreen and flip-flops. But once Christmas is over and New Year's is in the offing, the seaonal merchandise becomes diet products.

Given that January 1 occurs every year, and given that every year there's a spike in the purchase of diet products and gym memberships after the year turns, you'd think people would wonder why every year the market for diet products is so huge, and you'd think they'd put it together that maybe all these appetite suppressants and Slim-fast bars and overpriced, pharmaceutical-named snake oil, and whatever piece of plastic-and-metal crap Tony Little is pushing this year just don't work. I've seen a lot of New Years, and every year there are millions of people going through this drill yet again.

I know people who swear by Weight Watchers, and if that works for you and you want to spend your life counting points and denying yourself for the next three days if you happen to dare to eat a point-heavy meal (such as the bounteous repast of which we availed ourselves New Year's Eve, one which featured hummus, falafel, babaganoush, zucchini pancakes, lamb kebab, and baklava), well, more power to you. For me, the last thing I need is something where I have to obsess even more about food than I already do, not to mention a "lifestyle" that ultimately will require me to live on the morning dew and a lettuce leaf after my Russian peasant body keeps adjusting to an ever-lower calorie count.

As far as I'm concerned, Kate Harding is my go-to gal for those times when I find myself succumbing to the mandatory self-loathing that's part of being a "person of girth" (girth being anything over a size 0) in this country. And she's been on a tear about Weight Watchers lately:

The only thing you really get from WW, or any of its competitors, is a specific structure for your efforts. If that’s what you want, go nuts. It’s your money. And it’s certainly true that some people respond well to the WW structure and do lose weight steadily on it. I myself lost 40 lbs. on Weight Watchers pretty easily, as diets go. Found it all again within a few years, but hey, that’s just me and my lazy, non-committed, hopelessly gluttonous ass, right?

Uh huh. Except, do me a favor. Go click on the “Success Stories” section on their website. I won’t link, but go ahead, I’ll wait.

Do you see that asterisk underneath the “after photos”? The one next to the words “RESULTS NOT TYPICAL.”

Yeah.

Weight Watchers, according to their website, is “unique.” It’s different from all those other diet plans — in fact, it’s not one! And one of the main reasons it’s different is that they will give you “the knowledge and info you need to help you keep it off for good.” But for some strange, inexplicable reason, they still have to include the same disclaimer as every other diet program that touts its success with pictures of former fatties. The disclaimer that says, in slightly fewer words, We cannot legally claim that someone who lost weight and kept it off represents the typical consumer of our product, even though the entire purpose of our product is to help people lose weight and keep it off. Or, in still other words, In a majority of cases, our product does not do what it is meant to do.

Oddly enough, they still include that same disclaimer, even though this is not like all those other programs that include it. Even though this is the one that will teach you how to lose weight and keep it off for good! Somehow, despite having discovered the magic secret to permanent weight loss, they are still not willing and/or legally permitted to claim unreservedly that it works for most people.

Weird, huh?

Weight Watchers: A time-tested approach informed by analyzing years of scientific studies.

Diets: “Proof” often based on one scientific study designed to support the diet’s claims.

Okay, first, how “time-tested” can their approach be, when only thirty years ago, their approach was fucking Mackerelly? And when the Weight Watchers program I did in 2003 was a different program from what’s offered now (though what I did was very similar to the current “Flex” plan)? One of the slogans in the new campaign is, “If diets work, why do we need a new one every 5 minutes?” To which I respond, if Weight Watchers works, why does the whole program get revamped every five minutes?

And… *snicker* and… *BWAH* and… *wipes away tear*… I’m sorry, did Weight Watchers just slag off other diet programs for basing their claims on studies designed to support them? I need to go lie down.

Weight Watchers: Flexible food plans that can adapt to any lifestyle or unique needs.

Diets: Little consideration for you as an individual, with just one approach to suit everyone’s needs.

That’s right. Weight Watchers doesn’t offer “just one approach.” They’ve got TWO! The “Count our fancy POINTS instead of the calories and fat they represent!” plan, OR the “If you’re already a vegan who doesn’t eat sugar, you’ll never have to count anything again!” plan. SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE.

That’s it. That’s their whole list of ways Weight Watchers is different from “diets.” On the other hand, here are a few things the program involves that bear some small similarity to “diets”:

• Restricting fat and calories


• Exercising for the express purpose of being permitted to consume more fat and calories without breaking the rules


• Focusing on weight loss as the primary goal


• Weekly weigh-ins


• Rewards and encouragement for losing weight


• Zero guarantee that the program will help any given individual lose weight at all, let alone permanently


• Warnings that people who do lose weight and keep it off are not “typical”of those who use the program


• Warnings that “only permanent lifestyle changes - such as making healthful food choices and increasing physical activity - promote long-term weight loss.

” Promote long-term weight loss, you’ll note. Not guarantee it. Not even cause it. Merely promote it.

Blame placed entirely on the individual, not the program (much less the myth of long-term weight loss being possible for most people) — if permanent weight loss does not follow from adherence to the program

In this post, she addresses the "You must be lying about what you ate" factor at the mandatory weigh-in.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't think it serves my mental health to pay good money to go someplace where if I haven't lost any weight between meetings they'll blame it on the Hall's Ice Blue Peppermint cough drops. I mean, think about it: COUGH DROPS? Are these the depths to which we must descend? I don't know about you, but I don't even LIKE cheesecake; but if you tell me that if I eat cheesecake it means I'm a lazy-ass slob, you can bet your life that I am going to respond by heading over to Mara's Bakery and buying the biggest-ass piece of cheesecake I can find.

Accusing overweight women of lying about cough drops. This is a healthy lifestyle? But I really don't have time to rant about this any more. I'm taking my fat, lazy downstairs to do my morning yoga, after which I'll have a gluttonous breakfast consisting of a 100% whole wheat English muffin spread with a tablespoon of Smart Balance of Omega 3 peanut butter, a glass of milk, and a clementine. If I'm really feeling gluttonous, I might even have TWO clementines. Now if I were really committed to weight loss to start off the new year, I'd go outside and suck the frost off a grass leaf in the front yard.

Labels: weight

That's the word Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton use to describe the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes:

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

It's no secret that while I'm not a "9/11 Truth"-er, I do believe that there are aspects to what happened that day that point away from the "nineteen guys with boxcutters using planes to bring down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon and there is no way we knew anything at all even remotely connected to such a plan" official story. If the Administration and the CIA want to squelch this kind of inquiry, they're doing a pretty lousy job of putting people's questions and concerns to rest.

Labels: 9/11

Sean-Paul Kelley and Ian Welsh of The Agonist endorse John Edwards:

In the last four years it is not so much that America has changed, but that the circumstances of life in America, our role in the world and our politics have deteriorated, drastically. A kernel of hope and faith in America still remains, but change, now, more so than then, is urgent. Add to these reasons those that Ian so lucidly outlines, and we believe, once again, that John Edwards is the candidate who will finally put an end to the plaintive mewling for, and cooing about, the need for bi-partisanship and consensus in our capital.

Today the middle class--the very foundation of America's great wealth--disappears, gutted by Bush's "Haves and Have Mores." An out of control trade deficit--not to mention an inflationary monetary policy--sucks our treasury dry. And most tragically, a generation of Americans and Iraqis bleed to death in the forbidding deserts of Iraq.

It is time we pulled America into the future and the man to do this is John Edwards.

And Ian Welsh weighs in:

There's no middle left and anyone who thinks that the vast majority of Republican Senators will respond to good will is living in a world of denial. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Republican behaviour in the last 7 years indicates that will happen. Just as nothing in the behaviour of oil companies and health insurers indicates they're interested in "compromise" when not compromising has done so very very well for them and taken them from victory to victory.

Which leaves us with John Edwards: who wants to kick ass, take names, and help the middle class stop getting reamed out by credit card companies, banks, oil companies, Wall Street and all the other invertebrates whose existence is based on sucking blood from ordinary people while denying they have any responsibility for how pale and weak the middle class has become.

Can he do it? Many Democrats, used to having their teeth kicked in for years by Republican bullies, say no. They reason that without 60 votes, they'll still have to compromise with Republicans and so they want a Compromiser-In-Chief sitting in the White House.

But compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably a million Iraqis dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted.

So perhaps the key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forwards sniveling on ones' knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a President aggressively make the case that the American people want health care, want lower oil prices, want fairer credit card policies -- a presidnet (sic) who is willing to go the wall over it.

Now we get to my beloved and dear friend ModFab, whom I tried to convince that John Edwards was the candidate who best embodied the progressive values we share. But alas, it is John Edwards' "internal struggle" against his Southern Baptist background in his views on gay marriage that was the dealbreaker, and so he is endorsing Barack Obama.

I can't fault him on his choice. If I were faced with a candidate who admitted to feeling "icky" about me and about who I am, no matter how much he "battles" that; one who just couldn't get past a bunch of childhood preachers to get to a point where my publicly-expressed oaths to my beloved were somehow "not as good as" someone else's, I'm not sure I could support that candidate either. I have more faith in Edwards' ability to separate his religious background from policy than ModFab does, but then, it's easy for me to have it because it isn't my life and my rights that are at stake. Yes, we did discuss Donnie McClurkin, but the issue seemed to be what the candidate believes, not the red meat he chooses to dish up to certain constituencies is. And so his choice is Barack Obama. I understand that an Obama presidency would be a transformational change in a way not even Hillary Clinton would be. I know how Obama is capable of inspiring people. But what ModFab sees as thoughtfulness and showing leadership in Obama's maddening tendency to want to split the difference when dealing with Republicans (despite all evidence to the contrary that such a thing is even possible), I see as a creeping Joe Liebermanism -- a willingness to sell the middle class down the river in the name of conciliation. And because of that, I don't think gay issues are going to fare particularly well with Obama. In fact, I'd say that Obama's willingness to concede just about anything bodes far more ill for gay concerns than Edwards' internal struggle. At least John Edwards has Elizabeth and daughter Cate needling him about it.

But at least ModFab isn't supporting Hillary Clinton. THEN I'd have to ask him to step outside and we'd probably resort to fisticuffs.

(UPDATE: Don't miss this great post at The Left Coaster on why the Change™ Obama professes to stand for doesn't necessarily include progressivism.

Labels: 2008 election

The Media disconnect occurs somewhere between the New York Times lauding blogger Steve Gillard in this week's Sunday magazine, and inviting Bill Kristol to become a regular columnist. The paper hopes to stir up some controversy and sell some papers, not realizing that probably what will sell papers is some cold hard truth, rather than the words of a man who is wrong at every turn, with every prediction, and every comment; has he ever been right about anything?

Its been a lousy as hell year all around. Good riddance to 2007! I cant think of anyone who has had an easy go of it, not family or friends, not Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole...and especially not the brave military families and veterans who are serving so patiently and bravely in a war with no purpose and no end. New and old friends; even strangers tell me that its been bad. I don't know if they're referring to the overwhelming barrage of lies, deceit, and misconduct that we have been subjected to from our government, or if its the growing effect of that misconduct on our every day lives. Surely the failing economy, lack of healthcare, loss of lives in Iraq, and stress from the empathy that we cant help but feel for all of those who are worse off beyond our own situations, weighs heavily on us all...the depths of despair, the illness, the loss; the loss of feeling like being an American means something.

Well, it turns out that as the year ends and the ball drops, George W. Bush feels pretty damned good about things. According to an article in this pastSunday's Parade Magazine penned supposedly by the king himself, He has a list of things that made his year special, and his sneering, squint-eyed self glaring stupidly from the cover tells the story of how out of touch the man is. There is no downcast glance and teary statement of how we appreciate the sacrifice of our boys and girls in harm's way. There is not a thoughtful nod towards the people who have lost their homes to bad loans or medical crisis, or who no longer have jobs.
No, our president is an "optimist" who takes strength from the few, well screened people that he meets when he is on the very edge of his bubble, and can sort of see through the opaque mask that is the boundary of his understanding.

So sometime after the staff begins to take down the decorations at the White House,Laura and Dubya muse on the few people that they have been allowed to meet in person and how great and inspirational they were. The brave family of a soldier who gladly died for his country while on a mission in Afghanistan, an entrepreneur who has changed her life by opening a small bakery in Nashville, the director of the Human Genome Institute, who is especially special because he is a man of God, and so he wont mess with stem cells to try to cure anything (because the Human Genome will cure Cancer, you know!)....and the list goes on....an AIDS mother from South Africa (he touched her AIDS free child!)the wife of an imprisoned Cuban who was jailed for democracy in evil Cuba, and "other Americans" who have shown W and Laura that America is strong....despite what he has done to us.

There is no mention of the mess in Iraq and the mounting deaths every day. There is no mention of the lies and corruption in his party. No mention of our lost standing in the world and the scorching lack of diplomacy that has colored every move that this administration has made; we are irreparably damaged, and there is no way to tell if we can regain what we've lost in the past 7 years.

On the edge of the year in which we will kick these bums out of office, we know that we will likely do so without proper documentation on the books of their crimes. We will move ahead with the knowledge that the memory of moist Americans is so short, that this war will become the property of the next administration, as if they had started it and run our country into the ground from scratch.

He is optimistic? Optimistic?
What a word to throw around in light of all that's happened this year.

The comments following the online version of the story say it all. There is really nothing I can add to the voices of real Americans, commenting in this Sunday newspaper magazine that is distributed inside national and local papers across the country. Does this magazine have a political side? If anything, Ive viewed it as a Good Housekeeping-ish conservative fluff rag. I'm not sure; judge for yourself. All I can see out here in the world is that the American people are speaking up, and they don't much like the way things have been going :

George W Bush
By Johnnyjoeymickey@aol.com on 12/31/2007 8:57:PM

When I Saw Bush war criminal on the cover of Parade, I cried, I really cried. I cant believe you put a picture of the devil himself on your magazine. Shame on you!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abominable Cover of the Monster-in-Chief
By tumerica@gmail.com on 12/31/2007 4:45:PM

Place a murderer--an actual monster--on your cover. Let him drone on about his "optimism," show complete disregard for your readership . . . do all of these things, and what do you expect you will achieve? Will it buy you a coveted place in the regard of this person's last few months in office? Will it endear Parade to future readers? I felt a visceral and real nausea when I saw whom you had placed on your cover. In return, I have no respect left for Parade and will hereby boycott reading your publication. May many other Americans follow suit.
George Bush gave me a Nightmare and I got sick!
By Leomoon80@msn.com on 12/31/2007 2:18:PM

I've read a few of the other comments, such as "He should have talked about his Accomplishments",and I understand why he did not. What he has accomplished has being responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of people, invading a country that was NO threat to us, as not one Iraqi attacked us on 9-11. Running our country into virtual bankruptcy, bringing the dollar to the lowest value ever in the world. But I can see the Smile from ear to ear, as he and his fellow rich friends and family continue to reap thanks to his laws, "Record Profits" from the suffering of others. Sad indeed! The only picture in the future I'd like to see of G.W. Bush, is one behind bars.
Worse Cover
By Wathen on 12/31/2007 2:02:PM

It is easy to be an optimist if you have health insurance and your children have health insurance. Is Bush smiling because he is thinking of all the children that have and will die because spending billions in Iraq is a higher priority than saving the lives of children in the U.S. by providing health insurance? Or is he smirking because of the suffering he has caused by not providing all the help he can on stem cell research? He has destroyed any legacy that his father may have had and he certainly has done nothing that his twins can be proud of. What a sad evil person we have for a "president".
You who voted twice for this thing
By mark223@hotmail.com on 12/31/2007 11:37:AM

hell yes i'm a voter... as for you you **** head i bet i can describe you to the "t"... your a male and your race is white, you been divoce maybe more than once you always have to have the last saying (because your mr. perfect). people talk behind your back and you know it. you are surely are not like. and because of you whom vote for bush you made the republican party history... hurrah!!!
What Made My Year Special
By leighpc@hotmail.com on 12/31/2007 9:43:AM

Seeing George Bush smiling on the cover of Parade Magazine yesterday and seeing the words "What Made My Year Special" made me physically ill. Does this man have no heart or soul? How can someone who has brought so much death and misery to the innocent civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan sleep at night, let alone smile placidly for the camera? All I can say is "Praise God" that 2008 will be the last year this small, terrible man will be in a position to inflict his evil policies on our nation and the world.
Ongoing
By sambrown.6@gmail.com on 12/31/2007 2:23:AM

With every word Bush "writes" and every word he says, the words maintain the obvious that he sees the world in black and white and uses religion as a front for his lack of imagination, intelligence, and reality. I have lived through many presidential era's and even talked with some Presidents. Never have I seen someone who so lacked the capability to be a President. I have been disgusted by Presidents only twice in my life and both have existed in the last 16 years.
Bush is a human rights violator.
By shildahl@gmail.com on 12/30/2007 9:00:PM

As a VN vet, I am critical of you featuring the Bush war criminal on your cover. Keep in mind that he, and Cheney, Rove, and Rice are all folks who have no clue about "service" to their country's military. Rumsfeld did serve, but left when the VN war was heating up. Shame on Parade Magazine! Let's send them all to the World Court.

With 1 or 2 out of 21 comments being pro-Bush, for no real reason besides that he is The Decider, the captions cry out...its really quite unbelievable:

Bush's' "Special Year".
Very disappointing.
Too Sick to Read On.
what were you thinking?
Could'nt get Al Gore to do your cover?
Unreal.
Are You Kidding Me?

But my favorite comment of them all and one that represents my feelings exactly:

By odziana@charter.net on 12/30/2007 2:32:PM

This man has lead by fear and lies and you ask him anything. He is as deep as a toenail. Our countries greatest assets are our deversity and open heartedness. He represents none of that. Why not ask a mass murderer what made his year special, at least they would have health care and meals. something this president does not seem to even know we need. Well when you never have to touch the middle class, nor care to, I guess you can be optimistic. If he really , really cared about us, he would let go of his stubborness (fear) and stop killing us in oh so many ways. Verta Odziana, michigan

An interesting addendum to the Parade issue is that Parade's upcoming issue was supposed to contain the last interview of Benazir Bhutto that had been scheduled to be released on the first Sunday in January. It was written by Gail Sheehy, who traveled to Pakistan and followed Bhutto as she campaigned across the country, interviewing her twice at her residence. In light of Bhutto's assassination, Parade has published the piece online this weekend.
I will be interested to see if she still appears on the cover next weekend.

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: Bush, delusion, sociopathy

The 2007 Brilliant List. Coming soon. Maybe even tomorrow.

Happy new year, everyone. May it be full of joy, love, peace, prosperity, and universal, single-payer health care.

Good thing the BBC World News is willing to set the record straight.

Skull fracture from bumping her head my ass.

Labels: Benazir Bhutto

Those of you who don't spend your waking non-working hours waist-deep in the Big Muddy that is Lefter Blogtopia may not know why I quote Steve Gilliard in the masthead and why I've posted about him, given that I never met the man, never exchanged e-mails, and was only linked by him once.

It's because everyone who blogs on our side of the fence can trace his/her inspiration back to him, even if indirectly.

For those who don't know what the fuss is about, Jesse Wendel, one of the Four Carriers of the Gilliard Torch, has a compendium of some of his best work. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, start clicking, read and enjoy. And know why although the Group Newsbloggers do their best to channel the man, someone who could blog coherently and in great detail about the history of colonialism and then wax just as eloquently about the foods we eat on Thanksgiving is just plain irreplaceable.

(UPDATE: And still more good stuff on the New York Times Magazine piece from The Gazetteer, James Wolcott, and B@B bud The Galloping Beaver.

And if you're interested in how the Good Christians on the right speak of the dead, you can take a gander at this. There is no doubt about it -- today's right wingers are ugly, ugly, evil people. They have a fetid, ulcerating, suppurating cancer in their souls that no amount of Bible-thumping can possibly heal.

Labels: Steve Gilliard

Editorial, today's New York Times:

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

[snip]

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

[snip]

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Now if whoever wrote this excellent editorial would inform the Powers that Be in the executive suite that every atrocity mentioned therein was applauded by the very man they've just hired as a columnist.

Thank you for writing an article about John and Elizabeth Edwards that mentions neither haircuts nor houses nor hedge funds. Thank you for writing an article that doesn't even allude to the kind of foul rumors that those afraid of having a president who might represent people other than the most monied interests have spread. Thank you for recognizing that there are still people for whom politics is a calling, a way to make a difference on a large scale, rather than a way to stuff one's pockets or aggrandize one's ego.

John Edwards has received precious little coverage like this, and rarely been covered with this little skepticism.



This is one of those times when I wish I'd been able to put away more money when I was young and could afford to retire. I'd be in Iowa right now.

Labels: John Edwards

Ask any smart woman in the U.S. who the male celebrity she adores most is, and the chances are pretty good that the answer will be "John Cusack."

When you think about all of the guys who were around during the heyday of John Hughes, and if you go back and watch Sixteen Candles, it's hard to believe that that the sex symbol of mid-to-late boomers and gen-x women would be the gangly guy in this short collection of clips:



But then of course that guy turned into this one:



...and this one:



...and now this one:



And as Melissa informs us, the nicest man in Hollywood:



Now that's a guy who would never embarrass you in public by telling you there's a booger attached to your nose.

Let the other girls have the chiseled hunks. For us thinking girls, THIS is what a dreamboat looks like. Smart, progressive, funny, polite, never shows up in the gossip pages, and eyes that you could forgive just about anything for.

Labels: John Cusack, movies

In which we learn that Daffy Duck is a Republican Uh....wrong caption, or wrong cartoon. But this one, by the late, great Tex Avery, is worth sitting through his trademark cruelty to get to the end, an anding that made me laugh so hard when I saw it at either the Thalia or at Leonard Maltin's old history of animation class at the New School in the early 1980's that I wondered how I'd ever get home:

Labels: movies

In the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton, just like Rudy Giuliani, wants you to know that only she can keep you safe from the boogeyman:

Eldridge, Iowa - Barack Obama and John Edwards might want to change the world. But Hillary Clinton wants to protect you against it.

That's the unmistakable message that Senator Clinton is pounding out in this final phase of the campaign to capture the Iowa caucuses. In a world brimming with danger and uncertainty, she argues as she blitzes the Hawkeye State, there's no time to waste daydreaming about pie-in-the-sky promises of reform.

Instead, the American people must choose a leader ready to immediately start fixing the problems that already exist and one who is immediately ready to face the inevitable and "unpredictable" crises looming right over the horizon. And that would be Clinton.

"We know some of the challenges that await the next president," Clinton told a packed crowd at a junior high school Saturday morning. "But no matter how much we know, we can't possibly anticipate all the problems."

The razzamatazz cheerleading, sloganeering style that punctuated her earlier campaign events has now been replaced by a sedate, somber, even grave tone coming from the podium. Clinton never raised her voice, never elevated the mood, and at times sounded like a concerned, responsible parent telling the kids that something terrible was taking place outside the door but not to worry because Mom and Dad - or in this case Hill and Bill- would take care of it.

Becoming president, she said in a hushed tone, is "an awesome responsibility. And it was thrown into relief with the events last Thursday with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto."

This may come as a surprise to the conservatives who have spent the last six years in a state of pee-in-your-pants terror that Islamic terrorists are plotting to kill us every single day, but those of us who are going about our lives are not uncognizant of the very real dangers in the world today. And neither are John Edwards and Barack Obama. But because nothing else has seemed to work, Hillary Clinton is spending the final days leading up to Iowa trying to tap the reptilian brain in Iowa voters by taking a page from the Republican playbook and playing the fear card. And it's a distasteful sight.

Hillary'c campaign has played right into everything that those of us who will not vote for have found repulsive all along -- that every move she makes, every statement out of her mouth, comes not from a place of conviction but from whatever the focus groups, polls, and Washington pundits say will work on any given day. One minute she's being America's Mother. The next she's "the put upon girl being beaten up by the Big Mean Men. Then she's ripping off John Edwards' health care plan. Now she's decided to try to out-Giuliani Giuliani.

When Bill Clinton was president, I thought the obsession with Hillary's ever-changing hairstyles was petty, Mean Grrlz of the Press bullshit. But perhaps they were on to something, but that something had nothing to do with her hair. It has to do with the reason I can't vote for: because I don't know who the hell she is. I don't know what she stands for. I don't trust her to end the Iraq war. I don't trust her to not bomb Iran and follow a neocon foreign policy. I don't trust her to not negotiate away reproductive freedom. I don't get the sense that there are any values she feels strongly enough about to take the heat when the Republicans and the Washington press corps line up against her.

We've seen many Hillarys during this campaign. But who the hell is she?

Labels: 2008 election, Hillary Clinton

How dare these firefighters question the leadership of a man who declares himself an expert on terrorism because he happened to show up on 9/11/01 to watch the command center he'd ordered placed in a building that had already been attacked once, and who had five years to get workable radios for firefighters and didn't do it:



OK, so not all firefighters are gorgeous after all. But they've got guts and they dare to speak the truth.

Labels: Rudy Giuliani