"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007
"Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United States, please pay attention." -- Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

Over 7000 8000(!!!) Posts and over 1,000,000 pages served

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata
"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere: Special 2008 Weblog Awards Endorsements Edition
Posted by Jill | 2:43 PM
Well, I didn't get nominated for a Weblog award this year. Not that I expected to, our readership is too small and I don't have the time to self-promote; not with a real job with deadlines and expectations and actual work to do that requires brainpower -- something I haven't had for a very long time.

I don't set a lot of stock in these things because the extent to which one gets nominated has more to do with your critical mass, how much you can get your readers to do, and how much you're willing/able to cross-promote. This is how the nominees for "Best Blog" are predominantly moneymakers like Gawker and HuffPo and Daily Kos and Politico, while others who slave away every day for little or no reward show up -- if they are lucky -- in the smaller categories.

But there are a few gems sprinkled in there, so here are some endorsements for those of you inclined to help out the little guys 'n' gals.

For Best Individual Blogger, it's no contest: Vote Driftglass or die. Drifty is a national treasure. He has a huge reader base, more respect than just about anyone blogging today, but he stubbornly sticks to the individual blogger model -- and there isn't a better writer on the Web.

For Best Humor Blogger, well, I enjoy The Comics Curmudgeon as well as anyone, but for sheer "Is it for real or is it satire" bloggy goodness, you can't beat the inimitable Jon Swift.

The Best Liberal Blog category is crowded with many excellent choices, and a few "WTF?" choices (Wonkette, Taylor Marsh). It's hard to vote against blogs like Hullabaloo and Talking Points Memo, especially since they are both invaluable resources for me. There are other choices, like Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory and Dave Neiwert's Orcinus that are THE places to go for commentary on Constitutional law and civil rights issues, respectively. But since just about everything that these guys write about comes down to who's in office at any given time, I have to go with Brad Friedman's Bradblog on this one, because no one covers the pathetic state of our electoral apparatus better.

For Best Political Coverage, you have a bunch of hold-your-nose choices, from the lunatic No Quarter on the left, where Larry Johnson is still scratching his head and asking himself, "Where DID I put that 'whitey' tape, anyway?", and the lunatic wingnuts over at Townhall on the right. But in this category, there is only one logical choice, and that is Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight. For in a year in which all the other pollsters were often wrong, Nate Silver was always there. James Wolcott put it best in his column in the current Vanity Fair:
No shiny arrow shot swifter and loftier from obscurity to quotable authority than Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight.com site became the expert sensation of the election season. (Five hundred thirty-eight is the sum of electoral-college votes up for contention.) Crunching poll numbers until they sang with clarity, Silver, a managing partner and sabermetrician at Baseball Prospectus and a former Daily Kos diarist, made many of the old pros look as if they were stuck in the previous century, milking cows. Not only did his disciplined models and microfine data mining command respect, his prognostications hit the Zen mark on Election Day. “This uncanny accuracy is the equivalent of dropping a penny from the top of a 50 story building and landing it in a shot glass,” John Cole wrote at Balloon Juice. “This is sick accurate.” Silver also became an instant cable-news savant, his geek-genius glasses and owlish mien worthy of a Starfleet sub-adjutant whose quadratic equations coolly foil an attack from a Romulan vessel while the senior officers are frantically poking at their touch screens.

(Unfortunately, James Wolcott isn't nominated in any category.)

In the category of Best Sports Blog, please go show our own favorite, Metsgrrl, some love. After all, she is a Mets season ticket holder who has been screwed over by the Wilpons in their quest for luxury box income and she deserves a hug. But she's also a damn smart writer. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself.

If you're fond of military blogs, my favorite among the nominees is Army of Dude, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Todd Palin, so you're safe going over and voting for it.

My favorite Business Blog, New Jersey Real Estate Report, isn't even nominated. So do what you like for this one.

For Best GLBT Blog, well, since ModFab isn't nominated, he recommends a vote for JoeMyGod or Towleroad. My personal pick is Pam's House Blend.

For Best Science Blog, there's only one logical choice: Pharyngula (PZ Myers), who gets bonus bloggy love for this.

Best Pet Blog
is a tough category, for how do you choose between Cute Overload and I Can Has Cheezburger? But while I'm always a sucker for Teh Cute, only I Can Has Cheezburger inspired a flock of Obama-related imitators. So I have to go with inspiration (and Ceiling Cat) this year.

For Best Major Blog (Authority over 1001), it's a toss-up between Balloon Juice and Tbogg. John Cole is a recent convert to our side and deserves some love, but Tbogg has basset hounds. It's a tough choice.

For Best Large Blog, I have to go with our good friend Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo, without whom we wouldn't be able to talk about Blogtopia, because yes, he coined that phrase.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, there are many more categories in which I didn't make an endorsement. In some cases, it's because I'm not familiar with any of them. In others, it's because there were too many excellent choices to pick just one. But if you're so inclined, check out our picks, and if you like them, click on the categories and cast your votes for them.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

=Breaking News= There's actually someone about whom Maureen Dowd feels no need to snark
Posted by Jill | 5:41 AM
And it's Caroline Kennedy:
found it bizarre that when Caroline offered to use her magic capital — and friendship with Barack Obama — to help take care of New York in this time of economic distress, she was blasted by a howl of “How dare she?”

People are suddenly awfully choosy about who gets to go to the former home of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Torricelli.

Although Americans still have enough British in their genes to be drawn to dynasties, W. has no doubt soured the country on scions. And the camps of the other two New York dynasties — the Clintons (still bitter about Caroline’s endorsement of Obama) and the Cuomos (who’d like that Senate seat for Andrew) — have certainly done their best to undermine Caroline.

Congress, which abdicated its oversight role as the Bush crew wrecked the globe and the economy, desperately needs fresh faces and new perspectives, an infusion of class, intelligence and guts.

People complain that the 51-year-old Harvard and Columbia Law School grad and author is not a glib, professional pol who knows how to artfully market herself, and is someone who hasn’t spent her life glad-handing, backstabbing and logrolling. I say, thank God.

The press whines that she doesn’t have a pat answer about why she wants the job. I’ve interviewed a score of men running for president; not one had a good answer for why he wanted it.

Robert Duffy, the mayor of Rochester, complained that when the would-be senator visited the Democratic headquarters there recently, she did not respond to pictures in a conference room of her father, mother, brother and herself as a little girl. Isn’t it creepy to expect her to emote on cue? Isn’t it more authentic to want to keep some of your most private feelings to yourself?

I know Caroline Kennedy. She’s smart, cultivated, serious and unpretentious. The Senate, shamefully sparse on profiles in courage during Dick Cheney’s reign of terror, would be lucky to get her.

And believe me, she talks a whole lot better than the former junior senator from New York, Al D’Amato, who once wailed that he was “up to my earballs” in some mess, and another time complained to me that those “little Jappies” bring over boats full of cars and then take the boats back empty.

Anyhow, it isn’t how you say it. It’s what you say. Hillary Clinton is a great talker, but she never stood up in the Senate to lead a crusade against any Republican horror show, from Terri Schiavo to the Bush administration’s dishonest push to war.

Sitting in the Senate gallery on Tuesday as senators were sworn in by Dick Cheney, I saw plenty of lawmakers who had benefited from family.


I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about Kennedy. It's kind of hard to get on one's high horse about someone who thinks s/he can dance into the presidency on the strength of one's name and family mystique when we look at the outgoing junior Senator from New York. In general, I dislike political dynasties, because they tend to be based on name recognition and fondness for a memory, and also because there is this unfortunate royalist streak that Americans still have that has had us longing for a return to Camelot for the last forty years; a royalist streak that had us calling the father of the current buffoon-in-chief "George I" or "Bush I" and still may yet give us more representatives of that obviously inbred and sadly intellectually lacking family.

It seems to me that there has been a certain troubling arrogance about Kennedy's sudden enthusiasm for public office, one in which she doesn't feel obligated to disclose the kind of personal and financial information that other mere mortals do. On the other hand, it has to be difficult to jump into this ring when you are the subject of a million White House pictures from 1962 of two adorable chidren of a young, attractive couple just when another young, attractive couple with two adorable children is about to enter the White House; and equally hard to be the surviving sibling of a brother whose own possible future in politics was uncertain, but who had his father's charisma combined with his mother's looks.

It seems clear, however, that the press coverage of Caroline Kennedy, who seems to be back on an inside track to appointment to the soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat from New York, is dividing into two camps -- the "How dare she" camp, and the "But she's a KENNEDY!" camp, in which we surprisingly find Maureen Dowd planting her flag.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Let's not forget who ran up this deficit, shall we?
Posted by Jill | 5:32 AM
No doubt part of the "Bush Legacy Project" will be to rewrite history to paint the budget surpluses this country enjoyed during the Clinton years as belonging to George W. Bush, and the ENTIRE financial mess, especially the record-breaking Bush deficits in the midst of which we now find ourselves, as being ENTIRELY the fault of Barack Obama. After all, that's what they'll need for their Bush Restoration in the form of get Jebbie into the White House (a goal not necessarily on the back burner just because the Heir Apparent has decided not to run for the vacant Senate seat in Florida, perhaps fearing too much scrutiny into his connections with Lehman Bros. and other financial messes), or perhaps even Jeb's son George P., the girlfriend-stalker who will be 36 in 2012.

Obama is doing his best to manage the narrative so far
:
President-elect Barack Obama on Tuesday braced Americans for the unparalleled prospect of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come,” a stark assessment of the budgetary outlook that he said would force his administration to impose tighter fiscal discipline on the government.

Mr. Obama sought to distinguish between the need to run what is likely to be record-setting deficits for several years and the necessity to begin bringing them down markedly in subsequent years. Even as he prepares a stimulus plan that is expected to total nearly $800 billion in new spending and tax cuts over the next two years, he said he would make sure the money was wisely spent, and he pledged to work with Congress to enact spending controls and efficiency measures throughout the federal budget.

“We’re not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well,” Mr. Obama said, speaking about the dire fiscal outlook after meeting with his economic team for a second straight day.

In his most explicit language on the subject since winning the election, Mr. Obama sought to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he was aware of the long-term dangers of running huge deficits and would take steps to limit and eventually reduce them.

Big deficits force the government to borrow more money, saddling future generations with large financial burdens and leaving the nation reliant on foreign governments and other big investors to lend cash. The problem is even more acute now because credit markets, which in recent months have made it much harder and more expensive for businesses and individuals to borrow, could be further strained by financing a huge government deficit.

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama plans to name a chief performance officer with the task of finding government efficiencies. He has chosen Nancy Killefer, who is director of McKinsey & Company, a management consulting firm, and was an assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration. The Congressional Budget Office will also release its latest budget estimates, providing the first official predictions of the shortfalls tied to the economic slowdown and the fallen financial markets.

Mr. Obama has made the economy virtually the sole public focus of his first full week in Washington since winning the election. He called on Tuesday for the creation of an economic recovery oversight board that would include outside advisers to monitor spending — and find abuses — of the economic stimulus plan. He also said earmarks for lawmakers’ special projects would be banned from the bill.

“When the American people spoke last November, they were demanding change — change in policies that helped deliver the worst economic crisis that we’ve see since the Great Depression,” Mr. Obama told reporters at his transition offices. He added, “They were demanding that we restore a sense of responsibility and prudence to how we run our government.”

But Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats have expressed concern that the need for a substantial economic stimulus plan could sweep away for years any serious effort to bring government spending into line with its revenues.

While economists almost universally support running large deficits to combat the kind of steep recession the country is grappling with now, they are increasingly expressing alarm at the prospect of sustained fiscal imbalances heading into a period in which the aging of the population will create huge budgetary strains because of the growing costs of the Medicare and Social Security programs.

Still, the deficit now seems likely to be so large that it will inevitably constrain Mr. Obama’s administration to some degree.


And of course that was the whole point of the $700+ transfer of taxpayer money into the pockets of financial company executives, wasn't it? After all, we can't possibly allow the improvement of inner-city schools and universal health coverage. That just wouldn't be fitting in the America that we all know really belongs to the Bush family. We just live in it.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Who says Jews can't have a cease-fire?
Posted by Jill | 6:50 PM
Maybe they can't have one in Israel, but our favorite Jews, after some certainly staged sniping at each other before the holidays, have returned to their groundbreaking webcast with a brandy new show name and a brandy new web site.

Usually Sam Seder and Marc Maron are Melina's beat, but since she is taking care of some family stuff this evening, I'll sit in and fill you in on at least the outside story, if not the inside story.

I knew that "Maron v. Seder" was going to have to be a working title. For one thing, Sam and Marc are practically doppelgangers of each other, with Sam the "good son" who got married, had a child, and despite his warped sense of humor and priceless righteous outrage, no doubt still gives his parents some naches. Marc is clearly the Designated Family Shithead, the repository of all the family neurosis and pain, who has somehow managed to turn what makes most of us just depressed and anxious on a regular basis into a career as one of the smartest, most incisive standup comics in the business.

It's no secret that we here at B@B were devotés of the late and still lamented Morning Sedition. But by some miracle, the current crop of suits at Air America seem to have realized that no matter how much advertising for John Cummuta's get rich quick schemes, or fake penis enlargement products, or annoying life insurance quote ads you sell, you simply cannot replace the kind of ferociously loyal (and patient) listener/fan base these two guys have.

In its first few months Maron v. Seder has been the kind of experimental endeavor we haven't seen since Marshal Efron nearly put Banquet out of the frozen cream pie business in 1971 on The Great American Dream Machine. But after some truly weird efforts in the Air America break room last month involving people like Mark Green, who still hangs around despite no longer being such a big macher in the company, some shadowy visionary at Air America Media, who may very well have been Sam himself, may have stumbled upon a formula that could catapult these Two Live Jews into the kind of cult following that has many of us still listening to old Morning Sedition podcasts from 2005.

The show is now called "Break Room Live with Maron and Seder", which is the next evolution towards an identity which if we are extraordinarily lucky, will recapture the kind of lunatic intelligence which brought us interviews with Mick Ware before he went nuts, Middle East expert Borzou Daragahi, who has managed to keep his sanity, and guest hosting by pro wrestler Mick Foley, who was smarter than anyone ever thought; not to mention Lawton Smalls, the Milfingtons, Sammy the Stem Cell, and the Presidential Palm Pilot -- all of which are immortalized for eternal listening here.

The show's web site describes this new identity as follows:


BREAK ROOM LIVE is the first of its kind; a daily, live online political talk and comedy show. At 3pm Eastern every weekday, Marc Maron and Sam Seder take a seat in the Air America break room to discuss the hot topics of the day, with live guests, comedy sketches, and recurring segments, all streaming live at BreakRoomLive.com. In addition to the daily live broadcast, visitors will be able to view the show on demand, subscribe to vodcasts and podcasts of the show, and chat live, 24/7, with fellow fans and the hosts.

BreakRoomLive.com will also be home to exclusive on-demand video content from Marc and Sam. Along with a fully interactive blog, Marc and Sam will provide BreakRoomLive.com with interviews, political discussions, and irreverent comedy that can’t be seen anywhere else.

“Based upon the fact that no one has developed a model for what we’re doing, we’re confident that people will consider this a success,” said Sam Seder. “I see our show as PornTube meets MSNBC meets Twitter meets PopFly meets Yodio meets SplashCast meets Zillow meets TradeSports meets Meets.com.”

Marc Maron added, “I’m excited that Sam and I will be able to take risks in a new format, and whether we succeed or fail, it will be available online forever.”

Marc and Sam have known each other for 20 years. They’re not quite friends but they’re able to work together. For the right price.


Of course when it comes to Air America, as well as these guys, you never know what the truth is. But the story we're told about how all this happened is basically this:




So, if you're home during the day, or if you work for a company that doesn't block streaming video, check it out, 3:000 PM Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, at Break Room Live.

And no, the fact that they put us on the blogroll, right at the top of the second column, with higher placement than even the Big Blue Smurf himself, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this endorsement.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere: I'm Too Disgusted To Write Today edition
Posted by Jill | 5:50 AM
So I'll let my fellow bloggers entertain you this morning.

The Fumigator-in-Chief asks the residents of Roane County, Tennessee, the site of the little-covered coal ash disaster that is the worst environmental catastrophe in this country since the Exxon Valdez, "How's that overwhelming support for George W. Bush in the 2004 election working out for ya?" He's got a point, though. It's time we started pointing out to voters who live in these areas that for varying reasons have been hardest hit by Bush policies and who vote Republican to start thinking about exactly what they're voting for when they fall for this "real America" shit.

From the News Travels Fast file: Mudflats notes that after a right-wing figure in Alaska exposed Levi Johnston being unqualified under the rules for his apprenticeship on the North Slope, Sarah Palin's son-in-law-to-be has suddenly decided to return home to finish his education.

Jed Lewison advises Barack Obama to compromise no more than is absolutely necessary to get as many Republican votes as required to get a stimulus package passed.

Tata comments on a new commercial by the corn industry promoting it's "natural" sweetener, high-fructose corn syrup.

Sam and Marc are back from the holidays!

Doghouse Riley on Ben Feller's AP puff piece on the so-called "Bush Legacy." Nedra Pickler's employer is still trying to put lipstick on that pig after all these years.

John Cole on how the Republicans seem to have rediscovered their fiscal conservatism after letting Bush run amok for eight years.

LTR has the Top Ten Talkers of 2008 (reader poll edition, progressive category). You mean there's still progressive talk radio out there? Who knew? How Rachel Maddow ends up behind Alex freakin' Bennett is a mystery to me.

Melissa enters the world of celebrity journalism and notes that when a show business family loses a son, only the father's grief seems to matter.

And finally, from the more bloggy goodness for your buck file, Blue Girl has the Monday Nightowl Newswrap.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 05, 2009

Would somebody please remind Barack Obama that he won?
Posted by Jill | 6:47 PM
I really wanted to be wrong about this one. God knows I was wrong about John Edwards, and it is to my everlasting shame that I was. But when I just couldn't bring myself to get on the Obama bandwagon back when I was choosing a breakout session at Yearly Kos 2007, it was because of what I saw as a troubling tendency to capitulate to bullies in the name of "changing the tone." I wouldn't mind if he were simply a centrist, because given the media mouthpieces we have in this country and a peculiar American tendency towards willful ignorance, I'm not sure that even a speaker of his gifts and charisma would be able to sell a truly progressive agenda to a bunch of people who think that a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" is a lighthearted joke. But whether it's the malevolent influence of Joe Lieberman as his early mentor, an unwillingness to admit to himself that the kind of politics the Republicans play in Washington is a far cry from what they're able to get away with in predominantly Democratic Chicago, or if he just plain is a Republican in disguise, it's looking more every day like his idea of bipartisanship is less oriented towards persuasion and more the Harry Reid style of letting them take his lunch money and thanking them for doing it.

Because the Obama Economic Plan is starting to look awfully Republican to me -- and to Paul Krugman:
Let’s lay out the basics here. Other things equal, public investment is a much better way to provide economic stimulus than tax cuts, for two reasons. First, if the government spends money, that money is spent, helping support demand, whereas tax cuts may be largely saved. So public investment offers more bang for the buck. Second, public investment leaves something of value behind when the stimulus is over.

That said, there’s a problem with a public-investment-only stimulus plan, namely timing. We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of “shovel-ready” projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon. You can bulk up stimulus through other forms of spending, mainly aid to Americans in distress — unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.. And you can also provide aid to state and local governments so that they don’t have to cut spending — avoiding anti-stimulus is a fast way to achieve net stimulus. But everything I’ve heard says that even with all these things it’s hard to come up with enough spending to provide all the aid the economy needs in 2009.

What this says is that there’s a reasonable economic case for including a significant amount of tax cuts in the package, mainly in year one.

But the numbers being reported — 40 percent of the whole, two-year plan — sound high. And all the news reports say that the high tax-cut share is intended to assuage Republicans; what this presumably means is that this was the message the off-the-record Obamanauts were told to convey.

And that’s bad news.

Look, Republicans are not going to come on board. Make 40% of the package tax cuts, they’ll demand 100%. Then they’ll start the thing about how you can’t cut taxes on people who don’t pay taxes (with only income taxes counting, of course) and demand that the plan focus on the affluent. Then they’ll demand cuts in corporate taxes. And Mitch McConnell is already saying that state and local governments should get loans, not aid — which would undermine that part of the plan, too.

OK, maybe this is just a head fake from the Obama people — they think they can win the PR battle by making bipartisan noises, then accusing the GOP of being obstructionist. But I’m really worried that they’re sending off signals of weakness right from the beginning, and that they’re just going to embolden the opposition.


Bingo. Perhaps "compromise" worked in Chicago, but it isn't going to work with Washington Republicans. Remember, these are the guys who sent paid Congressional thugs to Florida in 2000 to threaten the people who were simply trying to count all the votes. These are the guys who decided that since Ross Perot's run in 1992 meant that Bill Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote, his presidency wasn't legitimate, and they set out to first stonewall him, and then destroy his presidency -- simply because they saw ALL the power in this country as theirs by birthright. These are the guys who painted a blithering idiot as some kind of military hero and ran against a legitimate one in 2004 by painting that one as some kind of cowardly wuss.

What the hell does it take for these people to realize that You Simply Cannot Do Business With Republicans? How stubborn or naive do you have to be to watch this happen for nearly thirty years and not have it sink into your head that there is no such thing as compromise with these people?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall, as usual, nails it:
First, there seems to be a decent consensus that the tax rebates from last year had little stimulative effect on the economy. So while it's a good thing for families on the margin to get another $500 or $1,000, it's not clear how much bang for the buck you'll get for the money spent in terms of creating demand/consumer spending in the economy.

Second, the amount of the bill that comes in tax cuts leaves the spending side of the bill really small -- judged by the standards of what most economists seem to think is necessary, like $400 billion over two years. So it's not just the logic of the tax cuts on their own merits but the degree they're beggaring the spending side of the ledger. (A lot of this just comes down to whether or not you buy into the Keynesian premise of the whole exercise, of course. But let me note for the record that there does seem to be a decent rationale for significant tax cuts in year one of the bill, since you need to get money into the economy rapidly and there may not be enough projects that can be started quickly. That leaves the question of why so much of it is also included in year two. I fear that may be the 'tell'.)

Third, and in some ways this is the most troubling. It would be far better on many counts to bring in substantial Republican support for this bill. And I don't just mean that in the BS sense in which President Bush usually meant it, which was to say essentially, 'Of course we'd like you to vote for exactly what we want. More the merrier. But if you don't want to vote for our ideal bill, tough luck.' No, I think there's a real logic in not going the 51 votes model President Bush followed. But Obama seems to be telegraphing that to a significant degree the fundamental structure of the legislation is being built around accommodating the concerns of Republicans -- members of a political party that are about as unpopular and weak as you can get at the moment. And that sounds a lot like he's negotiating with himself, something that will embolden opposition and invite Republicans to up the ante even further.


Perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten that when people don't have jobs, they don't have any income to pay taxes on, and if they don't have income on which to pay taxes, tax cuts do them no good whatsoever.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

And if Sarah Palin is ever president, Levi Johnston will be Secretary of Energy
Posted by Jill | 6:29 PM
And Todd will be Secretary of State, and Bristol will be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Track will be Secretary of Defense.

Because when it comes to using one's influence to enrich one's own family coffers, if there's one family that can give the Bushes a run for their money, it's the Palin clan:
Have you noticed how our governor seems to have convinced herself only some of the rules apply to her?

This attitude was really at the heart of Troopergate. It also allows her to do things like take cash from the state for spending more than 300 nights in her own home in Wasilla.

Now it appears the governor may have found a new way to skirt the rules. How is it possible that the governor's soon-to-be son-in-law, Levi Johnston, is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?

The governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school dropout, released this statement this past week,

"Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."

But federal regulations require all members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, to first obtain a high school diploma, something the governor's soon-to-be son-in- law does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level algebra or the post-secondary equivalent.

So how is it that the governor's soon-to-be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the governor believing the rules don't apply to her or her family?


Apparently. After all, this IS the same woman who decided that her campaign wardrobe ought to also include designer underwear for her children.

(Note: The above quote is not to give any laurels to the commentary's author, Dan Fagan, who apparently is utterly vile on everything other than watchdogging Palin's shoveling taxpayer cash into her pocket.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

So where the hell is the President-Elect supposed to stay, the Motel 6?
Posted by Jill | 6:11 AM
Why should the cost of Barack Obama's accommodations until January 20 be an issue? But the press seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time cluck-clucking over the Hay-Adams. Today's exhibit is Jackie Calmes in the New York Times:
For all of the luxury of the Obamas’ temporary home — Hay-Adams suites cost as much as several thousand dollars a night — Mr. Obama clearly was not looking forward to the short residency there after nearly two years on the campaign trail. “Well, living in a hotel for two weeks, I kind of did that for two years,” he said.


Perhaps Ms. Calmes thinks that the prospective First Family would be more appropriately housed at a Motel 6 out at the airport. After all, they ARE Democrats and their pigmentation is unseemly. And I guess only "American Aristocrats" like the Bush family, with their stage ranches in Crawford and that bigass family compound in Kennebunkport, are entitled to stay wherever they want.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Mr. Franken Goes to Washington
Posted by Jill | 5:08 AM
Isn't it funny how when there was a disputed election in 2000, the Republicans called the ticket disputing the vote count "Sore Loserman", but when it's a Republican who's far more definitively on the losing end, suddenly there's all kinds of righteous indignation coming from the elephant side of the fence? Isn't it funny how Republicans hate lawyers but when THEY don't get their way, they're the first ones to lawyer up?

On November 24, 2000, David Aaronovitch wrote in the U.K. Independent about the Party of Whiners:
What is it, I wonder, about the political right that makes them feel that they are somehow entitled to power, and that - when power is denied them - allows them to claim that they - and the country - have been cheated? Since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, and that of Tony Blair in 1997, the tone of much of the criticism from the right has not been about policies but has focused instead upon the legitimacy of the administrations themselves: Clinton won because he was a serial liar; Blair won because he was a ruthless dissembler; and now Gore is trying to cheat his way into the White House by what amounts to an election fraud. They would have us believe that the Vice-President - in the words of a spoof poster - is a Sore Loserman.

[snip]

Now the Republican attack dogs are out. You would expect the far-right shock-jocks and radio-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh to continue their anti-liberal campaigning in intemperate tones. But look who's joined them! The bulk of the right-leaning press, commentators and academics seem to have united in attempting to portray the incredibly cautious, centrist Democrats as being somehow the products of a hellish liaison between the Whore of Babylon and Vladimir Lenin.

Peggy Noonan, Reagan's brilliant scriptwriter, yells that "the Gore-Clinton Democratic Party is trying to steal the election". The eminent conservative George Will risks a hernia with the sentiment that "the Clinton-Gore era culminates with an election as stained as the blue dress." (It is unwise, incidentally, to interrogate this metaphor too closely. I tried, and regretted it.)

Claudia Rosett writes in The Wall Street Journal that Gore, learning from his boss, "has every reason to figure that he might as well go right on trying to target and redefine those vital Florida ballots until they become, well, whatever they need to be to elect Mr Gore". For her, it's all part of a pattern. "The unprecedented wrangling and lawyering of Mr Gore," she continues (somehow overlooking the lawyering of Mr Bush), "over the vote count is just the first real sample of Mr Clinton's true legacy."

[snip]

So let's get this clear. If Gore wins, though he will lack authority, he will be a legitimate victor. Should, however, the ludicrous Bush (who says he doesn't like messy situations; he should enjoy the Middle East, then) be inaugurated next January, he will be the president who got 320,000 fewer votes than his rival, and who finally triumphed because there just wasn't enough time for one county to hold a recount - a recount described as being democratically essential by the Supreme Court of Florida.

My God, can you imagine how he would have fared had he been a Democrat?


Well, now we know. Norm Coleman isn't going away quietly, and the Republicans are not going to put up with losing the seat that some believe they dispensed with Paul Wellstone to win. Indeed, John Cornyn has already said they will filibuster if necessary to prevent Franken from being seated.

Somehow the idea that what we have on our side is the milquetoast Harry Reid is not reassuring. So...how's that "new way of doing politics" working so far, Mr. Obama?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 04, 2009

This is enough to make me hope the Mayans were right
Posted by Jill | 9:59 PM
No. More. Bushes.




Ever.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

The Sunday YouTube
Posted by Jill | 11:36 AM
Because you haven't lived until you've watched a video of "It Sucks To Be Me" from AVENUE Q -- in Swedish:




For for the Swedish-challenged, the same song in English:


Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Friday, January 02, 2009

What's wrong with the U.S. car industry in a nutshell
Posted by Jill | 6:26 AM
Before settling in for a day of cartoons yesterday, we caught some of CNBC's program Saving GM, which focused on the development of a new version of the old Chevrolet standby, the Camaro, for 2010. (You can watch it yourself here and here.) And it struck me how this portrayal of the money and effort that GM was spending to try to revive an old brand name from an era radically different from today was the essence of what is wrong with the U.S. car industry.

In the 1960's, when the Camaro made its appearance, it was a sporty car for people who couldn't afford a Corvette. It was a time of muscle cars, cheap gas, and plentiful jobs, and upward mobility. Today we live in a time of uncertain and volatile fuel prices, wars for oil, and a contracting economy. And instead of going full-bore with developing the next generation of transportation that does not rely on the petroleum-fueled internal combustion engine, General Motors is looking back to the 1960's and focusing on restyling an old car so they can market it as "If you just buy this car, we can turn back the clock." Swell. Yes, they have the Volt being hyped for a 2010 release, but frankly, we do not have the luxury of expending automotive R&D dollars on revamped muscle cars.

So while General Motors is trying desperately to turn back the clock to 1967, Toyota is looking way, way ahead into the future:
Toyota Motor Corp. is secretly developing a vehicle that will be powered solely by solar energy in an effort to turn around its struggling business with a futuristic ecological car, a top business daily reported Thursday.

The Nikkei newspaper, however, said it will be years before the planned vehicle will be available on the market. Toyota's offices were closed Thursday and officials were not immediately available for comment.

According to The Nikkei, Toyota is working on an electric vehicle that will get some of its power from solar cells equipped on the vehicle, and that can be recharged with electricity generated from solar panels on the roofs of homes. The automaker later hopes to develop a model totally powered by solar cells on the vehicle, the newspaper said without citing sources.

The solar car is part of efforts by Japan's top automaker to grow during hard times, The Nikkei said.


Americans have this peculiar need to have a car that's "fun to drive", though with increasing congestion on our highways, I'm not sure that there are many places left in the country where driving is "fun." And while I'll admire a cool-looking car as much as anyone (though my idea of cool-looking runs more towards this than pale imitations of 1960's muscle cars), when it's time for the rubber to hit the road, give me a fuel-efficient car that I can rely on to be on the road more than it is in the shop. Perhaps there are enough baby boomers in midlife crisis to buy this misbegotten beast that GM is betting enough of the ranch on to pay Dale Earnhardt Jr. to test-drive it. But if this is what GM's vision is for turning the company around, then we just wasted $7 billion on them.

And you can't for one minute blame this boondoggle on the UAW.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Celebrating the New Year in America
Posted by Jill | 5:52 AM
For as long as I can remember, New Year's Day was about college football, which of course left us non-football watching people pretty much in the dust. If we were lucky, we'd have to sleep off a hangover, but otherwise, it was a desert of football, football, and more football.

Mr. Brilliant used to say that the Grateful Dead took over for Guy Lombardo when the latter died, and indeed for a few years, the annual radio broadcast from wherever the Dead where playing that particular New Year's Eve, was as ritual as Lombardo ever was.

In recent years, though, New Year's seems to have become a quieter affair, at least in my circles, which are admittedly not getting any younger and are less inclined to party till the wee hours, lest we lose the entire next day. But some of it is also realizing that such barometers of the passage of time simply serve to remind us how much closer we are getting to Taking the Big Dirt Nap, and how much more frequently the evening of December 31 seems to come around these days. Oh, the trappings of gaiety are still there. The Newport News catalog still comes around with its assortment of really ongepotchket party dresses, and the local catering halls still advertise their big New Year's Eve bashes, the charms of which have always escaped me. Who wants to pay $150 a head to spend New Year's Eve with 300 people you don't know, at what is essentially a big catered wedding with paper party hats and noisemakers substituting for a bride, right down to the mediocre food, cheap champagne toast, and really bad DJ.

Perhaps the worst part of the whole New Year ritual is the self-flagellation of the New Year's Resolution. This is often spun as the result of self-reflection and a desire to be a better person, but it all too often takes the form of "I Will Lose 20 Pounds", which makes January the equivalent for the diet industry and fitness clubs what December used to be to retailers, until the Republicans wrecked the economy after deciding that a thriving middle class really wasn't necessary and was simply getting in the way of the "deserving" rich amassing yet more and more cash. This year's poster child for the weight loss resolution is, of course, Oprah Winfrey, a highly accomplished and intelligent woman who after gaining weight yet again, hasn't realized yet that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For a sane perspective on Winfrey's perpetual public battle with her avoirdupois (which I think she should abandon because frankly, she looks BETTER when she's heavier), you can't do better than Kate's open letter to Oprah.

So from where I'm sitting, New Year's Eve is this grim affair, fraught with either relief that a bad year is over, depression at the notion that everyone else on the face of the earth is wearing a fabulous dress at a fabulous party filled with fabulous people. But when even the fabulous ModFab is celebrating at home, you have to wonder if the whole New Year's Eve thing, like everything else in America, is really about commerce and not much else.

I actually think the New Year's Day party is a better idea, because it has a fresh, new feel, like a fluffy bathrobe that hasn't yet started to pill after too many washings, instead of the slumping gait of a party guest who has stayed too long and passed out with his face in what's left of the salmon mousse. Because on New Year's Day, what one wants to do is eat and watch TV, so why not invite some people over?

But even if you're not feeling particularly social, there's no question that New Year's Day warrants a real breakfast at a real Jersey diner, so we headed off bright and early at 8 AM to our local version of that New Jersey institution. Diners have been enjoying a renaissance here, despite the demise of the Forum, which had the best cheesecake in the known universe. The landscape on NJ highways these days is dotted with bright, shiny, new ersatz railroad car-style diners, but when you just want breakfast, the tired charmlessness of the local eatery will do just fine, and ours is about as charmless a jernt as you're likely to find. Our local diner hasn't been updated since perhaps 1967, the menus are falling apart, and you wouldn't want to order an actual dinner there. But for a corned beef sandwich or a feta and spinach omelette, it'll do just fine. And for some reason, an omelette just tastes so much better on New Year's Day.

But what struck me this year more than anything else is that the new tradition for New Year's is the television marathon. If you have 1,457 channels of nothing to watch the way we do, there were endless choices -- the Honeymooners marathon in WPIX. The Mythbusters marathon on Discovery. The Twilight Zone marathon on Sci-fi. The Clean House marathon on Style. The Renovation Realities marathon on HGTV. And our personal choice, the Looney Tunes marathon on Nickolodeon.

I'm quite certain that college students today don't have Marx Bros. movies and Warner Bros. cartoons as mandatory rights of passage for membership in the Trash Culture Mutants club, but for us old codgers, you couldn't be really cool unless you collapsed into giggles at two words spoken exactly right: "...TA HAVE!!"




Nickelodeon has an astonishing library of remastered classics, and they've re-engineered them back to their widescreen origins, so for the entire day yesterday, we were treated to nearly back-to-back cartoons, many of them not often seen. I'd forgotten how warped your sense of reality gets after a few hours of Termite Terrace zaniness. But warped it is, and as I head back to work today, well, I'm now in the proper frame of mind to face the new year.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, January 01, 2009

White Men Can't Pull the Race Card

What's more pathetic? That Rod Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat for six figures or bought by Roland Burris with just $20,000? Or that Illinois's chief executive, as a white man, is trying to pull the race card in order to justify his hubristic defiance of the US Senate to the detriment of his party?

The more Rod Blagojevich tries to wave away the cloud of corruption that hangs over his administration like stale cigar smoke in the back room of a Chicago speakeasy, the more taint he spatters on members of his own party.

The Illinois Governor must have struggled mightily to make the safest, least controversial choice available to him. But in the end, even discounting the breathtaking defiance of the US Senate's Democratic leadership, Blagojevich still couldn't obtain enough elbow room to get away from a lobbyist who benefited well from his administration.

And the dirtier Democrats are proven to be when it all hits the fan, the more they sound like Republicans when protesting their innocence, defending their decision-making and even pull the race card when convenient.

And there are few things in politics that are more pathetic and laughable than a white man trying to pull the race card. We got enough of that nearly four years ago when Senate Republicans during Alberto Gonzales's Attorney General confirmation hearings pre-emptively cited racial prejudice against Hispanics when Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were justifiably alarmed by Gonzales signing off on a torture memo.

And, whether pulled by Republicans or Democrats, the real issue for the opposition is rooted in anything but race yet this inconvenient fact is strenuously ignored.


In "An empty suit for an empty seat", the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman has Burris' essential character pegged. Burris, a career seat warmer who, like so many characters on Capitol Hill and in state governments from coast to coast, didn't succeed as much as he survived by not being controversial. In touting his senatorial credentials, Blagojevich stated that Burris had never lost an election to a Republican.

True enough but that's largely because, more often than not, he couldn't get past his rival for his party's nomination (including Blagojevich himself). Burris is mainly distinguished for his 12 year tenure as state comptroller and his failed quest for a legitimately-obtained Senate seat and three equally failed bids for the corner office in the Illinois state house. His inoffensive blandness was both the key to his success and his failure.

All that changed during the press conference in which Burris was officially reintroduced to the public eye by the Governor and the usually mild-mannered Burris wasted little time in ridiculing reporters who wondered aloud if he deserved the seat. For good measure, Blagojevich tapped former Black Panther and Illinois lawmaker Bobby Rush to use subtle words such as "hang" and "lynch" to preempt attempts to defy his white boss. No, no residual memories of Clarence Thomas there.

What should have been an otherwise honest and distinguished public service career may have been brought to an end, with Burris being reduced to a future asterisk appended to a statewide scandal and joining other clownish quasi-political asterisks such as Gennifer Flowers, Oliver North, Willie Horton and Joe the Plumber. He'd already proven himself to be a hypocrite when it came to gun control, in refusing to surrender his pistol while asking others to do so. This time around, Burris' convenient amnesia regarding Blagojevich's alleged abuse of power may not be so easily forgiven by Illinois or America in general.

Burris, Illinois' own Michael Mukasey, an elderly, retired placeholder and perennial second banana, should've had the sense to say Thanks but no thanks to Rod Blagojevich. At 71, Burris is more than old enough to realize that any recess appointment, I think we can call this, will automatically be suspect and casting doubt, justified or otherwise, on the new senator's credibility and honesty.

Blagojevich, through his overweening pride, insists on dragging his own party through the mud, defying the United States Senate and helping an old man self-destruct his own public service record rather than letting the Illinois legislature do its job and choosing Mr. Obama's replacement. Blagojevich's illogical gambit would be reprehensible enough even if Obama had 4-6 years left in his term. It's especially stupid and senseless when one remembers that there's only two years left in it.
Bookmark and Share

Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere: Special Year-End List Edition
Posted by Jill | 9:55 AM
I had a really good year-end list planned for 2008. It was going to be a "dynamic duos" edition, topped of course by Barack and Michelle Obama. Then Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inaugural, and I was just too disgusted to put it all together. So in the interest in sharing some bloggy goodness, here are some retrospectives put together my our many blogbrothers and sisters, for you enjoyment:

If it's time for retrospectives, it's time for ModFab's year in theatre and television.

The General has The Year in Hair.

Jon Swift did his annual solicitation for bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum and those non-political to submit their self-evaluated best posts of the year. His linkitude to these posts will keep you happily busy and edified all day.

Jurassicpork, who occasionally graces this blog with his presence, has been on one hell of a prolific tear lately, from noting the amazing similarities between the utterances of serial killers (real ones, not Dexter Morgan) and the sociopath occupying the White House for another 19 days to the pitching of a book proposal in an alternate universe in which John McCain and Sarah Palin win the 2008 election. But his final Assclowns of the Week for 2008 is must reading.

Driftglass borrows from Charles Dickens to tell the story of 2008 in pictures.

For those of you who always vote in those silly "polls" at CNN.com, the Poor Man is having his awards season. You can vote for who should receive the Palme d’Haire, the Wank of the Year award, the Soggy Biscuit award, the Creamy Baileys Nobel Peace Prize for Science the Purple Teardrop with Clutched Pearl Cluster, the Fluffy, and the much-coveted Chickenhawk of the Year.

And while we're on the subject of awards, TPM announces the winners of the 2008 Golden Dukes.

And no discussion of awards is complete without noting the Most Obsessive Academy Awards Coverage in the Known Universe, by my dear friend from my movie review days, Nat Rogers. If you're an Oscars® junkie, he's your guy.

And finally, thanks to Skippy who just saved me a whole bunch of work.

Happy new year, everyone. And may we all set small, manageable resolutions that we can actually accomplish. Mine are: a) drink more water; b) continue cutting back on sugar; and c) keep in better touch with the many virtual and meat world friends I've made over the past decade, some of whom I've sorely neglected.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Remembrance of Pets Past and the metaphysical question of souls
Posted by Jill | 7:37 AM
Eight years ago we lost both our cats, Wendy and Oliver, within three weeks of each other. Ollie went first, on December 10, 2000. He was fifteen, and we had been treating him for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure for a year before his kidneys gave out, perhaps partially due to the Lasix we'd been giving him to treat the congestive heart failure. He and Wendy had fought like crazy their entire lives. Wendy was a true cat -- haughty, aloof, intelligent, and did not suffer fools, or buffoons like Oliver, gladly. Ollie was always more like a dog. He was vocal, needy of attention, highly social and adaptable. Wendy always thought this was a huge betrayal of the cat ethos, and rarely missed a chance to swat him in the head to remind him that he wasn't supposed to be the way he was.

And yet, when he was gone, Wendy, who was also fifteen, became depressed. We had thought we'd give her a bit of time as an only cat, but that didn't seem to help her. She was like the wife in a dysfunctional marriage who couldn't live with him, but couldn't live without him either. So we set out to find a cat that wouldn't harass or threaten her, and brought Jenny home Christmas Eve day, where she promptly took up residence under a chair in our home office and didn't move from there, except to eat, for the next three months. But for all that Wendy wanted to be in the room with her, it didn't help, and by New Year's Day, she could barely move from her cat bed in front of the forced air vent to go get a drink of water. Her kidneys too were failing rapidly, and we lost her January 2nd, 2001.

The following weekend we went in search of our next cat and brought Maggie home. With Jenny huddled under the chair in a constant state of abject terror, it was imperative that we get a social cat. We wanted one that talked the way Ollie did, and who was playful like him and affectionate like him. And Maggie fit the bill perfectly.

As time went on, it became clear that history had repeated itself. The more Jenny came out of her shell, the less patience she had with Maggie, while Maggie proved so similar to Ollie that at times I felt he visited her in the dead of night to give her pointers. To this day, I can remember Wendy's haughtiness and condescension vividly, while Ollie is a haze, largely because Maggie is the piece that fit into that hole in the puzzle, so when I think of his personality, it's her that I see. But even more astonishingly, she and Jenny have the same relationship. They fight like our last generation of cats did, and while Jenny is a much sweeter cat than Wendy was, she was a stray for at least a year, and is one tough customer, and finds the relentless yowling for an hour and a half before mealtimes that Maggie does to be undignified. So every now and then she has to tackle Maggie, pin her to the ground, and bite at her a few times to remind her of what a cat is supposed to be.

When you're attached to your pets, losing them is devastating. I'm not sure how we ended up with history repeating itself. Perhaps it's simply a function of needing a more "catty" cat to be with Wendy in those last days, and then needing a more social cat to offset that. But whatever the reason, we have now had essentially the same two cats for the last 22 years; only the coloring has changed.

And we did it without cloning.

Today's New York Times profiles the owner of a biotech company who had his mother's dog cloned upon its death, and who in this article jumps through hoops to insist that the clones are just like the original dog:
When Mr. Hawthorne recalls Missy, he tends to wax eugenic. “She was an amazing dog: superior intellect, incredibly beautiful, obedient, a phenomenal temperament,” he said. “I especially loved her majestic plume of a tail.” And in the clones, as he put it matter-of-factly, “all those qualities are represented.”

As for some of the discrepancies, the clones vary in size and color, Mr. Hawthorne said, primarily because they were born months apart, and none are fully grown yet. “The dark part of their fur starts out reddish-black and gets blacker over time,” he said. “Except on the faces, which start out black and go white within the first year.”

[snip]

While he does acknowledge that when it comes to such highly trainable creatures as dogs, it’s pretty difficult to know where nature ends and nurture begins, he said that in the case of his dogs, the ambiguities have nothing on the essential Missy-ness of the clones.

“The girls love to run after each other,” he said pointing at the dogs in the distance. “You see the speed and athleticism? That’s part of what made me want to do this. There are dogs that are faster on a straightaway, but I’d never seen a dog make turns like this until Missy.”

Mr. Hawthorne sees himself as a cultivator of prodigious talent — from the clones to his team of scientists in South Korea to his 8-year-old son, Skye, who had accompanied him and the dogs on the hike. Skye is in third grade but is already studying high school algebra. Mr. Hawthorne brought along a notebook with a handful of quadratic-equation problems, in case his son got restless.

Last spring, Skye completed a science project, “Cloning Grandma’s Dog” that included a behavioral comparison chart. Among other findings, the study concluded that Mira shares Missy’s fondness for broccoli and “lots of snuggles” — both dogs scored five out of five points in these categories, in addition to the one for “likes long walks.” (“Most dogs do,” Skye noted under “comments.”) Two key matters of variance were “Jumps into cars” (“Clone still learning which car is ours”) and “Hates camera flash” (“Clone did not respond to standard flash”).

Ultimately, Skye determined that Mira looked a lot like Missy but that their behavior was only 77 percent similar. “But that was April,” Mr. Hawthorne said. “I think they’re a lot more similar now.”

LIVING with a clone, Mr. Hawthorne claims, is a lot like living with the original dog. “It’s totally as if I’ve got Missy in my house, once you get over the ‘wow’ factor,” he said. He and Mira and Skye inhabit a two-story “1950s futurist house” built into a hill in Mill Valley (Mr. Hawthorne is divorced and shares custody of his son with his ex-wife — “an excellent genetic donor, by the way,” he said of her). At night, he said, Mira “puts Skye to bed,” which means she walks with him to his room and ascends the stairs of his loft bed with him, waiting to be told “Good night” before she leaves. Mira is an outdoor dog, as Missy was, and sleeps on the front steps.

[snip]

nd who says goodnight to Mira’s fellow clone, MissyToo? Mr. Hawthorne gave her to his mother, Joan Hawthorne, who still misses the original Missy. But she has yet to take a liking to Missy’s progeny, and the dog has lived primarily with paid “handlers” in the Mill Valley pied-à-terre of her longtime companion, John Sperling.

“They’re not at all alike,” Ms. Hawthorne said of the old Missy and the new one. “In looks, they are a little bit, of course. But, I mean, the puppy is delicate and aggressive. Missy was robust and completely calm.” She added, “Missy wouldn’t come through my home and knock over every wineglass.”

Besides, she adopted another puppy not long after Missy died. “I already have a dog — a real dog.”


It seems to me that the traits about which Hawthorne waxes rhapsodic are a function of the breed mix of both the original dogs and the clone, and could be obtained just as easily by finding a similar border collie/husky mix at a shelter and raising it in the same way.

One of the more interesting implications of the idea that cloning re-creates the original dog is that it acknowledges the highly unscientific notion that animals have "souls", which can readily be reproduced along with its DNA traits. Those of us who have ever had a pet crawl into our laps at the precisely right moment when we need a hug know that while the idea of animals having souls may fly in the face of religion, it's far from a ridiculous notion. But the larger idea that souls, or personalities, can be reproduced in their entirety has implications for a future of human cloning in which parents who lose a child might be inclined to clone the dead child to "replace" him or her -- a chance to "do it all again". But if such things are possible, then what does it say about the uniqueness of the individual?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share