This is our new bunny, Dig-Dug. I’m posting this photo in the hopes of starting a trend in which bloggers everywhere post pictures of their pets.

If he could talk, I’d like to think he’d be the kind of guy who would make self-depreciating “pets or meat” jokes, but in reality he’d probably just end up sounding like Eeyore. Dig-dug’s a pretty laid back little guy considering that he was forcibly removed from his family, placed in a cage, and obsessed over by a couple of giant monsters (of which I am one). He’s starting to get the hang of this shitting where he eats thing, though.

Speaking of crybabies, one just joined in the last thread commenting

The coinage of the phrase ‘nuclear option’ and the adoption of it by extreme leftist groups is appalling and the real crybaby tactic. The GOP should do everything in their constitutional power to exert their will and instill judges they see fit.

The ‘nuclear option’ is nothing more than a constitutional option and groups like NOW, etc using the egregious term ‘nuclear option’ shows that they are indeed the true crybabies these days.

Now I was going to respond to this in the comments, but I want to make sure this is on the front page where everyone can see it. Here’s a link to a Free Republic thread (which quotes a Washington Times article) from two years ago that pretty much destroys the lie that the phrase “nuclear option” was coined by Democrats :

Republicans could immediately break the current filibusters against two of President Bush’s judicial nominees with a rarely used parliamentary procedure that would confirm them through a simple majority vote, according to a plan under consideration by senate Republicans.

The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial senate that Republicans refer to it as their “nuclear option.”

Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, alluded to the maneuver in a Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, but added ominously, “I’m not going to discuss that.”

To the commenter quoted above, you’re just a pawn the the GOP’s Orwellian chess game. You’re being lied to by the people you support because they know they can count on people like you to spread their lies without ever second-guessing them. You may prefer the term “constitutional option” but the talking points you’re blindly regurgitating won’t change the fact that the derogatory label for this planned rule change was the result of Republican machismo that backfired.

You’re right that the “nuclear option” is constitutional, but you know what else is?? Filibustering judicial nominations. Specifically, it’s covered under the “advice and consent” clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The United States senate, in carrying out their duty, can do so under any rules that they wish. For the past 200 years, the filibuster has been one of the parliamentary procedures used during this process. In their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers gave the senate the ability to change the rules because they knew that someday, the party in control of every branch of the government would only get 95% of what they want. So, while you’re correct when you say that this option is “constitutional”, it’s still a chickenshit idea and we’re well within our rights to remind people of that.

The Bush administration has nominated a handful of judges that are totally unacceptable. If this weren’t so, convincing a few senate “centrists” like Joementum wouldn’t be a problem. Unable to change minds, however, the Republicans want to change rules instead. This may be legal, it’s a childish move by people who don’t like to admit that they’ve been beaten at their own game. You might think they deserve credit for trying to move the goalposts, but where I grew up, we had a rule for the kids who tried to cheat and threw temper tantrums whenever they couldn’t win fair and square : crybabies.

The Republicans are whining now because people are using the term “nuclear option” and they’ve just figured out that it doesn’t poll well. Josh Marshall has a brilliant idea :

As long as prestige press outfits like the Times and others are willing to embrace whichever self-serving phrase either political party demands as the debate on judges debate continues, certainly Democrats need to get into the act.

And TPM Reader RR makes an inspired suggestion which, I think, more faithfully captures what’s in play than either ‘nuclear’ or ‘constitutional’.

It’s the Crybaby Option.

As he puts it, “Oh, boo-hoo, we only got 95% of what we wanted so we’re changing the rules. Waaaaah!”

Sort of like at a seven-year-old’s birthday party where they want the parent to change the rules of Pin the Tail on the Donkey because they’re not winning every time.

They really are babies. So call them on it.

The senate has confirmed more than 200 judges, but that’s not good enough for the GOP. Even though they did the same thing to some Clinton judges, the new Republican party won’t rest until they get everything they want. Goddamn crybabies.

Once the President’s Social Security privatization scheme has its feeding tube unplugged, the next big line item on the agenda will be tax “reform”. With all the talk you’ll be hearing about how inefficient the IRS is, how complicated the tax code is, or whiny pleas for “fairness”, there should be no mistake about the real agenda. As the GOP has demonstrated with pretty much every tax cut they’ve ever sponsored, the goal is to screw the poor, reward the rich, and sell the American public on the idea of a flat tax. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, however, the tax code is almost flat now. (via Josh Marshall)

Ever since the introduction of the modern income tax in 1913, US policy has been guided by the notion that the rich should pay a larger of their income in federal taxes, since they arguably owe something extra to a government that protects their greater wealth, and to a society that has helped them prosper.

But a debate has long waged over just where to draw the line, with populists pushing to “soak the rich” and conservatives arguing that a too-progressive tax structure creates a disincentive for the creation of jobs and wealth that benefit the whole nation.

Chalk up President Bush as not just a tax cutter but also a tax flattener. Under Mr. Bush and a Republican Congress, big tax cuts since 2001 have given major tax reductions to those wealthy individuals presumed, up to now, to be able to afford paying a bigger chunk of their income in taxes. By one measure of the federal, state, and local tax burden, just 3.4 percentage points separate the effective tax rate paid by the top 1 percent of earners from the other 99 percent of American households.

But the CSM article only hints at the fact that it hasn’t always been this way. Indeed, during the good ol’ days that conservatives are so eager to return us to, the gap between the top 1% and the rest of us was a hell of a lot larger than today’s 3.4%. Here’s a handy chart that shows just how much tax rates have changed from the late 40’s through the late 80’s (Source):



So when the President starts talking about taxes, let’s not forget that he and his rich friends have been getting the taxes cut for the past 50 years. It’s our turn now.

This posting from senate Underground hass an awesome explanation of the differences between fundamentalism and religion :

It seems to me like the thing that really *is* in opposition to the senate/liberal/progressive philosophy is not religion, but fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is what happens when you pick one particular set of beliefs and decide that a) they are the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything and b) anyone who doesn’t share buy into this belief system is the adversary and must be either converted or destroyed. Fundamentalism is a problem in a heterogeneous community because it’s intolerant of difference, and it’s a problem in general because it discourages independent thought, enforces ideological rigidity, and leaves its adherents not only unwilling to compromise in the face of necessity but unable to learn and adapt to new information if it contradicts part of their world view.

OK, nothing earthshattering there. Now. Here is the thing.

*Fundamentalism does not necessarily have anything to do with religion.*

You can be a fundamentalist about anything. My brother is a capitalist fundamentalist. He’s got no use whatsoever for God, but imply that the ideal of free market competition is a myth that is never realized because capitalists always try to rig the game to their own advantage, and watch the missionary zeal emerge. White supremacists are fundamentalist when it comes to their theories about racial superiority. Not only will they refuse to be swayed by anything other people would consider evidence or logic, but–and this is true for other fundamentalists too–they use their pet theory to explain EVERYTHING. Global warming, Celine Dion, doesn’t matter, it’s all somehow the fault of people who don’t recognize the natural superiority of the white man. Same thing with people who are America supremacists. America is always better than everyone else. No, I don’t care how many poor people we have or how bad our economy sucks or how corrupt our political system is or that we’re torturing people and everyone’s OK with that. America is supreme, it deserves to be supreme, and if you try to tell me otherwise, you must be a traitor, which means that all that shit you were talking about is your fault anyway.

And, and this is my main point, there are fundamentalists on the left too. And folks, you don’t want to become fundamentalists, because it will make it impossible for you to know when you’re wrong about something or to figure out new strategies for new problems. It’s one thing to stick by your principles, and it’s another thing to refuse to admit the legitimacy of any other point of view.

One of the big problems with the way things are right now is that because the right wing has been taken over by fundamentalists of all kinds, their extremism is pushing us into a kind of mirror fundamentalism, where we feel we have to be extra-rigid about our own beliefs because they’re constantly under attack. While I absolutely believe that it is crucial to present a united front in public, and I also believe that our party leadership has screwed itself and us by NOT being willing to stand up when attacked, I also think it’s a mistake to refuse to change just because you don’t want to look weak. Cause we know where “stay the course” ends up, don’t we. A giant fucking quagmire that’s on fire, that’s where.

We’ve got plenty of fundamentalists on our side as well who have their own pet “single-cause theory” about why things are so screwed up. Every time somebody tries to tie everything back to corporations or “the media” I get bored. Not that those aren’t big areas for concern or anything, it’s just that we’d all be better off if we stopped pretending that we’re a single battle away from fixing the messes we’ve foudn ourselves in.

Remember that story I posted the other day about how the South Carolina legislature is in favor of stiffer punishments for cock fighting than spousal abuse? Well, I think I found out why. Apparently domestic violence is hilarious (via Matt Yglesias):

In recent years, South Carolina has either led the nation or ranked in the top six in the rate of women killed by men.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, would have increased the penalties for domestic violence offenders and required judges to complete annual training in domestic violence issues.

Advocates said they had offered amendments to remove sections that committee members had objected to, such as one that expanded the definition of ?physical cruelty,? a grounds for divorce.

But the amendments never got introduced. Instead, advocates said, committee members joked about the title of the bill and then tabled it with little discussion.

According to a tape of the meeting obtained by The State newspaper, Altman asked why the bill?s title ? ?Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)? ? just mentioned protecting women. Harrison suggested making the bill the ?Protecting Our People in Every Relationship? Act, or ?POPER.?

A voice on the tape can be heard pronouncing it ?Pop her.? Another voice then says, ?Pop her again,? followed by laughter.

Cobb-Hunter and victims advocates didn?t think it was funny.

I hate to be the kinda guy who responds to violence with violence, but somebody really needs to slap these guys around a bit. Maybe then they’d understand why it’s not funny to “pop her”.

Arianna Huffington, I’m a big fan of your work and I came this close to voting for you, so please take this as constructive criticism when I say “please stop trying to be funny” :

[T]he majority leader’s ethical rap sheet is longer than the list of prepubescent boys who have shared Michael Jackson’s bed

Not only are Michael Jackson jokes hackneyed, but throwing nod to a child rape scandal in the middle of an article about Tom DeLay is a lot more distressing than insightful.

I really want the new Superman movie to be great, so I’m hoping this is just a bad photo and not an indication that the movie’s going to suck :

Though I’ve got some nitpicky fanboy problems with the costume design¹, I’m going to withhold judgment for now. After all, it’s nearly impossible to wear a Superman costume without looking like a dork. Even the late, great Christopher Reeve looked goofy in some of the early publicity stills. Compared with some of the awful changes that have been made to the costumes in other superhero movies², this one isn’t that big a deal.

The bigger concern for me is whether or not Bryan Singer is able to pull off a Superman movie. He did a great job with the X-Men movies, but that’s easy compared to the difficulties that a new Superman movie would pose. Superman doesn’t have the angst of Batman or the complicated relationships of Spider-Man, he’s just an all-American boy scout in tights. In the hands of the right screenwriter and director, there are plenty of interesting ways to approach the character, but unfortunately most people think Superman is bland and uninteresting. I won’t bore you with my ideas on how to make a good Superman movie, but lemme just say that if they fall into the trap of trying to make Superman “cool”, this movie will suck.

^{1 : The “S” insignia is a little too “badass” for my tastes, the darker cape looks kinda dumb, the shorts seem like they’re deliberately cut low to show off this dude’s six-pack, and the curl in his hair looks like it was glued in place.}

2 : When George Clooney played Batman, the suit was made of rubber, tinted purple, and had nipples.

This has been mentioned on other blogs, but it really is a remarkable oversight on the part of Time magazine. In their recent story on Ann Coulter, the magazine ran this photo¹ as an example of liberal shrillness or something :

The funny thing is that the poster in question is from the obvious parody group Communists for Kerry. The URL at the top is a dead giveaway, or would have been a dead giveaway if it had actually showed up in the magazine itself. Here’s a shitty cameraphone picture of how the photo appeared in print :



That’s an awfully convenient bit of cropping, huh?

^{1 : To Time’s credit, they replaced the earlier caption with one that’s still inaccurate, but much closer to the truth.}

For those who haven’t been following it, all week Ezra Klein has been following the healthcare systems of other countries and comparing them to our own. So far he’s done France, England, Canada, and Germany.¹ In today’s installment he links to a survey of per capita health spending that shows how bloated an unwieldy our system is. To make the point even more obvious, here’s a graph of the survey’s findings :

^{(click on the image for a larger version)}

That’s right, we spend more than twice as much as most of our friends, yet we cover a much lower percentage of our people and have a higher rates of illness and death for preventable diseases. Something this shameful should be a scandal, yet even acknowledging these obvious facts is considered anti-American in some circles. Like I’ve said before, sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence….

^{1 : SPOILER ALERT : They all have better healthcare than the United States.}