Here’s a little treat for you in honor of the closing of Abu Ghraib prison. Remember when the scandal first broke and John Derbyshire said :

The Abu Ghraib “scandal”: Good. Kick one for me. But bad discipline in the military (taking the pictures, I mean). Let’s have a couple of courts martial for appearance’s sake. Maximum sentence: 30 days CB.

Well, here’s a video of tough guy Derbyshire getting his ass kicked by Bruce Lee. Derb’s the one in the striped shirt.

You’ll have to kick him a lot harder than that to knock some sense into him, Bruce. There’s more info about his brush with greatness at Wikipedia.

Talk about treating the symptom and not the disease :

Gov. Joe Manchin said Thursday that the Bush administration should require full-time, professional rescue teams to respond to fires and explosions in the nation’s coal mines.

Manchin called for the action during a Charleston event to honor mine rescue teams from across West Virginia.

The governor praised rescue team members, but noted that few mines have their own teams and all members are volunteers.

Manchin said January’s two mine accidents showed the volunteer system is inadequate. More teams are needed at strategic locations around the coalfields, the governor said.

You know what would be even more effective? Preventing the accidents from happening in the first place. I guess that would take something crazy like enforcing the workplace safety laws already on the books.

In my earlier post, I complained about Democrats not standing up for what they believe in, so let me present this perfect opportunity for the Democratic leaders in Congress to step up and say something that doesn’t poll well but is the right thing to do. With the GOP having a boner for tort “reform”, deregulation, and other ways of kissing CEO ass, it would be nice to hear a politician say “You’re right. Jury awards and fines are out of control. The problem is they’re way too low to be effective.” Seriously.

I know we’ve all been conditioned to believe a multimillion dollar fine is insane, but that’s largely because liberals of all stripes have rolled over and played dead while corporate shills have convinced the public that punitive damages are like a winning lottery ticket for the victims who, as they’ll often imply, probably didn’t even really get hurt that bad to begin with. This blame the victim mentality is an entire plank of the GOP’s rickety platform and it’s time for someone to knock the damn thing down.

Businesses exist for one reason only : to make money. I don’t begrudge them that, but I do think one of the big lines that separates the two parties is that Democrats by and large think our laws should protect Americans from amoral entities, while Republicans are content with pretending that corporations have our best interests in mind. Of course, if a company is actually held to that same standard later, “pro-business” shills are quick to point out that their obligation is to shareholders. If that’s the way things are going to be, then that’s fine, but then we need to make sure our laws reflect the fact that businesses put money first and people second.

Which brings me back to the mine disasters. We’ve all read about the pitiful government oversight, fines for safety violations that could be paid with the change you’d find in your couch, etc. With the tragedy we’ve seen, it’s tempting to reevaluate punitive measures against the mine companies with questions like “How much should a human life be worth?”, but posing vaguely philosophical questions misses the mark. Nailing down a dollar amount is pointless without pursuing this goal :

Fines and damages should always be greater than the total cost of complying with the law.

As long as it’s cheaper to break the law, we’re going to keep seeing innocent people killed by corporate negligence. It’s not because corporations are necessarily evil, but that it’s cheaper to pay the fines and cross your fingers (especially when CEOs are pressured to keep costs down and are competing with other businesses equally willing bend the law). As long as the government lets businesses get away with doing a cost/benefit analysis with your lives, the string of tragedies will continue. If you want this to stop, the first step will be having an opposition party who takes the same “no tolerance” approach towards corporate crime that they do with violent and property crimes.

Here’s an idea : Since corporations are legally viewed as persons, why not a corporate three-strikes law?

(Originally posted at Firedoglake)

It’s been twelve years since the “Contract With America” and twenty-six since Reagan rode to office proclaiming that “government is the problem”, yet Americans are still waiting for the miracle to occur. Aren’t lower taxes supposed to create jobs? Aren’t lax environmental regulations supposed to make the air and water cleaner? As I wrote a while back :

“When a politician talks about ‘deregulating’ something, what he really means is getting rid of the laws that 99% of the time exist for a damn good reason…For a party that prides itself on its common sense, [Republicans] seem smitten with the retarded idea that the only thing that stands in the way of corporate titans keeping the environment clean (to cite one example) are the laws that mandate the very thing they’re refusing to do. Would the Republicans be willing to apply this same standard of logic to laws that don’t excite their base or reap profits for their benefactors?”

At what point are people going to wake up and realize that all the promises of a leaner, more responsive government are complete bullshit?

(Originally posted at Firedoglake)

Haven’t paid much attention to the latest twists in the Katherine Harris corruption scandal, but this update at TPM Muckraker put a smile on my face :

Here’s the kind of lede you never want to see as a candidate, particularly if you’re a makeup-happy Republican running for Senate in Florida: “Katherine Harris has seen better days.”

Or try this one: “If you heard a big implosion during the weekend, it may have been the sound of Katherine Harris’ campaign.”

Or, my favorite: “A yet-to-be-identified Hawaiian has almost as much of a chance of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate as Longboat Key Republican Katherine Harris[.]“

Unfortunately, the very fact that we’re still talking about Harris in 2006 shows how poorly the Democratic party is at playing politics. The main reason people know her name at all is because she was the Florida Secretary of State who worked on the Bush campaign and led the 2000 recount. I know we’re supposed to put the stealing of an election behind us, but are you guys really so shell-shocked that you’re afraid remind people of a blatant conflict of interest? You don’t need to reopen the election 2000 can of worms to point out that her unwillingness to recuse herself from that recount doesn’t inspire confidence that she’d put the interests of her constituents first. The people of Florida deserve a Representative that doesn’t have divided loyalties.

Of course, the Democratic rope-a-dope strategy worked well here, since Harris is essentially knocking herself out, but that same political timidity is evident all over the place. I’ve brought this up plenty of times over at my site, but it bears repeating : Democrats need to stop apologizing for being right. For a good example of what I mean, this March 2004 article is an early glimpse at the traits that made John Kerry lose his bid for the presidency :

After a union rally in Chicago, Illinois, on Wednesday Kerry told a worker that “these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I’ve ever seen.” His microphone was still on when he made the comments.

Kerry, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Congressional Democrats, he told CNN, “I didn’t say it about the Republicans, I said it about the attack dogs.”

On Wednesday, a campaign aide had said that Kerry wasn’t talking about President Bush.

Kerry has touted himself as a “fighter” who will stand up to GOP attacks. He told the worker, “Don’t worry, man — we are going to keep pounding, let me tell you.”

I was a big supporter of John Kerry, but this incident was complete bullshit. If you get “caught” telling the truth, don’t obfuscate later when pressed on the subject. In this case, John Kerry’s gaffe gave him the perfect opportunity to explain why he thought the Bushies were “crooked”, but he figured he’d be better off tiptoeing around the feelings of his opponents. Democratic consultants may think this sort of thing wins them points with undecided voters, but it also makes people like me embarrassed to be supporting a guy too craven to back up his own words.

This is even worse when you realize that politicians hardly ever take damage for speaking off the cuff. George W. Bush called a reporter an “asshole” and Dick Cheney told a Senator to fuck himself, but their potty-mouths didn’t cost them a single vote among the moral police. Why? It’s not just because 90% of the righteous indignation that comes out of that crowd is manufactured outrage, but because sticking to your guns will make people respect you. Even in cases as obviously immature as Bush’s and Cheney’s, after the first couple days of faux-anger on the part of Democrats, voters responded positively in both incidents because the closest they came to an apology was saying (I’m paraphrasing here) “Sometimes when I get pissed off, I lose my cool.”

Not that I’m saying that Democrats need to start cussing like sailors, but that they need to realize that when Republicans get offended it’s probably because they’re doing something right. Yet even with the GOP imploding, we’re still treated to the sorry spectacle of Harry Reid comparing the GOP to the mob in an op-ed and a week later issuing an apology for a report coming out of his office that actually named names. As Henny Youngman might say, “Give ‘em hell Harry…please“.

(Originally posted at Firedoglake)

While Jane and ReddHedd are away, I’ll be guest posting over at Firedoglake until Friday. I’ll probably cross-post stuff here too, but you should check it out if you haven’t already.

Speaking of abortion, Digby has linked to this amazing video from At Center Network of anti-abortion protesters being asked whether women who have abortions should go to jail. Since it’s only available in Real format and it’ll eat into their bandwidth, I’ve taken the liberty of uploading the vid to YouTube. You can view the interviews below, but make sure to swing by At Center Network and let them know they’re doing a great job :

Sorry folks. AtCenterNetwork asked me to remove
the video from YouTube and The Talent Show.
Assuming their site stays up, you can download it here.
Digby’s conclusion is, as usual, right on the mark :

So I think we need to have this discussion. Let’s debate it out in the open and “air both sides” because from where I sit it’s the “pro-lifers” who haven’t thought this thing through. Nobody says they can’t agitate against abortion and stand out there with their sickening pictures and try to dissuade women from doing it. I will defend their right to argue against abortion forever. But when they use the law to enforce their moral worldview they need to recognize that they can’t have it both ways. If fetuses are human and have the same rights as the women in whom they live, then a woman who has an abortion must logically be subject to the full force of the law. It would be a premeditated act of murder no different than if she hired a hit man to kill her five year old. The law will eventually be able to make no logical moral distinction. Is everybody ready for that?

This really plays into the previous “Opposite of Death” post too. The problem isn’t just that the anti-abortion forces haven’t thought out their stance, but that they’ve devoted so much energy to a half-assed bit of logic. They feel moral strength for taking the position that “Abortion is death and death is wrong. Period.”, but the practical implications of that view haven’t even been addressed. Does it make more sense to fight to overturn Roe vs. Wade or work towards the changes that will actually lower the abortion rate (like easy access to contraception, sex education, etc.)? If a woman has an abortion, does that make her a murderer? Is a petri dish of embryos more worthy of saving than a toddler? Pro-lifers like to pretend these are trick questions akin to “Where did Cain’s wife come from?”, but these are serious questions that are going to need to be answered in an America in which abortion is illegal. If you’re fighting for a political change, picking sides is the begining of the debate, not the end. It’s as if the President decided that he wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but didn’t bother thinking about what a post-war Iraq would…oh shit.

Here’s a photo taken at South Dakota’s newest, self-service abortion clinic :

They also offer funeral services for women who want to pay their respects the babies that their menstrual cycle murders every 28 days.

Even if there was some sort of compromise that could be made in the abortion debate, the reality is that you’ll never in a million years be able to compromise with people who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re taking marching orders from God. It get even more difficult when the logical framework that most “pro-life” activists operate under is so bizarre. For example, take this exchange from the Mike Stark phonecall that’s been making the rounds :

Andrew Wilkow : Okay John, let me ask you this. Scientifically speaking, when a sperm and an egg come together, what happens?

Mike Stark : That’s conception

Wilkow : No no no, there’s a bigger question here. Is death created?

Stark : Well, I guess the point of my question is –

Willow : No no no, is death created?

Stark : No, death is not created.

Willow : So then what is created if it’s not death? What’s the opposite of death?

That’s such a ridiculous way to debate that I can’t help but imagine the same exchange on a cooking show :

Host : Let me ask you this. Scientifically speaking, if you drizzle oil into a water-based liquid while whisking briskly, what happens?

Caller : That’s an emulsion.

Host : No no no, there’s a bigger question here. Is death created?

Caller : Well, I guess the point of my question is –

Host : No no no, is death created?

Caller : No, death is not created.

Host : So then what is created if it’s not death? What’s the opposite of death?

So think twice before reaching for that vinaigrette. You may be a murderer without even knowing it.

Oh god, another one of those “can you really trust blogs?” pieces. I’m glad somebody’s pointing out this incident, but the attacks on the blogosphere by traditional media outlets (who have their own stake in this little fight) are getting boring.

Under assault as never before, Wal-Mart is increasingly looking beyond the mainstream media and working directly with bloggers, feeding them exclusive nuggets of news, suggesting topics for postings and even inviting them to visit its corporate headquarters.

But the strategy raises questions about what bloggers, who pride themselves on independence, should disclose to readers. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, has been forthright with bloggers about the origins of its communications, and the company and its public relations firm, Edelman, say they do not compensate the bloggers.

But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from.

Atrios has the right take on this :

Unless I’m missing something this New York Times article is just another stab at holding bloggers to ethical standards and practices which don’t apply anywhere else in the universe.

The public relations industry existed long before bloggers came along and they had reporters’ phone numbers long before they had the email addresses of bloggers. Barely edited press releases have long been published, especially at smaller newspapers. I get press releases and information from all over the place all the time. Obviously disclosure is a nice idea if there are any financial relationships, a practice not always followed by our hallowed 4th estate, but if people want to devote their blogs to throwing up Wal Mart press releases they’re free.

At the same time, I really do want this to get thrown in the faces of blog triumphalists like the douches at Pajamas Media. As much as I hate seeing blogs be held up to a higher standard than other media outlets, I’m equally annoyed by the rah-rah bullshit about the “self-correcting blogosphere” or hearing conservative bloggers who don’t open their entries to comments pat themselves on the back for “fact checking their asses”.

While the technological differences and novelty of blogs have over the past few years have created various online communities and started to coalesce into a profile of what a “blogger” is, all of the hype and backlash overlook the fact that this is just another writing medium. When I hear someone malign the MSM™ and boost blogs on a generic level, it sounds as ludicrous to me as a person with a pen and paper bad-mouthing people who prefer using a typewriter. Ultimately the reliability of an individual blog is only as strong as the content. Just like television, newspapers, magazines, etc., this is dependent on the integrity of the person making the editorial decisions. The notion that the very nature of the blogosphere makes it a meritocracy in which the cream rises to the top doesn’t really account for the inexplicable success of hacks like Powerline or Instapundit. Regardless of the medium,. playing to the prejudices of your audience is a sure-fire way to the top, which is why I’d rather read “dead tree” media like Newsweek or Time over shit like Little Green Footballs any day.

Thomas Kintaid is the king of self-righteous religious kitsch and the subject of what may be the best thing I’ve ever read :

Thomas Kinkade is famous for his luminous landscapes and street scenes, those dreamy, deliberately inspirational images he says have brought “God’s light” into people’s lives, even as they have made him one of America’s most collected artists.

A devout Christian who calls himself the “Painter of Light,” Kinkade trades heavily on his beliefs and says God has guided his brush — and his life — for the last 20 years.

“When I got saved, God became my art agent,” he said in a 2004 video biography, genteel in tone and rich in the themes of faith and family values that have helped win him legions of fans, albeit few among art critics.

But some former Kinkade employees, gallery operators and others contend that the Painter of Light has a decidedly dark side.
. . .
Dandois, who left the company to become chief executive of a group of galleries owned by Kinkade’s brother, Patrick, recounted that about six years ago the artist was so intoxicated during a performance by Siegfried & Roy in Las Vegas that people seated nearby moved away from him.

“I think it was Roy or Siegfried or whatever had a codpiece in his leotards,” Dandois testified. “And so when the show started, Thom just started yelling, ‘Codpiece, codpiece,’ and had to be quieted by his mother and Nanette.”

At other times, Kinkade could be downright nasty, Dandois testified, recalling an incident in which Dandois’ wife tried to help the allegedly inebriated artist to his feet in a bar.

“He had been falling down, and he fell off the stool, and he was laying on the ground and just looked up at her and flipped her the bird and told her, you know, just to ‘F you’ several times,” Dandois testified.

In an interview, Sheppard, who often accompanied Kinkade on the road, recounted a trip to Orange County in the late 1990s for the artist’s appearance on the “Hour of Power” television show at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove. On the eve of the broadcast, Sheppard said, he and Kinkade returned to the Disneyland Hotel after a night of heavy drinking. As they walked to their rooms, according to Sheppard and another person who was there, Kinkade veered toward a nearby figure of a Disney character.

“Thom wanders over to Winnie the Pooh and decides to ‘mark his territory,’ ” Sheppard told The Times.

In a deposition, the artist alluded to his practice of urinating outdoors, saying he “grew up in the country” where it was common. When pressed about allegedly relieving himself in a hotel elevator in Las Vegas, Kinkade said it might have happened.

That’s the funny stuff, but you should read the whole thing to get the story on how he used his faith to coerce people into business decisions or the incident in which he groped a woman against her will. The things he says to justify his actions will send a chill down your spine. Kincaid is a total scumbag and a hack.

Good catch from Baxil. Apparently Bruce Tinsley was for conservatism before he was against it :

The “I’m really a libertarian” trend has been picking up steam lately among conservatives who want to seem reasonable in the face of undeniable corruption, but it should be pointed out that a real libertarian (assuming you can find one) wouldn’t spend half their time complaining about abortion, homosexuality, drug use, violent video games, etc. People who favor “small government” tend to do so because they want to be left alone, but conservatism has shown us time and time again that when push comes to shove, imposing regressive social values always trumps any professed love of limited government.

Even funnier than the popularity of bogus libertarianism is the pleas of “I’m conservative, but not a Republican” among wingnuts. For a crowd that prides itself on its toughness and resolve, it’s amazing to see how many of them are too cowardly to stand by the party they unquestionably support. This usually manifests itself in self-righteous odes to fiscal discipline with the chorus of “I didn’t leave them, they left me”, but anyone who would vote for a Republican after Ronald Reagan’s first term has no right to feign ignorance over the GOP’s irresponsible governance. Though they may try to absolve themselves of responsibility for the choices they make in the voting booth, anyone with a long record of supporting GOP candidates and bashing Democrats is a Republican in my book.

Or to put things another way, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

Best Picture? Are you #@$% kidding me?

If you’re asked whether or not you’ve seen Brokeback Mountain and respond by chuckling and saying “I’d don’t need to see that“, then…well, yes you do. If you’re so immature that your only concept of homosexuality is “guys having sex with each other”, then you need to see this film to start you on the road towards understanding that relationships are a lot more complex than simply how/who you screw. Brokeback is a genre film, so I’m not saying it’s everyone’s cup of tea, but if you’ve avoided seeing it, be honest with yourself about why you haven’t seen it. I’m not trying to evangelize for the film or anything (I didn’t like it as much as I expected to), but anyone who hasn’t seen the film out of fear of being uncomfortable with the subject matter really owes it to themselves to give the film a chance.

Also, for those who have seen the film, here’s the thing that I don’t get. Do they really want us to believe that those guys never went fishing? Bullshit. Nobody’s got that much stamina.

Have you ever found an old mixtape you made and listened to it thinking either “I can’t believe I used to listen to this crap” or “I’ve got the best taste in music ever”? Going through three year old blog archives is pretty much the same. Most of the stuff is pretty amateurish and embarassing, but every once in a while I see an old post that I really like and completely forget writing.

Conservative adherence to tradition really is a half-assed attempt to cling to an idealized vision of the “good old days” that never existed in the first place. For every good thing about the past (taxing the hell out of the rich, a working social safety net, a general sense of pride and responsibility) there’s something even worse (rampant sexism and racism, xenophobia, lower life expectancy). In short, Conservatives don’t want to return us to the real past, but only a past that they’ve invented.

Conservatives want all of the things about the past that will benefit them directly (less regulation over industry) but none of the stuff that would prevent them from making boatloads of money (general sense of community and civic pride). It’s hard to imagine the sterotypical 50′s era businessman laying off a factory full of workers so he can move the company overseas to save money on workers salaries and paying any taxes.

For all their talk about “traditional values” the one I don’t ever hear espoused by conservatives is an obligation towards the interests of the community over the generation of profits. These days, the accumulation of wealth is the most important value, more important than civic pride, family values, or patriotism. Back in “the day”, screwing over people by doing anything that’s legally possible to make money was virtually unthinkable. These days, it’s just par for the course.

I wish I’d written this when I was getting “October 2004″ traffic and not “July 2003″ traffic.

Not this will do much good, but I don’t want to be “friends” with your band that I’ve never heard. I also don’t understand why people feel the need to collect cyber-friendships on social networking sites. If you want me to listen to streaming mp3s of your demo or think we should be homies, send me a message. I love making new friends and reconnecting with old ones, but I’ve got better things to do than link up with complete strangers.

I didn’t catch Bush’s “major speech” from India today, but from what I’ve heard it was typical pro-globalism claptrap. If I run out of ways to kill time this weekend I might read the transcript. I just hope he used the line “There are just some jobs that Americans with a BA in computer science won’t do.”