Fresh Friday Boobies

(Picture by DbacksSkins, a friend from AZ Snakepit; don't ask me how our comments during a baseball game led to his sending me his Boobie pics. Thanks, 'Skins!)

Dear Baseball Fans

Please go read this :http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/delving-into-the-dalkowski-depths/. You'll be glad you did.

Only 1,500 Nukes Left

Obama's new proposed nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia will reduce our arsenal by roughly 30%:

Washington - President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev committed Monday to reaching a new nuclear-arms reduction agreement that would set both strategic warheads and warhead delivery vehicles, such as missiles, at post-cold-war lows.

Yet despite the upbeat tone at the first of two days of summit talks in Moscow, the two leaders offered few specifics on how the looming stumbling blocks to a new era of cooperation will be overcome. Those issues include American plans for a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe and US-supported expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. The two presidents issued a "joint understanding" that commits the two countries to reducing strategic warheads to a range of 1,500 to 1,675 – down from the current ceiling of 2,200 – and to a maximum of 1,600 launch vehicles. The goal is to
reach an agreement in time to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on Dec. 5.

Although the Obama-Medvedev statement speaks only of reaching an agreement "at the earliest possible date," Mr. Obama affirmed at a joint appearance of the two leaders Monday that the treaty "will be completed this year."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0706/p02s01-usfp.html

Which means we'll only have the capacity to destroy the planet nine times over, rather than the prior twelve times over. I suppose this is good progress, but I doubt that these numbers will convince the rest of the world to abandon their nukes. 1,500 is still a hell of a lot.
I'm just waiting for the right-wing attacks on Obama for "weakening America." I guarantee they're coming.

McNamara

Robert McNamara...for people my age, his name evokes anger and pain. Before Rumsfeld brought us Iraq, McNamara's Vietnam was the greatest example of military wrongheadedness in American history. In later years he expressed regret and remorse for his actions, but it was much too little too late to wash the blood of some 58,000 American, and countless Vietnamese, souls from his hands. The simple fact that he lied and escalated the war, even after he "knew" it was lost, is enough to condemn him to a legacy of shame.
I suppose I shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but that's one bastard I won't miss.

(Added: Read Attytood for a much deeper analysis)

Happy Independence Day

What a great holiday! Barbeques, beer, and blowing up stuff! It doesn't get much better.

Actually, as much as I love explosives, I avoid fireworks up here in the mountains. Too high a risk of fire.

Oh yeah, there's another thing to celebrate. This little document:

Still well worth reading.

Should a 'Socialist' go to a 'Tea Bag' Party?

We have a local wingnut who I thoroughly enjoy debating politics over a beer with. It's so much more entertaining than debating with people who agree with you. Anyway, he's one of the organizers of the local 4th of July "tea party", and last evening he invited me to attend (maybe they're really desperate). "Free food" was his main selling point; "I know you Socialists like free food." (most of our debates involve him calling me a 'socialist', and me trying to get him to define 'socialist'. As best I can tell, anything that involves government, society, or civilization is socialist, and Obama is the most evil socialist ever. Like I say, it's entertaining.) Actually, the food isn't a compelling offer, as the local Democratic party is also having a barbeque to celebrate the 4th and the opening of the new headquarters. But since the two groups will be on opposite sides of a local park, I may go to both. There is something delightfully ironic in the thought of me, a well known "flaming liberal" on the local political scene, walking up and having a burger with the local wingnuts. Could be fun.
Afterwards I'll be going to a sane friends party.

Palin Resigning

OK, that's a shocker. Was it because of this picture?

(snarky pic stolen somewhere on the net)

I just hope she doesn't start campaigning for 2012 right away. That would be way too long to maintain an appropriate level of satire.

Or (pure speculation) is there an Argentinian hiking type story about to break?

At least it's not another Michael Jackson story.

Independence Boobies

"It's Friday"

"Is today a holiday?"

"Sort of."

"How should we celebrate?"

"We're Boobies. We just hang out."

"Oh. OK."

More Truth, Too Late

As the Iraqi people celebrate our withdrawal from their cities (but not their country), we are starting to get more of the facts about the lead up to this horribly unethical war:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

I knew most of these things already, but in the media's war lust they got buried. Shrub wanted a war, and no facts were going to stop him. Smart analysis showed that there were no WMD's, and even if there were a few they weren't really a threat.
As we've seen, getting into a war in Iraq was a whole lot easier than getting out will be. But I wish for one big first step: Can we put shrub and the cheney on trial for war crimes yet? That would be the best first move toward healing the damage they've caused.

Mixing Drugs

I've got a bit of a personal interest in the FDA's move to ban Percocet and Vicodin because of the liver toxicity problems associated with Acetaminophen.

ADELPHI, Md. — A federal advisory panel voted narrowly on Tuesday to recommend a ban on Percocet and Vicodin, two of the most popular prescription painkillers in the world, because of their effects on the liver.

The two drugs combine a narcotic with acetaminophen, the ingredient found in popular over-the-counter products like Tylenol and Excedrin. High doses of acetaminophen are a leading cause of liver damage, and the panel noted that patients who take Percocet and Vicodin for long periods often need higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect.

Acetaminophen is combined with different narcotics in at least seven other prescription drugs, and all of these combination pills will be banned if the Food and Drug Administration heeds the advice of its experts. Vicodin and its generic equivalents alone are prescribed more than 100 million times a year in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/health/01fda.html?_r=1&ref=health

During my recovery from my broken humerus, I went through some serious pain that is treated with Hydrocodone (Vicodin). The main problem for me was the limit I could safely take (I have a tolerance level for opiates that rivals that of an elephant) because of the Acetaminophen content, and it's potential for liver damage. In the hospital, they could give me morphine, which is much safer, but once out of the hospital, that wasn't an option. (aside: Oxycodone (Percocet) does almost nothing for me when it comes to pain. All it does is make my brain as mushy as Lush Rimbaugh's. Stupid and still in pain is not a desirable situation.) I repeatedly wished that I could get Hydrocodone (which I needed) without Acetaminophen (which I didn't need), but thanks to the pharmaceutical lobby that wasn't an available opton.
I'm way better now, and rarely need to take a pain pill. But for millions of people with chronic pain, this could be really major. Getting rid of the Acetaminophen is a good idea, but Hydrocodone and Oxycodone need to still be available for those who need them. That's an issue that is still unresolved, what alternatives will be offered.
How typical of health care in America. The pharmaceutical companies can push Acetaminophen (which can kill you) into a wide variety of medications. But most of us can't get Medical Marijuana, which is safe AND effective.

Evening Observations

From spending a few hours sitting at a bar drinking beer and watching baseball:

A LOT of liberals are getting pissed at Obama. They are disappointed. They expected more on (health care, gay rights, ending wars, etc), and bigger changes. I'm not. I knew Obama was much more a corporatist moderate than a liberal savior. All I expected him to be is more competent and sensible than McCain or Shrub. When your expectations are low, you're rarely disappointed.

A woman I was chatting with had the best line on Michael Jackson: "Well, during the 80's, I liked him better than Ronald Reagan." I spit beer laughing at that.

My favorite bartender does the worlds best Billie Mays impersonation. I had no idea who "Billie Mays" was before tonight (I don't pay much attention to TV), except that I recognize him as "that really annoying guy." But when the bartender starts using that voice to sell you another beer, it's time to leave.

And the Arizona Diamondbacks are a really bad baseball team this year. Thank goodness I'm a Giants fan.

Uranium Mining: A Bad Idea That Won't Die

Uranium mining has a long and sordid history in this region. The failure to cleanup the pollution from the tailings from mining operations in the 50's and 60's are still causing deaths and illness (mostly among Native Americans) to this day. So there's a lot of resistance to any new mining operations. But the mining companies are still trying:

A Canadian company is one permit away from reactivating an Arizona uranium mine near the Grand Canyon where conservationists have been pushing for protection from new mining operations, a state official says.

Thousands of mining claims dot a 1 million-acre area around the canyon, but Arizona Department of Environmental Quality spokesman Mark Shaffer says only Denison Mines Corp. has a pending air permit with the agency for a site about 20 miles from the canyon's northern border.



Most of the claims for uranium are staked in an Arizona strip, a sparsely populated area immediately north of the Grand Canyon National Park known for its high-grade uranium ore. The silvery white metal is used in nuclear energy and weapons and for medicine.

But nearby residents and environmentalists, who are pushing to ban new mining in the area, are worried about possible groundwater contamination, destruction of wildlife habitat and the transport of radioactive material. Some miners and their families have blamed exposure to uranium for deaths and health effects, including cancer and kidney disease.

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/06/28/news/20090628_arizo_198945.

While the mining companies insist that modern techniques are safer for the environment, there's a lot of skepticism based on the history. I'm of the opinion that no new mining should even be considered until the old mines have been cleaned up.

Boobie Day

Happy Friday. Here's a Boobie.

Revisiting the History of Renzi

In the long delayed prosecution of my former congress critter Rick Renzi, now news is coming out that confirms something I long suspected: Shrub's (in)justice department manipulated evidence to protect Renzi:

In the fall of 2006, one day after the Justice Department granted permission to a U.S. attorney to place a wiretap on a Republican congressman suspected of corruption, existence of the investigation was leaked to the press — not only compromising the sensitive criminal probe but tipping the lawmaker off to the wiretap.

Career federal law enforcement officials who worked directly on a probe of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said they believe that word of the investigation was leaked by senior Bush administration political appointees in the Justice Department in an improper and perhaps illegal effort to affect the outcome of an election.

At the time of the leak, Renzi was locked in a razor-thin bid for reelection and unconfirmed reports of a criminal probe could have become politically damaging. The leaked stories — appearing 10 days before the election — falsely suggested that the investigation of Renzi was in its initial stages and unlikely to lead to criminal charges.

In fact, the investigation had been ongoing for some time and had already amassed enough evidence of alleged criminal misconduct to obtain approval from the highest levels of the Justice Department, including then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to seek an application from a federal judge to wiretap Renzi. In February 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Renzi on 36 felony counts of money laundering, extortion, insurance fraud and various other alleged crimes.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-administration-leaks-bolstered-rick-renzis-reelection-bid-2009-06-24.html

Renzi didn't run for re-election in 2008 when his blatant corruption finally lead to criminal charges. His trial has been delayed to September of this year. But he barely managed to retain his seat in 2006 by downplaying the investigation, even though his corruption was well known to anyone paying attention.
One of the reasons that I began this blog was to attempt to fight against Mr. Renzi, who represented my district. I dedicated pictures of tattoo'd pigs to him, and I'm only too happy to revive the tradition. There have been a lot of corrupt congress critters, but he was consistently among the worst. The entire Shrub administration acted as a crime syndicate, and Renzi was a typical rethug criminal who belongs in jail.
So have another pig, Mr. Renzi. I'm looking forward to the trial.

Damn You, Sanford!

Here I had a perfectly good piece of political snark (see below), and in less than 24 hours you go and make it irrelevant. Any politician can run off and have an affair. I had hopes that you could give us real political weirdness, but this is just the usual run-of-the-mill sleaze (although it is slightly exotic to be boffing an Argentinian, rather than the standard white staffer).
I really wish that my lame attempts at humor had a longer shelf life.

Sanford in 2012

OK, time for a little baseless speculation (and take full advantage of the opportunity to snicker):

Check out this set of facts. Fact 1: Gov. Mark Sanford went missing Thursday and hasn't been seen since. Fact 2: His staff has since told us that the governor has been hiking the Appalachian Trail. Fact 3: Sunday was "Naked Hiking Day" on the Appalachian Trail. We kid you not.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/23/1974627.

While no one I know wants to see a naked republican governor, Sanford could take a bold step to change the image of the republican party. Imagine him declaring "I'm the only candidate who's openly pro-walking naked in the woods." Where would Obama stand on the "nude hiking" issue? I'm thinking this could be a real winner for the republicans.

(added: Sanford now says he was in Argentina. I'm still looking for a good political snark angle in that.)

A Couple More Pics

A couple more from the Pagosa/Animas trip. Because they make me happy.

Can't wait to do it again.

Happy Summer Solstice

And Happy Father's Day.

Local News Can Be Fun

Ah, the joys of living in a smaller city. Little things make the front page of the paper:

Two city police officers have been placed on paid leave after police officials received photos of the officers surrounded by four women in what police officials call suggestive poses.

The photos show two uniformed officers in their patrol cars stopped at an intersection. Four women stand outside of one patrol car and have posed themselves in a manner that Police Chief Brent Cooper said the officers should have known might have happened.




"We're very embarrassed by this," Cooper said. "We're very disappointed our officers allowed themselves to get drawn into it."

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/06/19/news/20090619_front_198395.txt

I know two of the women in the photos, and they're both sweet, fun-loving, and intelligent ladies. Seems pretty harmless to me, but I guess the law enforcement bosses don't share my sense of humor. The two officers were reprimanded and suspended for one day; not a huge punishment, but still rather silly and unnecessary.
It does make the local newspaper more entertaining, though.

We Need More Boobies

It's true. We need more Boobies. Please send me your Boobie pics ASAP. Thanks.

Well...

Our President will harm a fly...
Whereas...
the Cheney would have killed a kitten...
and shrub would have eaten the fly...by mistake
but Rove would have called it "manly"

Thoughts on Iran

First, if you want real insight into the events in Iran, I recommend (as with all things Middle East) that you read Juan Cole. Also, Andrew Sullivan (who I usually disagree with) has been doing a great job covering the Iran protests. And finally, this piece by Robert Fisk. (Added: see also Watergate Summer, where Enigma4ever has a great roundup). They, and many other real experts, will give you more serious insight than I am capable of. That said, here's some of my view:
First, it's important to remember that the Iranian election isn't about us. The vast majority of Iranian voters were angry about Iran's domestic economy. Opposition to Amahdinejad came primarily from the ongoing poverty in Iran in the face of vast oil wealth, not an opposition to the Islamic theocracy. One reason that the blatant election fraud seems so strange is that Moussavi is also supported by, and a strong supporter of, the Islamic council that is the true power in Iran. It's really unclear to me why the Ayatollah (and the supreme council) chose to rig the election, since the real power (and control of the Republican Guard) would remain unchanged, regardless of who won a legitimate election. By engaging in such blatant disregard of the voters will, they've actually weakened their own position. The Islamic Republic was under no threat from Moussavi. Now they are under threat from the massive public outcry.
Second, there is the history of mass protest in Iran from 1979. Each death leads to an additional demonstration of mourning. The 1979 revolution only came about after almost a year of daily demonstrations. So crackdowns will continue to bring more people out into the streets, and further weaken the government control as family loyalties (the strongest bond in Iranian society) tax the guards loyalty to the government. The Shah lost when his guards defected to join their brothers and sisters in the Green Bands (side note to media pundits: the Green Bands were the Islamic militia in 1979; wearing green bands still symbolize support for Islamic law, not some sort of western ideal of "freedom fighters"). This may take a while to play out.
Thirdly, Obama seems to be doing the right thing, by trying to remain uninvolved. He's walking a tightrope, but faced with the history of American meddling in Iran, support for the protesters is bound to backfire. The Iranian government is already portraying the demonstrations as the result of foreign provocation. Regardless of America's preference, Obama will need to deal with the eventual victor, and any American endorsement will only poison future relations.
While I said earlier that this isn't "about us", it's certainly clear that America would prefer to see Amahdinejad out of power. Amahdinejad's bombastic anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric has made it almost impossible to conduct any realistic dialog with him. He's created an adversarial relationship, and shrub and the neocons were perfectly willing to engage as adversaries. It's almost impossible to negotiate when both parties start by calling the other "evil". Moussavi is anti-American and anti-Israeli, but he's much calmer in his rhetoric than Amahdinejad, so there's a chance to open talks with a 'clean slate' (in reality, a less tainted slate), or at least without the baggage of recent years. I doubt that it will be a 'warm friendly' relationship, but it would allow us to pull back from the brink of war.
Added:

Those Mousavi supporters are using the slogans of the Islamic Revolution and it's my understanding that they are mostly simply seeking a return to the status quo ante, when their votes meant something in the half-rigged Islamic Republic's system. They're not looking to depose the mullahs and they're not looking to break the system that's persisted since 1979 - they just want it to work as advertised. Nowhere is this clearer than in their choice of leaders: Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Montazeri. All members in good standing of the Iranian politico-clerical elite and all standing to gain nothing from a break-up of the existing system. As Trita Parsi writes:

What's often forgotten amid the genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle of hundreds of thousands of long-suppressed people risking their lives on the streets to demand change is the fact that the political contest playing out in the election is, in fact, among rival factions of the same regime. Ahmadinejad represents a conservative element, backed by the Supreme Leader, that believes the established political class has hijacked the revolution and enriched themselves and is fearful that the faction's more pragmatic inclination toward engagement with the West could lead to a normalization of relations that will "pollute" Iran's culture and weaken the regime. Mousavi is not really a reformer so much as a pragmatic, moderate conservative who has campaigned with the backing of the reform movement because it recognizes that he has a better chance of unseating Ahmadinejad than one of their own would have.

(from http://www.newshoggers.com/)

Last Weekend

A quick pic from last weekend's river play. We ran the Pagosa Springs stretch of the San Juan on Saturday, and the Animas on Sunday. That's me and Zymurgian in the front of the raft on the Saturday run. No big challenges on either run, but it was enough to test my shoulder and great to be back on the water.

USD hegemony over

Chris Hedges on the coming decline of the USD

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090614_the_american_empire_is_bankrupt/

Boobie Watch

The Friday Boobie is here, and with that I'm hitting the road. Enjoy your weekend.

Animas Bound

Leaving in the morning for Durango, CO, for Animas River Days. ARD is more of a "river party" than a serious whitewater river trip, but since it's my first time out since breaking the shoulder I'm looking forward to a challenge. If nothing else, it feels like I'm starting to break away from physical restrictions, step by step. I think I know what I'm doing (don't we all), but there is the chance that the shoulder could fail me. During today's physical therapy I did a bunch of tests, and my right side has less than 50% of the strength of my left (making me a left-winger) on most of them. Pain is still a part of any thing I do using my right arm. But I've made so much progress over the past few months that my therapist's words were "go for it" and "50% of your baseline is stronger than most people will ever be" (yeah, I used to be pretty solid), and I really need some whitewater to nurture my soul. So, fornicate the risk, I'm doing it.
I'll try to get a Boobie up before I leave in the morning, but otherwise I'll see you next week.

Solar Powered Garbage Cans

More accurately: Solar Powered Trash Compacters. These are being installed around downtown Flagstaff.

How cool is that?

I don't know what other cities are using these, but I'm really happy to see them in town.

Supreme Court Confusion

I admit to being fairly ignorant when it comes to the 'legalese' that most Supreme Court decisions contain. But Scalia's dissent in yesterday's decision on recusal of Judges sounds incredibly strange to me:

A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not. The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest cannot succeed—which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZD1.html

(bold added by me) The case (which was decided 5-4) basically said Judges should recuse themselves from cases that involve campaign donors (more details here: http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2009/06/08/horse-puckey-at-the-high-court/#more-15331). Seems pretty straightforward. But Scalia seems to be saying that because we can't have judicial perfection we shouldn't attempt to prevent judicial corruption. Citing the Talmud as containing "the answers to all earthly questions" sounds overtly theological, but not particularly logical. Which is where I get confused. I usually find Scalia's conservative corporatist views appalling, but extremely logical. He's usually very good at articulating his point of view, even if you disagree with his conclusion. This time his argument strikes me as truly bizarre twist of logic.

Added: Please feel free to compare/contrast with Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments.

Moving the Democratic Party

Well, OK, just the local one. I'm off to help with moving the local Democratic party headquarters to a new office. The old office was in a warehouse by the railroad tracks, but now the party is moving into a real office near the public library. Don't know how this will impact politics or party policies, but we'll have a barbecue at the end of the move.

And completely unrelated news: in a World Cup qualifying match North Korea and Iran tied 0-0. There must be a joke in there somewhere, but I just can't think of one.
(added: never mind. Iran won the rematch 1-0)

Physical Therapy Update

(old x-ray; I don't have copies of the more recent ones)

I'm stiff and sore today, as a result of how hard I pushed myself in physical therapy yesterday. It's the price I expect to pay, and I'm not complaining. I've been really aggressive in my PT program, and both my surgeon and therapist have expressed concern that I might overdo it. I feel comfortable on how hard I'm pushing myself, and that I'm in touch with my body and know when to stop. It's hard to explain, but I know which pain is "good pain" and which pain means "stop!" But I'm highly motivated, and I have a goal: I want to get back on the river, so my shoulder has to get better. In my next step toward that goal, I'm doing Animas River Days next weekend on a paddle raft. It's a lower impact way to start with class 2 and 3 rapids, and being part of a paddle crew rather than full on oar rowing. At least one of my fellow boaters is nervous about my readiness, but I think I've convinced him that I'm up for it. This isn't the Canyon, or even the Juan. It's the Animas, and my shoulder is feeling stronger every day. So I'll keep working hard, even if it sometimes hurts.

Boobie Love

Don't they look happy on this Friday?

But Consider the Alternative

Almost everybody has already parsed Obama's Cairo speech, and most of the opinions are entirely predictable. The left loved parts of it, but felt Obama should have pushed a more progressive agenda. The right hated it, with much screaming about "apologies" and "terrorism" weakening America. The Israeli lobby doesn't want to be confronted about settlements, and most of the Muslim Middle East response is one of "very nice words, but what will be the action?"
One thing (almost) everybody agrees on is that Obama is a powerful speaker who can articulate his message clearly. Speeches don't change the world, but they sometimes shape perception And that was Obama's goal for this speech. On that criteria, the Cairo speech appears to be a success.
The thought that kept bouncing into my mind was "what if it were McCain on that stage?" While I actually doubt that McCain would have even attempted going to Cairo to make such an outreach, he would be compelled to articulate some Middle East position in some forum. And I just cannot imagine that his views would generate a positive resonance.
That's the crux of it. When progressives feel disappointed by Obama's moderation (and we feel it a lot), we must remember that the alternative we faced in McCain was a continuation of Shrub and the Republican international disaster. When Obama speaks on a global platform, it's a positive. Shrub and McCain induced a global cringe.

Happy Fist Bump Day

Remember June 3rd, 2008? The fist bump heard ‘round the world? Now we can celebrate it as another holiday!

This June 3, a group of media and design impresarios are promoting “National
Fist Bump Day” in honor of the anniversary. They want to celebrate a new iconic American expression of authenticity, political transparency and of course, change we can believe in.

"The idea behind National Fist Bump Day is to give Americans a chance to make the world a slightly better place with a simple and fun gesture of respect," says David Weiner, one of the organizers, along with Sarah Greenwalt. “It may not solve the world's problems, but it can at least reaffirm the fact that in the end, we all can get down with each other.”

http://theroot.com/views/bump-heard-round-world

Sweaterman, I expect you to be out knocking knuckles for the good of America today.
(H/T Booman Tribune)

Loving the Husky Women

Nice. My alma mater, the University of Washington, wins the national championship in women's softball. Danielle Lawrie, I think I love you!

Art

Artwork by Lynd Ward. For Dr. George Tiller. who was assassinated this morning. I've run out of things to say (via .McClatchy)

Closing California

I grew up in San Francisco and various parts of Northern California, so I'm somewhat sentimental about the stunning beauty of the state, much of it protected within the state parks. Now the state has a budget crisis (mostly of their own making), and Arnie is proposing cutting everything that is good (at DownWithTyranny Dr. Kirk Murphy has a great post about the impact on health care), because he can't possibly raise taxes:

Nearly every state park in the Bay Area — from the towering redwoods at Big Basin to Angel Island, Mount Tamalpais to Mount Diablo and every state beach from Año Nuevo in San Mateo County to Big Sur — would close as part of budget cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In all, 220 of California's 279 state parks, about 80 percent, would be padlocked starting as soon as Labor Day, under details of a historic closing plan released Thursday night by the state parks department.

...

On Tuesday, as part of an effort to close the state's $24 billion deficit, Schwarzenegger unveiled a series of proposed cuts. They included a plan to eliminate $70 million in state general fund money to parks in the year that ends in June 2010 and $143 million of that funding by June 2011. The latter number represents 40 percent of the state park system's $387 million operating budget.

Layoffs could hit 1,500 or more of the 2,900 state parks employees

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12481195

Remarkably short-sighted, but Californian's have a long history of bad planning in their quest for immediate gratification. Cutting taxes and hoping that magic elves will take care of everything has been the California system for decades. Here's a simple equation: a study by the University of California-Berkeley found that for every $1 in public money spent on state parks, $2.35 is returned to the state in taxes from tourism and other revenue they generate. So the current proposal will only make the deficit worse in the future.

Julia Pfiffer Burns State Park

Now That's Inhanced Interrogation

When it comes to "interrogation techniques" here's an enhancement that I can support. The suspected terrorist, Abu Jandal, was Osama bin Laden's bodyguard, and one very tough customer. So how do you make him talk?:

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. Although there was already evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks, American authorities needed conclusive proof, not least to satisfy skeptics like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose support was essential for any action against the terrorist organization. U.S. intelligence agencies also needed a better understanding of al-Qaeda's structure and leadership. Abu Jandal was the perfect source: the Yemeni who grew up in Saudi Arabia had been bin Laden's chief bodyguard, trusted not only to protect him but also to put a bullet in his head rather than let him be captured.

Abu Jandal's guards were so intimidated by him, they wore masks to hide their identities and begged visitors not to refer to them by name in his presence. He had no intention of cooperating with the Americans; at their first meetings, he refused even to look at them and ranted about the evils of the West. Far from confirming al-Qaeda's involvement in 9/11, he insisted the attacks had been orchestrated by Israel's Mossad. While Abu Jandal was venting his spleen, Soufan noticed that he didn't touch any of the cookies that had been served with tea: "He was a diabetic and couldn't eat anything with sugar in it." At their next meeting, the Americans brought him some sugar-free cookies, a gesture that took the edge off Abu Jandal's angry demeanor. "We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him," Soufan recalls. "So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures."

It took more questioning, and some interrogators' sleight of hand, before the Yemeni gave up a wealth of information about al-Qaeda — including the identities of seven of the 9/11 bombers — but the cookies were the turning point. "After that, he could no longer think of us as evil Americans," Soufan says. "Now he was thinking of us as human beings."

http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/05/29/i-guess-the-use-of-sugar-free-cookies-saved-lives-just-didnt-sound-tough-enough/

Yup, sugar-free cookies. Humane treatment and cookies can break even the toughest terrorist. Not waterboarding, or any of the other 'Jack Bauer' crap. Because even terrorists like cookies.

(Added on Sunday: Now in - time magazine. Maybe I can get a pro gig someday.)

Age Check

Here's one that may make some of us feel a little old: if JFK were still alive, today would be his 92nd birthday. If you're old enough to remember JFK, you remember him as a youthful, good-looking, energetic President who was tragically cut down in his prime. It's hard to imagine him as a 92 year old.

America's Leading Boobie Blog

I'm claiming that title.

We're #9!

Somehow Kiplinger's "best cities" ranking concluded that my little town, No. 9: Flagstaff, Arizona, (out of 361) is a great place to live. I'd love to agree with them, but their reasoning will sound somewhat strange to us locals:

we assembled candidates for our 2009 Best Cities list, which focuses on places that have stable employment plus the talent to create new, well-paying positions. A robust job market makes these cities safe havens during the recession and will give them a head start toward growth when the recovery takes off.

http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2009/07/best-cities-2009-where-the-jobs-are.html

Um, guys...our local job market sucks. I hope you're right about a "robust job market" "when the recovery takes off", but as of today Flagstaff lives up to our city slogan "poverty with a view". Wages are low, jobs are few, and housing costs are high. Certainly the region boasts some of the most beautiful countryside in the nation, and Flagstaff is a very warm friendly town. I love it here. But to make it in Flagstaff you have to be willing to scale down your expectations. Sure, there are a few people prospering, but the vast majority of this town is barely scraping by.

So maybe we should be honored to be ranked so high, but I'm not sure that Kiplinger's was looking at the same city.

I'm Sold on Sotomayor

So Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court; all I can say is: great choice! As President Obama pointed out, Ms. Sotomayor's credentials include one of the most important decisions of my lifetime: she saved Baseball:

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are rarely famous or widely celebrated. Yet during a brief period in 1995, Judge Sonia Sotomayor became revered, at least in those cities with major league baseball teams.

She ended a long baseball strike that year, briskly ruling against the owners in favor of the players.

The owners were trying to subvert the labor system, she said, and the strike had “placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial.”

After play resumed, The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined forever the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams. The Chicago Sun-Times said she “delivered a wicked fastball” to baseball owners and emerged as one of the most inspiring figures in the history of the sport.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html

We all know that the right wing is going to do everything they can to trash her (or any other Obama nominee), as they've already told us:

This month, as it appeared increasingly likely that Sotomayor would be Obama's nominee, the judge has been the target of a whisper campaign, and many leading far-right activists -- including Limbaugh and Fox News personalities -- started the offensive against her weeks ago.

For what it's worth, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said earlier this month that Sotomayor would face stiff GOP opposition if she were nominated for the high court. Since that would be true of any Obama nominee, it hardly matters.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

So whenever a winger starts attacking, we should immediately ask them "Why do you hate Baseball?"; and by extension America. Ask them if they also oppose 'Mom and Apple Pie'. Maybe I'll start a new PAC: "Baseball fans for Sotomayor". Who's with me?

Memorial Day

The day we remember our fallen service members and begin the summer barbeque season. It's good that we take some time to honor those who've served to guard our freedoms, but I wish that we would also take some time to prevent adding to their ranks. There are wars that are just and necessary, but all too many have been fought for less than noble causes.
I never served in the military (being in the post-Vietnam years), and my family has a long history of missing wars, either serving during peacetime or not being eligible to serve (gramps had TB, and wasn't allowed to join WW11). The last of my ancestors to be injured in combat was in the war of 1812, and he survived another 42 years. So I don't have any strong family connection to our brave warrior class.
But I've known many veterans, and I've seen their pain. Our memorial should include a pledge to stop adding to their numbers needlessly. The sadly unnecessary war in Iraq has added over 4,000 new graves to be memorialized, with more to come before we find our way out. We can best honor them by preventing needless wars in the future.

This Friday's Boobie

Another Friday, another Boobie.

Why Can't We Be Rid of The Cheney?

Correct me if I'm right, but The Cheney doesn't hold any office, does he? He's an ex-VP, so he has the same gravitas as Dan Quayle. His only claim to fame is being the most evil, un-American, yet (so far) un-indicted war criminal in modern history. Why is he on my TV?.
Somehow the 'debate' on national security is now a game show, where the President's speech must be 'balanced' with a voice from the 'opposition' to provide 'fairness', but why the hell is The Cheney that voice? I must have missed the part of the Shrub administration where the opposition had to be given "equal time and respect", although Al Gore was allowed to be the subject of media ridicule from time to time.
But The Cheney is still spreading his lies, and the networks still pay attention. Today The Cheney cited the national security context as one in which they foremost fear was "a 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction.The Cheney said "al Qaeda was seeking nuclear weapons and that because Iraq had "known ties" to terrorists, the Bush administration focused on Iraq because it was a regime that "might transfer such weapons to terrorists." The old "Saddam-Al-Qaeda-WMD" story that has been shown to be false since it began, and is now known to be the product of torture. And The Cheney felt no shame about stating his own support for torturing detainees:

"In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program."

http://washingtonindependent.com/44018/the-text-of-dick-cheneys-speech-at-aei

Brief memo to The Cheney: the Fifth Amendment doesn't really help if you make the statement on national TV. When you're finally on trial for your numerous crimes, they will use your own words against you.
But I'm still wondering why the hell anyone is putting you on my TV. If I wanted to watch a horror movie, I want good looking women between the scary parts. The Cheney should be in prison, not on TV.

(Added) The only "good" thing about The Cheney is that he proved that there are worse things than Richard Nixon, but that the country will survive them.

Not Quite the Strangest Proposal I've Read

This is certainly among the stranger proposals ever made to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it's never going to happen, but it is an amusing idea):

A 12-year-old Iranian schoolboy who hopes to unseat hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed that, if elected, he will resettle Israelis in Hawaii, The Scotsman reported on Friday.

"I will buy Hawaii, Obama's birthplace, from the United States and lease it to the Israelis who will go to live there - so that they don't kill children in Gaza," the Scottish daily quoted presidential candidate Kourosh Mozouni as saying.

The paper said Mozouni made the comments to reporters after he turned up to register holding his father's hand and waving a written campaign manifesto.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086106.html

I didn't know that twelve-year-olds were even allowed to run for President in Iran, but lets face it: he's probably more mature than Ahmadinejad.

Yay for Hubble

I admit that I'm a "space junkie" and I can waste hours looking at Hubble's photos of other galaxies. So I'm really happy that the service mission appears to be a success. This one:

May 10, 2009: The Hubble community bids farewell to the soon-to-be decommissioned Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) onboard the Hubble Space Telescope. In tribute to Hubble's longest-running optical camera, planetary nebula K 4-55 has been imaged as WFPC2's final "pretty picture."

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/21/

Thanks to the service mission we should enjoy even deeper photos for at least another 10 years, which is great news. Sometimes it helps to take a break from politics and realize what a tiny little part of the universe we occupy.

Service mission updates here: http://hubblesite.org/servicing_mission_4/

Blaming Pelosi

Gotta love the latest rethug (Gingrich/Boehner) torture strategy: It's all Nancy Pelosi's fault. She was briefed by the CIA (maybe kinda sort of) that "enhanced interrogation" might be used, so she's responsible for everything that followed. When in doubt, blame a Democrat.
Of course this is ridiculous. Pelosi was House MINORITY leader in 2002-2003. She didn't (and couldn't) authorize, justify, or initiate torture. Shrub and the Cheney bear the sole responsibility for the appalling violations of national and international law, human rights, and the commission of war crimes. The Pelosi diversion is an attempt to distract the public away from the prosecution of the actual criminals; a variation of the childhood excuse "Johnny did it, too" defense. It didn't work with Mom when we were kids, and it shouldn't work in the "adult" world, either. Especially when we're talking about the most horrific crimes ever committed in the name of "America".
Even the most basic issue of Pelosi's possible complicity is rather weak. She says the briefings were vague and unspecific, that waterboarding could be used but not saying that it was already in use. Which makes sense. I doubt that the CIA came right out and said "we're torturing people", but rather left an opening for "plausible deniability" for all parties. Does this clear Pelosi? No. If she were a truly moral leader, she should have been screaming "STOP" at the very thought of America engaging in torture. But Nancy Pelosi is NOT a truly moral leader. She is a creature of congress who long ago sold out any principles she might have had in her pursuit of position and power on capitol hill. She is guilty of standing silent while the crime was committed, but that in no way absolves those who actually committed the crime.
Torture is wrong. Torture is always wrong. The (totally unrealistic) "ticking time bomb" scenarios DO NOT justify torture, nor does the patent lie that "it works". And the Shrub/Cheney torture program wasn't even focused on preventing another terrorist attack (which still isn't justified), but rather to promote a war with Iraq. A key revelation in last month’s Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees — that torture was used to try to coerce prisoners into “confirming” a bogus Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein link to sell that war — is finally attracting attention. The false confessions extracted from detainees were used by Shrub, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell,et al.,as "evidence" of the need to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. It was all a pack of lies, and it is the greatest crime in the history of American government. It is our international shame, and that shame will remain until the guilty are held accountable.
Pelosi may be guilty of complicity, but she is not the party responsible for the crime. Don't let the guilty use her to distract you from that basic fact. The Shrub administration is guilty of committing war crimes including torture. They are the ones who need to be tried and convicted.

Added: No doubt that Obama is trying to take the easy way out; doing nothing and hoping the issue will just go away. I'm not in any way surprised, but I think he's wrong. The enormity of the crimes demands investigation and prosecution, regardless of what Obama wants, and a "truth commission" or congressional investigation are likely inevitable.

Added2: See also Marcy Wheeler "Dick Cheney, Torture, Iraq, and Valerie Plame", and Think Progress "a disgraced Republican is attacking Pelosi". I'm not alone in my opinion.

Added3:Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) has written a poem "Fancy Nancy," to cast blame on Pelosi. It's as bad, or even worse, that you might have expected.

It's Friday Again

Time to bring out the Boobies.

The GOP Obituary Might Be Premature

As a liberal, I'm perfectly happy to see the Republican party in total disarray. But unlike a lot of the other liberal blogs, I'm not ready to predict their demise. While it's fun to watch them flounder about searching for a leader and a message, bad ideas have a way of returning over time and the public memory is remarkably short. It is amusing to watch desperate acts such as trying to rename the Democratic party as "The Democrat Socialist Party" (note to Republicans: the Democratic Socialists of America already exist; they just haven't won many elections) in hope of bringing back anti-communist hysteria, or the pro-torture snarlings of the Cheney in order to maintain the tough guy anti-terrorist image. Hoping that Limbaugh/Cheney/Gingrich can rehabilitate the party from the damage inflicted by the Shrub administration does seem delusional.
But the recent history of partisan politics should serve as a reminder of how quickly fortunes can turn. After the '64 election, the Republicans were thought dead. Post Watergate '73-'74, Nixon had so poisoned the Republican brand that a number of members of congress changed parties as the only hope of retaining their seats. Even as recently as the '92-'93 early Clinton popularity the Republicans were considered irrelevant. And the Democratic party has been written off for dead more than a few times. McGovern and the hippies were thought lethal, St. Ronnie led to the migration of the "Reagan Democrats", and a consensual blow job was considered such a moral outrage that no upstanding citizen would ever consider voting Democratic. Karl Rove thought that 9/11 could be used to create a "permanent Republican majority" and render the Democrats "irrelevant".
My point is that political fortunes turn, sometimes very quickly. The bad ideas and conservative constituencies that are the base of the Republican party still exist. The corporatist oligarchs still have the resources to promote their self-enriching deregulation agenda to the middle class, despite the fact it's been shown to be a total failure. The religious right can still move a large number of voters by demonizing gays and abortion. Characterizing Democrats as "tax and spend liberals" will still resonate with a percentage of voters, and there is always a market for the NRA's "liberals want to take away your guns" lie. So the people that bought Shrub could get fooled again.
Another factor that must be taken into account is that Obama was elected partly because of his charisma. While none of the current faces leading the Republicans can rival that, a charismatic individual could emerge in the future and rally enough voters to win. It's not like that's never happened before.

For Baseball Junkies Only

Gerardo Parra of the Diamondbacks just became the 100th player to hit a homerun on his first at-bat. (See opening season post for context).

Not Just Another Day

I like to think that I know myself pretty well, but sometimes I'm wrong. My emotional reaction to the first Mother's Day without my Mom was stronger and more painful that I expected. Mom passed in January, and while I thought that my grieving was mostly over I found myself really missing Mom. Thankfully I had some good friends around me (special thanks to Urland), or I might have been really depressed. But tears came at unexpected times, and the hole in my life was clear. Nobody will ever look as good on a Harley as my Mom did.
I hope you all took a moment to appreciate your own Mom, and if you are a Mom I hope you got the appropriate appreciation.

Replacing Souter

The retirement of Justice Souter brings focus to the reason that we should be glad that Barack Obama defeated John McCain. Appointing Supreme Court Justices is probably the most significant longterm act of any presidency, and the current court is the legacy of the presidents in our recent past. If McCain had won the election his appointment choice could have changed the basic philosophy of the court. One more staunch conservative vote would have changed the balance for many years.
Obama's choice won't.
The over-simplified reason is the current court balance. The four staunch conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts) will be (barring the unforeseen) on the court for many more years, whereas the "liberals" are getting toward the end of their careers. Souter is now considered a "liberal" but only in a very "moderate" way. The balance still swings on Kennedy, a mostly conservative (but sane) jurist, so there is a sort of "balance" that will continue for the foreseeable future.
No matter how "liberal" Obama's choice is (I was hoping for Angela Davis), it's not going to change the "balance". The right wing will yell and scream about whoever he chooses, but it's a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. The court will still be conservative, with a hint of moderation.
I'm guessing that Obama will choose someone (a woman) who is moderately liberal, and that confirmation will be relatively smooth. A "safe" choice (unless he gets a 'reverse Souter').
We'll hear a lot about the conservative "culture" issues of abortion and gay marriage, but the status quo will remain the same regardless of who Obama nominates. This isn't the vote that can change the game, so the fight will be mostly for show.
The only real court change will come when Kennedy or one of the conservatives leaves. Or we have another wacko conservative president (McCain-ish) who can push the court farther right. But Obama can't push the court further left with this appointment. 5 to 4 is still 5 to 4.