RIP, Peter Bregman

Sad news that we've lost peter bergman, of firesign theater. While I usually shy away from eulogies, if you're among those of us who mispent many hours smoking herbs and listening to firesign theatre, then you understand that the world will be a less absurdly silly place without him.
("No, only half a key. I had to split it with the sound effects man")
As I was lamenting the loss of Bergman to the woman I live with, I came to realize that firesign theatre is a unique type of humor. I played a few vignettes for her, and she said "I don't get it" while I was laughing. It's truly one of those things where you can divide the folks who "get it" from those who don't. Perhaps it was the times (and the herbs), but the Bergman influence has always been a part of how I view the world.

Can We Have An Adult Conversation About Iran?

(Because the American president with a funny name met with the Isaerli prime minister with a funny name to discuss the Iranian president with a funny name)

One current political issue that keeps driving me into episodes of screaming crazies is the whole topic of Iran and nukes. It's like the media and the politicians are going through a bitter divorce with reality, so they deny even the most basic facts about the situation. Both AIPAC and the republican presidential candidates would have you believe that Iran is just about to start WWW3, nuking Tel Aviv sometime next week, regardless of the real facts.

Let's start with a simple reality, as shown in the chart above: The US and Russia have the vast majority of the nuclear weapons on this planet, by such a magnitude that if Israel and France piled all there nukes together it would still be only a tiny fractional threat. Fact number two: Iran is only approaching the capability of low enriched uranium, which is a long way short of weapons grade (damn, I need Sweaterman to give me numbers on this) uranium. And, as North Korea has proven, having weapons grade uranium doesn't mean you have a working nuclear weapon. But the third, greatest, fact to me is: why would Iran want to commit suicide by using a nuke against Israel? Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used some very provocative rhetoric, but he's not in charge of Iran. Clerical Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is, and a week and a half ago, Khamenei gave a major foreign policy speech in which he said:

“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

Now, you don't have to believe him. But let's use some basic logic: what would Iran actually gain by attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon? There is, simply, no profit for Iran in such an attack. Far more likely is that Iran would like to develop the capacity to build a weapon, which would then be a far more valuable bargaining chip toward ending sanctions.

Don't get me wrong; Iran is not our friend. They're hostile (with some justification) to America's and Israel's interests throughout the region. Sanctions have made our relationship even more adversarial, but we're still a long way from any legitimate grounds for war.

So let's consider what would actually happen if, worst case scenario, Iran actually did develop a nuclear weapon: regional escalation. Saudi Arabia (Sunni) would most certainly want a nuclear deterrent to (Shia) Iran, as would most likely Turkey. The risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists or extremists would increase (although the greatest risk would still be from Pakistan and the unsecured remnants from the former Soviet Union) slightly.

Then, let's compare the risks of military action against Iran by either Israel or the US...(think about it for a while. I'll save that for another post.)

(BTW: Thanks to those who've hit the Paypal button. Any additional help is greatly appreciated)

Missed Anniversary (And Blegging)

Somehow I completely missed this blog's fifth anniversary, back on Jan. 28th. Which proves that I'm not very good at blogging. Still, five years is a long time for a blog, and at least a few of the posts have been worth reading (I hope).
Which brings me to the 'blegging': I'm asking for help. After having almost no work in January, I haven't gotten any work in February (even through the temp agencies), and I'm now desperate. A new month brings a fresh set of rent and bills, but I'm broke. So I'm hoping someone would be able to drop something on the Paypal button on the right.
I last asked my readers for help about four years ago, and several of you were able to make small donations, which was huge at the time. I realize that most of my readers are struggling, too, so I'm not expecting much. Over the past four years, I've had a few times where I was able to drop a few coins on other poor bloggers as a way of repaying the help I received, and I'm really hoping to be back in that position soon. But right now, I'm desperate. If you can help me, anything you can drop in my Paypal account would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if any of you are looking for an inflatable kayak, I have my Saturn for sale on Craigslist: 13' Inflatable Whitewater Kayak. It's a great little duckie that I didn't get to paddle very much.
Thank you for reading me, and I hope to keep this blog going for many years to come.

Leap Day

Ah, that wonderful extra day that gives us an excuse to hold the Summer Olympics and the presidential election. One of which I really enjoy while the other is a bad addiction that I've never managed to kick.
One special reason I enjoy Leap Day is that it's one of my nieces birthday, specifically her sixth birthday. She deserves a birthday drink, as not many kids celebrate their sixth birthday while in college.
Also, be sure to look before you leap today.

Party Platform - Cliff Notes Version

The republican presidential candidates in two sentences:

"Don't regulate corporations.
Do regulate Women."

President's Day

Um, 'Happy President's Day', I guess. I'm old enough to remember when we celebrated Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday as individual holidays. But now we get one holiday to celebrate all our presidents, even the ones we'd rather forget (would anyone say "Happy Nixon Day"?). So today, I'm celebrating Millard Fillmore, our 13th president, because I doubt anyone else will. Ol' Millard should best be remembered for this:

Fillmore was also a staunch defender against foreign intervention in Hawaii. France's Napoleon III attempted to annex the Hawaiian Islands, but was forced to withdraw after a strongly worded message from Fillmore suggesting that "the United States would not stand for any such action."^[17]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Fillmore

Yes, he saved Hawaii from the French for us. Also, I seriously doubt we'll ever have another president named "Millard". Although we are at risk of a "Willard".

Really Grand Larceny

Sometimes there are things in the news that go way beyond my small brain capacity to comprehend, like when I read that in Italy police seize $6 trillion of fake U.S. T-bonds. I mean, counterfeiting $100 dollar bills I can grasp. But phony billion dollar T-bills? You can't spend those at the liquor store; the clerk wont have change. The total scope is amazing to me.

The fake securities, worth more than a third of U.S. national debt, were seized in January from a Swiss trust company where they were held in three large trunks.

Most of us (unless Bill Gates or Warren Buffet happen to be reading this) would consider a million dollars an amazing sum to have. We fantasize about what we'd do if we won the lottery, but it's usually a fairly mundane level fantasy: travel, buy a yacht, indulge our family and friends, that kind of luxury. With 6 million million, you could easily buy several countries. Or finance a couple of major wars...wait a minute...has anybody dusted those bills for Cheney's fingerprints?
(h/t to Pissed on Politics for the link)

Republican Valentine, 2012

Last week, I posted about the republican attack on contraceptives, calling them The Forced Chastity Party . They really want to stake their position as the "anti-sex" party, I guess. Now the top republican presidential candidates are all vowing to attack...porn:

The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”

That's right, folks: just in time for Valentine's Day, 2012, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich All Promise To Ban Porn. I'm quite certain that they actually believe this will be a winning issue for them, but here in modern reality lots of regular folk enjoy porn (if you believe the Internet, anyway). As an election issue...well, it could make the debates more entertaining.

Sober Panda Time

Attention America: There's an election in 2012, and you have to make a choice.

I've taken to referring to President Obama as "sober panda time" (for an explanation see: Anagram Fun ), but the reality is he's still our best choice. Not great, but, I mean, consider the alternatives:

Mitt RoMoney...he reminds me of Kryten from Red Dwarf, but he's a simple rich corporate bastard who will promote the corporate interests and pander to a theocracy. And go to war with Iran for no good reason.

Newt "the newt" Gingrich...a thieving hypocritical bastard who will promote the corporate interests and pander to the theocracy. And go to war with Iran for no good reason.

"Santorum" (yeah, go ahead and google it)...a straight ahead theocrat, with a side of pork barrel corporate interests. And would start a war with Iran for no good reason.

Ron Paul...will never win. A racist who would legalize pot, but ban abortion. Although, he probably wouldn't go to war with Iran.

And that's it. That's all that is on the menu. Your choice is between sober panda time, who's been decidedly mediocre, but is sane, or a bunch of loonies. I (as an extreme liberal) am not thrilled with sober panda time, but he's been reasonably competent. The alternatives are flat out insane. So this is my political position for the rest of the election cycle: Vote for Sober Panda Time! Re-elect Sober Panda Time! At least he's not insane, greedy, or likely to start a war with Iran.

The Forced Chastity Party

Hard to believe, but somehow there's a roaring political battle about insurance coverage of contraceptives. In 2012. The republicans are couching the debate in terms of religion, but their real goal is banning contraception coverage in ALL insurance plans for ALL women. Because, in their world, women shouldn't be having non-procreative sex.

This may come as a shock to the right wing prudes, but women enjoy sex (at least, in my experience), too. Human beings enjoy sex. Regardless of what your sky god tells you. And we're just not realistically going to limit our sex to making more human beings, regardless of someones religion. Buddy badtux the snarky penguin says it well in his header "Religious fundamentalists are motivated by the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun -- and that this must be stopped."

See, it's one thing to debate abortion (though I'm sure you can guess where I stand): nobody "enjoys" an abortion. Abortion is "yucky" (in reality, all internal medicine is "yucky". The insides of a human being are not aesthetically pleasing). But now the anti-abortion people are taking their anti-sex crusade to the thing most likely to prevent abortion. Because they really are opposed to sex.

(It should be noted that these same fundies are also anti-homosexuality, which rarely leads to abortion.)

I just can't see how this is a 'winning' issue for them. Maybe it's because I'm an old 'free love' hippie from the sixties, but I just don't see the opposition to sex as popular. Most of us want our fucking contraceptives.

Advanced Weapons Systems

Oh, great...now the President has access to an extreme marshmallow cannon. Do we really want to trust this President with this kind of firepower?

(Actual story: Obama explained at the annual White House Science Fair his pledge to use the White House to honor achievers in science.)

More at: www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-kicks-educate-innovate

And cue the next wingnut outrage line: "Obama is shooting marshmallows!", or something like that. Leave better lines in the comments, if you would, please.

Blogroll Amnesty Day

A tradition begun by skippy the bush kangaroo and the late, much missed, jon swift, blogroll amnesty day is a great time to link to blogs that deserve more attention. Or, in my case, to update a blogroll that hadn't been touched in quite a while. I deleted a few blogs that have gone 'dark' but left some who just haven't posted for a while. And I've added blogs that might interest you, because they interest me. The logic is something like: hey, if you're 'here', you might also like it 'there'. So here are some places you might want to check out:

Critter's Crap: Jerry Critter shares a lot of my political attitudes and sense of humor.

Disaffected and it Feels So Good: more politics, both liberal and cynical.

HISTORIES OF THINGS TO COME: Very cool reads, odd and historical.

Infidel753: Finds all kinds of news that you'd otherwise miss.

Jaybird's Jottings: He's a Giants fan. Also, Washington DC history.

of mule dung and ash: I can't believe I didn't have mulebreath on the blogroll before now! Oversight corrected.

Owl Farm Blog: Anita Thompson's blog. That should be enough reason to check it out.

Poison Your Mind: Wrong ideas that appeal to you.

PoliticusUSA: More politics.

the burned over district: Montag is another who should have been on the blogroll long ago.

Wonders & Marvels: Yes, they are.

Zen Comix: The source for the cartoon above, and a great cartoonist in general.

Backwaterlinks: Another good read.

And the rest of the blogroll are all really smart, cool people who you should check out. Also, if you have a blog you'd like to share, leave a link in the comments and I'll be happy to add it. No commercial sites, please (unless they're paying me a very large bribe).

Anagram Fun

The letters in "President Obama" can be rearranged into "sober panda time". For some reason, this makes me happy.
More at:Fun with anagrams! (GOP candidates edition)

Blatant Corruption

The big political debate in the next few weeks will be on the Keystone XL pipeline, a really bad idea that John Boehner will be pushing hard for one simple reason: because the House Speaker has substantial investments in several Canadian tar sands firms that would greatly benefit from the deal. That's it. He'll say it's about "jobs" (although it would only generate very few), but it's really only about money. Pure, blatant corruption.

And he's likely to get away with it.

(h/t to Zandar Versus The Stupid for catching this)

A Profile of Courage

Saddening news: Gabrielle Giffords Resigning From Congress . And yet, it is somehow uplifting to see her focusing on her recovery, and to witness the courage she's shown:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who was shot in the head a year ago at a district event, announced in a video posted on YouTube Sunday that she will resign from Congress this week, in order to focus on her medical recovery.

The Arizona Daily Star reports:

Before she leaves office, Giffords will finish her Congress On Your Corner event that was interrupted by a gunman on Jan. 8, 2011. In a private gathering in Tucson, Giffords will meet with some of the people who were at the event, her staff said.

“Arizona is my home, always will be. A lot has happened over the past year. We cannot change that. But I know on the issues we fought for we can change things for the better. Jobs, border security, veterans. We can do so much more by working together,” Giffords said in the message.

“I don’t remember much from that horrible day, but I will never forget the trust you placed in me to be your voice. Thank you for your prayers and for giving me time to recover.

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/gabrielle-giffords-resigning-from-congress.php?ref=fpb

I think Ms. Giffords may be one of the most inspiring human beings I've witnessed in my life. She brought honor and integrity to both her political and personal life. I hope we all can agree to wish her the very best recovery possible.

A Sane Idea (in an insane world)

One topic in the current political sphere that can get me into a screaming fit rather quickly is the subject of Iran. Especially with the current crop of republican candidates sounding ready to rush (with the exception of Ron Paul) into a military attack. The 'justification' for bombing Iran is that they have a (small, minimal) nuclear program, which could someday lead to a nuclear weapon. Which, of course, would be a threat to Israel (who has plenty of nukes) and the region (which has oil), and therefore to America.
Iran has repeatedly said that they want nuclear energy to produce electricity. Which actually makes a lot of sense. Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a lousy source for electricity, for both efficiency and the environment. As a modernizing country, Iran is facing ever increasing demand for more electricity.
Then I read a piece by Thomas Buonomo at Informed Comment that I thought was truly brilliant:

An Alternative Course of Action

Considering the doubtful prospect of an effective sanctions regime and the unpredictable consequences of a military strike or covert action, the Obama administration should consider offering the Iranian government an opportunity for rapprochement in the form of renewable energy technology and financial incentives to help it achieve its ostensible goals.

Iran has abundant geothermal, solar, hydroelectric and wind energy resources that could help it meet its domestic electricity demand without presenting an inherent threat to the international community. This would require substantial investment but Iranian leaders might be prepared to consider such an alternative if the U.S. and other UN Security Council states were prepared to offer it attractive financing options.

Such an initiative would demonstrate to Iran that the United States acknowledges its legitimate energy and national security interests and is willing to take meaningful steps to support its peaceful aspirations and integration into the international community in return for its abandonment of its nuclear program.

http://www.blogger.com/www.juancole.com/2012/01/to-avoid-war-obama-should-offer-iran-renewable-energy-aid-buonomo.html

Now, I realize that Iran is not exactly our friend. In fact, the history of US-Iran relations is one of constant conflict, and we haven't had diplomatic relations since 1979. But imagine how relations (and the propaganda) could be reversed if America offered Iran alternative energy aid, and we began relating to each other as respectful adults. If Obama were to actually do this, he'd deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, and it would drive the neocon warmongers crazy. Plus, it might actually work.

A Short Political Observation

In an effort to retain what little sanity I have left, I've tried to avoid paying attention to the republican nomination campaign. But my inner political junkie had a bit of a relapse, and I watched part of a debate last weekend. What I saw is still subtly disturbing me; that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that something so profoundly wrong is being ignored.

During part of the debate, Jon Huntsman came under attack for serving as ambassador to China in the Obama administration. Huntsman said something about putting "country ahead of party", and he was attacked for it by Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry as if this was a horrible thing for him to say. The attacking candidates all wanted to make it loud and clear that they were "republicans first, Americans second" in the age of Obama. Not that it should be a surprise; Boehner and McConnell have clearly stated that their goal is to defeat Obama rather than to govern, regardless of how much damage it does to the country. Well, at least they're honest about it.

That is something my brain is having a hard time reconciling with what I thought I knew. All those years of my life where the republicans were the party of "uber-patriotism"; the "flag wavers"; the "my country, right or wrong" party. Those were the republicans I knew throughout my life.

I guess it only took one black president for them to discard their loyalty to their country. What is really profoundly wrong is that these men want to be president of a United States that they publicly disavow loyalty to. And that many "proud Americans" will vote for them anyway.

20 More Years

It's nice that there will be a 20 year moratorium on uranium mining on the Grand Canyon. Having spent a lot of time in the 'big ditch', I strongly oppose any thing that would spoil it. Especially such a short sighted exploitation that would also potentially poison millions of downstream people.

But I also know how permanently incredible the Grand Canyon is. I have a strong feeling that it will still be an awe striking geological formation long after humans have gone extinct.

Added: Predictably, Republicans and mining and energy lobbyists are furious

As Zandar Versus The Stupid says:

How many jobs would be lost if the Colorado River was contaminated by uranium mining runoff? How many lives? Do you think any of the Republicans running for president care about the environment?

The Supreme Reason to Re-Elect Obama

The 2012 election cycle is now in full swing, and while I'd love to just hibernate and ignore it, it's clear that the results do truly matter. The Washington Monthly has a series on what a republican victory would mean that's well worth reading, although also quite frightening. While I know many liberals who are quite disappointed in President Obama (the only reason that I'm not disappointed is that I held really low expectations), it's important to assess what are the realistic options, before giving up on his re-election.

One of the greatest long term impacts of any President is the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In his first term, Obama filled two vacancies, as did shrub before him. Overall, the current court is dominated by republican appointees, which is clearly reflected in the conservative, pro-corporate philosophy of it's decisions. And the next presidential term of office could potentially see vacancies that impact the courts makeup for decades to come.

While Supreme Court Justices receive the finest medical care on the planet, and historically live longer than the rest of the population, age does catch up to everyone. Four of the nine current Justices are in their seventies, an age where physical and mental decline are a common occurrence, and may not remain on the bench through the next presidential term.

First on the list of likely departures is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's 78 (79 in March) and has been battling cancer. She has been one of the most consistently liberal voices on the court since her 1993 appointment by Bill Clinton, and it's extremely unlikely that she will serve another four plus years.

Antonin Scalia is 75 years old (76 in March), and has been serving since 1986. A staunch (I would say extreme) conservative, he seems to be in robust health. It's conceivable that he would consider retiring if a republican is elected president, but is a good bet to remain on the bench through a second Obama term.

Anthony Kennedy is also 75 (76 in July), and is arguably the most significant member of the court. He's moderately conservative, and represents the swing vote in many decisions. While not substantiated, I've read multiple reports that he is likely to retire in relatively few years for reasons of age and health. He's been serving since 1988.

Stephen Breyer is 73 (74 in August), and is rumored to be considering retirement. Moderately liberal and fairly quiet, he's considered a very thoughtful, intellectual jurist. I think the likelihood of him remaining through the next presidential term is under 50%, as he often sounds frustrated with the current court.

(Justice bios here:http://www.blogger.com/www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx. Of course, any of the other five Justices might choose to retire or suffer an untimely demise, but I chose to focus on the four most likely potential departures.)

The Washington Monthly piece is a useful group of articles. Addressing what a republican victory would mean for the Supreme Court, The conservative takeover will be complete. By Dahlia Lithwick is well worth reading.

The current court is viewed as a balance between four liberals and four conservative, with Kennedy somewhere in between, but is more really four moderates, four extreme conservatives, and Kennedy. That balance could be changed dramatically in the next presidential term.

Neither of Obama's appointee's, Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan, are all that liberal, which is in keeping with his own moderate philosophy. And I would expect that any future justice appointees would also be moderates. But compare that to the philosophy of the current republican presidential candidates. Then consider how they would likely choose to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. It's a scary proposition for the coming decades. That alone is enough to make me support Obama in 2012.

The President on Mars

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time (which I thoroughly appreciate, by the way) you know that I really love a good conspiracy theory. And this has to be one of the best I've ever read:

Two former participants in the CIA’s Mars visitation program of the early 1980’s have confirmed that U.S. President Barack H. Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and was among the young Americans from the program who they later encountered on the Martian surface after reaching Mars via “jump room.”

Andrew D. Basiago, 50, a lawyer in Washington State who served in DARPA’s time travel program Project Pegasus in the 1970’s, and fellow chrononaut William B. Stillings, 44, who was tapped by the Mars program for his technical genius, have publicly confirmed that Obama was enrolled in their Mars training class in 1980 and that each later encountered Obama during visits to rudimentary U.S. facilities on Mars that took place from 1981 to 1983.

exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2011/11/mars-visitors-basiago-and-stillings-confirm-barack-obama-traveled-to-mars-1.html

You really owe it to yourself to go read the whole thing. Perhaps my favorite part:

On August 21, 2011, Mr. Basiago stated: "Something highly significant has happened, and that is that two individuals from the same Mars training class in 1980 (Basiago and Stillings) have met and are comparing experiences and are able to corroborate not only that they were on the surface of Mars together but that before reaching Mars via jump room they were trained with a group of teenagers that included the current President of the United States (Obama) and director of DARPA (Dugan)."

Mr. Basiago states that during one of his trips to Mars via “jump room” that took place from 1981 to 1983, he was sitting on a wall beneath an arching roof that covered one of the “jump room” facilities as he watched Mr. Obama walk back to the jump room from across the Martian terrain. When Mr. Obama walked past him and Mr. Basiago acknowledged him, Mr. Obama stated, with some sense of fatalism: “Now we’re here!”

The primitive conditions that they encountered on Mars might explain the high level of danger involved. Mr. Basiago and Mr. Stillings agree that Major Dames stated during their training class at The College of the Siskiyous in 1980: “Of the 97,000 individuals that we have thus far sent to Mars, only 7,000 have survived there after five years.” When they then first teleported to Mars in Summer 1981, the young Mars visitors confronted the situation that Major Dames had covered at length during the class the previous summer – that one of their principal concerns on Mars would be to avoid being devoured by one of the predator species on the Martian surface, some of which they would be able to evade, and some of which were impossible to evade if encountered.

So forget the whole Kenyan-Muslim thing. It's clear that our President may be controlled by Martians.
Added: The more I think about this, the more it explains things in my own life. I can't remember much of what happened to me between 1980 and 83. I always thought it was drugs, but now I'm thinking that actually the CIA sent me to Mars, and brainwashed me into thinking that it was drugs. Yup, that would explain a lot.