Proof and Vindication

Much has been made of the failures of bipartisanship in Washington, and News analysts have made a point of questioning the wisdom of Obama's approach. But was it ever his failure to begin with? The Republicans don't seem to have changed their politics to suit their new even more minor minority status. They're behaving little different than they did before the 2008 elections, when their party had been kicked out to the doghouse, and little different than they did before the 2006 elections.

There are times when staying the same is a decisive act, and nobody can say that being obstructive in these times, with their minorities is not decisive. At least not in terms of behavior. But decisive in character isn't necessary decisive in effect, at least as desired. For a country that believes something else must be done than what we have been doing, the definitive statement made by enduring obstruction is not exactly reassuring, and the fearmongering doesn't help.

The Republicans dig in their heels, obviously, to avoid looking like they've lost the battle, to look at least like they're fighting the coming wave of liberalism. For many conservative voters, this might be a heartening development, but for the interests of the Republicans and their voters, it's not. The Republicans are faced with a situation in which moderates are becoming more and more alienated from their party. It doesn't help that the party enforces its discipline even at its member's political expense. If they primary their moderates, the likelihood has grown that they will end up with moderates again in the offices, but this time with a "D" by their name.

The right has surrendered the moderate middle, and now defends it's radical flank at all costs. Do they fear that if they give up that, they'll be even more irrelevant? Could be. But long term, the tension of the pull towards the Right is tearing the Republicans away from those who could support their return.

What they might be counting on is riding to the rescue after Obama fails, blaming him for a worsening economy. Could work, to be honest. That sliver of hope may be what drives Republicans. I also wouldn't dismiss the notion that the Republicans are so ingrained with their philosophy, that they have trouble seeing the stimulus as anything else than a potential failure. In which case, of course, they see no alternative to opposing it, if they want to do the right thing.


So be it. That seems to be the Republican's plan. The trick to all this, though, is that it's been their plan for the last eight years and has not worked yet. Even if the Stimulus doesn't work as planned, Obama's both lowered expectations for instant and spectacular success, and seems to be willing to go further than just this initiative in changing the economic situation. This won't be the last time Americans see Obama working long hours on their behalf.

Just speaking from a coldbloodedly political standpoint, the Republicans should recall that this was the exact same approach they took in the thirties, and that even recently, President Clinton made the Republicans look petty when they tried to impose their agenda after their seizure of the majority in 1994. They should recall that their obstructionism on the war cost them the majority in 2006, and even more in 2008 after the economic collapse, and their stunt against the TARP legislation wasn't that politically helpful to them either.

If you're not a Republican or a fellow traveller, it's not going to look much different now than it has, even if the Republicans are right. And the indications are that they aren't. The Republicans are making it very difficult for people to believe that they've learned their lessons.

It's unlikely people have forgotten enough about the past few years that what they do now will seem unconnected to what they did before. It's also probably unlikely that the Republican's ardent, partisan hostility towards liberalism has been forgotten either. There is a clear, logical explanation for the Republicans actions, true or not, that indicates less than selfless, partisan motivations for their actions.

And lets not forget: Obama won on people's hostility to that.

Even if the Republicans are right, the manner in which they are conducting their political manuevers is not helpful to their cause or their reputations. Unfortunately, the Republicans have made a point of only considering their own people, their own fellow travellers as reliable sources. The rest of America is asking, perhaps not without sympathy, "How do we get through to these people?"

One of the most frightening videos you will ever see

If this doesn't drop your jaw to your computer table and your heart into your stomach, you should be checked for a pulse

Personal Stakes

I can wear a number of hats concerning this issue. I'm diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, so I have a personal interest. I'm a science nerd, especially concerning neuroscience, so I wear the hat of somebody interested in the facts of the case. I'm also a political wonk, with a particular interest in how science translates to policy.

My opinion comes down to this: we're using the science to clear the B.S. explanations for why this happens out of the way. It's difficult, because taking a real world issue like this and plopping it down in a lab is impossible. You get likelihoods more than absolute laws and rules. It's not even clear here that Autistic conditions necessarily have to have just one cause or kind of cause, any more than heart conditions can be explained by just one etiology. There could be metabolic disorders, environmental exposures, genetics involved, and what for one person might be a good treatment could be useless or worse. For some, there may not fundamentally BE a treatment, other than learning to live with the pathology at hand.

Was it wise to investigate the Vaccine connection? By all means. But nobody has found any indication that Thimerosal or anything else in them is causing the epidemic increase. Even worse, the numbers have risen as vaccines with this mercury-based compound have been phased out. Simple inductive logic tells you that A cannot be the sole cause of B, if B continues to increase as exposure to A decreases.

If a negative relationship had been discovered, we would have been obligated in good conscience to change how we produce and use vaccines. But it has not, and until we've used the B.S. detector of science to clear away the misleading hypotheses, targeting vaccines as a cause is not only bad, but potentially counterproductive. Measles and other illnesses we vaccinate for are known to have potential neurological complications. From a speculative point of view, we could even pose infectious diseases as potential causes, but from a purely factual point of view, having a child dealing with the after-effects of such neurological complications is no picnic.

I understand the impulse people have to fight for their children. I understand that it can sometimes seem like corporations are just out to cover their asses. But at some point, we have to humble ourselves before the facts, and let the unsupportable explanations drop.

We need to know more about what can cause autistic disorders, not become fixated on explanations for personal and emotional reasons. With limited resources and the scientific uncertainties that come with investigating phenomena beyond the lab, we must sometimes make the difficult choice to look beyond our preferred explanations, and seek out the right ones, because the truth, preferred or not, is all that can set us free here.

And you thought your job was difficult!

Obama's featured on the cover of Mad Magazine, in what might be a realistic portrayal of how Obama's feeling on the inside.

He's sort of like Madonna, or Prince...

Somebody should tell this fellow that if Rembrandt had a brother named Murray, he'd be named Murray van Rijn.

As the great Austin Powers once asked...

Who throws their shoe?

Just like old New York, Was once New Amsterdam

"Why they changed it, I can't say, people just liked it better that way!"

With apologies to They Might Be Giants, of course.

Seems like you might be familiar with Mumbai's previous name: Good old fashioned Bombay. Can't say I blame them. I believe the former name was the product of the name given to it by Portuguese Traders. So remember, it's Mumbai, not Bombay, and it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.

So why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

This Political Cartoon Is Just Too Perfect For Words.

Just follow the link and you'll see why.

What a difference a month makes...

One of the hazards of being involved in three blogs at once is that you concentrate your efforts unequally most of the time. This blog was meant to be something of an overflow blog to deal with the items too minor to be dealt with on my once daily blogs. So, if you missed me here, in that unlikely event, I'm over at Watchblog, and Daily Kos on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, history passed me by on this blog, but fortunately enough, I was able to mark the occasion at Watchblog.

I certainly feel better, now that Obama won. And he didn't win by a slim margin, he won it walking away. You know, like those people in the movies who walks away from an explosion without flinching. That cool. And now we begin to see how his cabinet takes shape. Am I excited? Not yet. Too many years under Bush have darkened my perspective on government. Hopefully, Obama will make good on his promise and make me proud of how we govern in America again.

Don't be a stranger here, I won't be, if I can help it.

The Right Wing Biting It's Own Tail:

Bill Kristol: NYT iz teh stupid!|!1!!
Jon Stewart: NYT iz ur base.

Pwn3d.

In the interest of bipartisanship...

see Sarah Palin pictures

I know. Unfair, but I couldn't resist.

see Sarah Palin pictures

Another Good One

see Sarah Palin pictures

I liked this.

see Sarah Palin pictures

(h/t) to Pundit Kitchen

Oh, oh, no, no, no.

Relax, please. Take your time. You've done quite enough to help us, thank you very much.

A good article on Credit Default Swaps

AKA, the crap that got us into this whole mess in the first place.

Keating Economics

I think this is like the skinny kid with glasses cold-cocking the bully when he pokes his fingers into the nerd's chest one too many times.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is in full-on flail mode.

Apparently, nobody told him about this called "The Spirit of the Law"

There is more to law than mere letters on a page. Bush has some nerve making a statement like this, given his habit of making signing statements where he announces his intention to ignore what's written in the law.

The truth is, there are larger purposes to the law, its interpretation, and its enforcement. Judges should be allowed the flexibility to determine the best way of interpreting the law.

Judges ultimately can be held accountable by other judges, if they overstep their bounds, but tying their hands with narrow interpretions don't do people much good.

What is it that offends us about this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on this guy's side. But let's not delude ourselves: throwing a puppy over a cliff is probably neither the worst thing he's ever done, nor is it likely to be the worst abuse inflicted on an animal in this war or any other.

To be honest, I don't see what reason, besides negative publicity, this guy's getting kicked out. Under most circumstances, I would think this might be a minor or even ignored offense.

It was seen, though, and there are legitimate concerns for Armed Services who are likedly not to popular as it is at the moment. To put it plainly, the callous nature of the act is what's giving it the most condemnation.

Psychologists following sociopaths list this kind of callousness towards human and animal life as one of the major signs of the disorder, a hallmark of an evil attitude in general. As appealing as it might be to watch folks become heroic killing meachines in movies, the reality of that rightly scares us.

We think, when we see a guy calmly and callously chuck the dog off the cliff, we have to wonder, is he going to gravitate as callously towards people?

Now I know, logically speaking, that some will make the point that soldiers are supposed to be like that. That, though, is a problematic point if you depart from the notion that the ideal for a soldier is to be mindless killer.

Soldiers kill by the very nature of their profession, but they are supposed to know the sharks from the guppies and act accordingly. In a war like this, where such fish don't exactly swim separately, some suggest that a callous disregard for innocent life is a necessity. However, given the damage this attitude does and has done to our strategic aims in Iraq and elsewhere, we have to ask whether such cold-bloodedness is really what we want.

Undoubtedly for many soldiers, the killing of others will break down certain normal inhibitions, and certain actions that would be difficult for a civilian will become easier, less thought upon. Nonetheless, we hope and pray, and usually see our soldiers come back having resisted the temptations of needless infliction of pain and suffering, rather than given in to it.

Point is, when we see some guy throw a puppy off a cliff, we worry that this person has gone over the edge, or has already or maybe even always been over that edge. We don't want to entertain the notion that in fighting to defend ourselves or our principles, that we've turned ourselves into folks little better than the badguys.

That's why this guy's getting sent home: not political correctness, but distinctly scary, callous behaviors.

Define Irony...

Gas Prices are so bad that even the world's most profitable oil company doesnt' make enough money selling it to justify remaining in the gas station business.