The Pessl Publicity Machine

Her name is Marisha Pessl. Her debut novel, "Special Topics in Calamity Physics," is out in hardcover, soon in paperback. It's not bad, I read it myself. But it's not great either. It's certainly not worth all the attention she's getting in The New York Times; or, The Pessl Publicity Machine. Allow me to review: there is this article about her good looks, about them not being used to sell the book (but by mentioning it, you only remind us....). This one about the Rembrandt oil-paint set her husband (a hedge fund manager) gave her. The Times published a fluffy op-ed by her on December 3, 2006. Surprisingly, although very little has been written about the substance of her 500 page book, the editors of the NYT Sunday Book Review chose it as one of the 10 best books of the year. Here is one description of the novel:

The antic ghost of Nabokov hovers over this buoyantly literate first novel, a murder mystery narrated by a teenager enamored of her own precocity but also in thrall to her father, an enigmatic itinerant professor, and to the charismatic female teacher whose death is announced on the first page. Each of the 36 chapters is titled for a classic (by authors ranging from Shakespeare to Carlo Emilio Gadda), and the plot snakes ingeniously toward a revelation capped by a clever ''final exam.'' All this is beguiling, but the most solid pleasures of this book originate in the freshness of Pessl's voice and in the purity of her storytelling gift.

Indeed, Pessl gives voice to a mystery, but the real mystery is why the NYT has bouyed her image to the extent that it has.

Drunken Notes

1. My dog just turned up his nose at my taco bell Grilled Stufft Burrito. Now some background on my dog. We found him while on a family vacation in Puerto Rico when he was a young pup near starvation. He has since acclimated to his suburban D.C. surroundings with aplomb. He is known to bark for Foie Gras. No, but seriosly, my dog can down five pounds of any substance in a matter of seconds. What does this say about TACO Bell that a former Puerto Rican street dog finds their food products beneath him (and yes, it is a him, we have not neutered him. I refuse to cave into feminist nazi conspiracies)? Literally he eats everything. What does this say about me, that I paid five dollars for a product that my dog will not eat? Secondary theory, my dog is named Taco (he looked like a rat with big ears when my parents found him, akin to the yo quiero taco bell dog, thus his name), maybe he is cognizant and thus resentful of his namesake and so turns up his nose not due to absence of epicurean delights in a taco bell treat but rather out of personal resentment? I don't know. But none of this bodes well for Taco Bell. Though, they can count me as a loyal customer.

2. Oddly, I think Brittney Spears is hotter now that she has been married/divorced to K-fed. It just amps up the whole trailer trash chic thing.

3. Cats are evil insolent, disloyal animals. I admire them so. My cat is named Izzy, I named him after Izzy Stradlin of Guns n Roses when I was eight years old. He was neutered, we fondly call him Izzit. He is now sixteen years old and has killed more mammals than Ted Bundy thus making him a bad ass cat in spite of his neutering. My mom is to blame for the neutering, I fought her vigorously on the matter, but I was eight years old.

4. Every time I am at an Irish pub, there is somebody with an Irish accent (who is not the owner) there. I wonder if there is some federal subsidy whereby the Irish are paid to frequent Irish pubs in the U.S.? Just a thought. If such a subsidy exists, I support it, and this is coming from a small government conservative. I think it would maximize some measure of utility (say the joy derived from listening to pleasant sounding feriners).

5. Brittney Spears is trailer trash chic, I am standing by this assertion, and that is hot.

The Godfather of Soul Is No More

Now I don't mean to be a downer on Christmas, but the Hardest Working Man In Show Business died today...Merry Christmas anyways and here is a video.

Merry Christmas!!!

Holy crap, it snowed

Forgive the title, but that's a lot of snow.

In late summer, I had a good feeling about this winter in Wyoming. Temperatures dipped into the twenties in late August, and flurries arrived in September. My sister and mother came to visit in mid-October, and we were blasted with single-digit windchills, icy roads, and a blanket of snow. On October 18th, our overnight low hit 2 degrees fahrenheit, tying us with Chalkyitsik, Alaska, for the lowest temperature in the nation that day.

Then - nothing. Sunny, mild days. Brown grass. Last winter, grooming on the cross-country ski trails outside of town began just after Halloween. This winter, grooming still had not started as of Monday. Disappointment set in; my wishes for arctic/alpine weather became more fervent by the day.

So, I beg forgiveness if I had anything to do the snowstorm that just finished pounding the front range.

The university closed early yesterday afternoon; I practiced avalanche beacon searches in the quad. Last night, I skiied to my friend's apartment - down 8th street. Sections of interstates 80 and 25 are closed. The I-80 summit webcam, perched at an 8,400 ft pass just outside of town, shows a white-out.

Denver seems to have gotten the worst; I just got a phone call from two friends who are on hour 32 at DIA and counting.

That's a lot of snow.

ANTI-EVERYTHING’S AWESOME SCALE OF AWESOMENESS

So as of last week I am done with finals and ready to make my miraculous return to the beloved blog. But since it is almost Christmas and I am rather busy doing nothing at work and killing time until I have next week off I decided that I don’t really feel like paying attention to anything serious that is happening throughout the world.

Instead I have decided to come up with a system of ranking things; I have decided that this system will be called ANTI-EVERYTHING’S AWESOME SCALE OF AWESOMENESS. I figure that I will devote the rest of the week to figuring out exactly how this scale works and what exactly defines a certain items level of awesomeness.

However, judging from past efforts to create something pointless simply for the sake of creating something pointless I will probably quit before I am even close to completion.

All personal skepticism aside here is something that regardless of personal preference I feel everyone can agree is rather awesome…a giant Pac-Man on Highway 55.

Christianity in America

Ilya has shamed Christians. But he may just as well shame all Americans. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. However, this population is quite diverse in its beliefs and political leanings. This is one of the peculiarities of America as opposed to say Western Europe where you are Catholic or Protestant (as it pertains to beliefs if not the resulting political leanings). One need only look at my church, the Lutheran church. Anti-Everything, in his crusade against Michelle Bachmann (representative elect, should I say) made light of some of the more extreme stances of her church, also Lutheran. But we belong to different synods, that have vastly different beliefs and also political leanings. I belong to the ELCA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. It is typically identified with the mainline or "liberal" protestant tradition. My synod, like many "liberal" protestant churches, voted on divestment of companies that do business with Israel. I hasten to add that this does ingratiate me with my church.

Rep.-elect Bachman (I know, despite Anti's valiant efforts) is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which in the aggressiveness and content of some of its political stances (and frankly beliefs, as Anti identified) causes it to be identified with the evangelical movement. From a theological perspective I don't really know if there is substance in such an identification. But Israeli divestment is not on their political radar. The Lutheran church is not exceptional but rather a typical example of Protestantism in America. I won't even touch on Catholicism because I will probably say something completely false and invite Pied's or Anti's ridicule. But nonetheless, I think they would also agree that there are fissures within the Catholic community as well. But Christianity in America is heterodox. Thus quite difficult to shame collectively.

Stem Cell Research

Ilya's mentioning of stem cell research aroused me from my ongoing stupor. The debate over stem cell research is an instance among many in which we, the general public, opt for stupidity. When I say we opt for stupidity I do not mean how anybody comes out on a given side of the debate, but rather we choose to have a fundamentally stupid debate due to the laziness and imprecision of our language. As portrayed by the media, the debate about stem cells centers around one's advocacy or opposition to stem cell research. This is false. It is not merely stem cell research, it is embryonic stem cell research that some people oppose, many people who oppose embryonic stem cell research support other forms of stem cell research such as adult stem cell research. Currently, if Pfizer were to chose to do so, it could invest in embryonic stem cell research. There is no federal prohibition on this and thus far none in the offing. The debate centers around whether embyronic stem cell research should be subsidized with public monies. I am frankly ignorant of the arguments against funding embryonic stem cell research and thus won't hazard an opinion as to whether they are valid or invalid. But this is one of the neat things about our federal form of governance, while we here in D.C. may choose to sidestep an issue due to fear of offending broad swaths of the country's moral sensibility, the states needn't do so, as has been the case in California, Maryland, and now Missouri (and probably others).

Biggest Disappointment of 2006: the Church

Christians: shame on you. Do you obey Caesar or God? What evils have you sought to bring to an end? Gay marraige? Come on - you must be kidding. War? Bush hasn't had so many willing fighters. AIDS? That's a start at least. Poverty? ha ha ha. As Frank Rich notes in Sunday's NYT, it seems that religious leaders have been slow to catch on to the fact that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research."

What Martin Luther King wrote in his 1963 "Letter from Birmingham City Jail" is as appropriate now as it was then:

The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

Small Penis Rule, Part 2

I hasten to mention that I submit to Mr. Crowley's corollary to the small penis rule.

"The Small Penis Rule"

Check out this link over at TNR (The New Republic). It makes me want to become an author.

Overcoming Bias

Another website of interest: Overcoming Bias. This a group academic blog that features George Mason University Economist Robin Hanson. Some of you may remember around the time of the start of the Iraq War a mini-controversy about a Defense project using betting markets for predicting terrorist attacks. It was subsuquently shut down. It was Robin Hanson's brain child.

Legistorm

The title is the website Legistorm that displays the salaries of congressional staff members. Give it a look over, try to find one of your friends on the hill. The nexus of big money and politics apparently doesn't work its way down to members' staffs.

Environmentalism revisited (based on a Bill McKibben essay)

It has been pointed out that I came to this blog with a manifesto: a view that environmentalism must be re-visioned as a basic value rather than a political or special interest. In an August 2006 essay published in National Geographic, Bill McKibben expounds on this line of reasoning.

He begins by declaring 2005 the year in which “we finally started to understand what we are in for,” in regard to global climate change.

In 2005, much attention was focused on an increase in powerful hurricanes, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and thawing permafrost in northern latitudes. In 2005, scientist James Lovelock stated we have passed the point of no return: too much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere, and runaway global warming is inevitable (global warming may be a positive feedback system that perpetuates itself). In 2005, a NASA climatologist discussing the instability of Greenland’s ice shelf told reporters that “we can’t let it go on like this” for another ten years, without causing changes that would constitute “practically a different planet.” In 2005, even a close friend of the oil industry (President Bush) declared the US to be “addicted to oil.”

Given the likelihood that we are facing a global catastrophe (whether or not 2005 was the year in which we started to "get it"), McKibben points out that environmentalism as we know it is not designed handle such an issue. The first modern environmentalists in the US set out to protect remaining wilderness areas and ameliorate damage to certain ecosystem services (i.e., the Clean Air Act). In these goals, they have been largely successful. However, planet-wide degradation of the climate from industrialization is operating on a vastly different scale, and thus far, has not been addressed in an even remotely satisfactory fashion. Why not?

Here’s how McKibben puts it:

“The old paradigm works like this: We judge just about every issue by asking the question, Will this make the economy larger? If the answer is yes, then we embrace whatever is in question – globalization, factory farming, suburban sprawl. In this paradigm, the job of environmentalism is to cure the worst effects, and endless economic growth makes that job easier. If you’re rich, you can more easily afford the catalytic converter for the end of the tailpipe that magically scrubs the sky above your city.

But it turns out that, above all else, endless economic growth is built on the use of cheap fossil fuel…Precisely the same fuels that gave us our growth now threaten our civilization.”

Or, to put an artistic spin on it, Tom Robbins discusses “The Lie of unlimited expansion” in Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas:

“We built ourselves a fine commercial bonfire, but then instead of basking in its warmth...we became obsessed with making it bigger and hotter, bigger and hotter, until if the flames didn’t leap higher from one quarter to the next, it was cause for great worry and dissatisfaction. Well, any Bozo on the riverbank could have told us that if you keep feeding and feeding and feeding a bonfire, sooner or later you burn up all the fuel and the fire goes cold; or else the fire gets too huge to manage and eventually engulfs the countryside and chars its inhabitants. Nature has always set limits on growth: limits on the physical size of individual species, limits on the size of populations. Did we really believe capitalism was exempt from the laws of nature? Did we really confuse endless consumption with endless progress?”

The point is this: unbridled economics have drastically improved the material quality of our lives, but at a tremendous cost. That cost is being borne by every inhabitant of our planet. Regardless of your political affiliation or personal beliefs, we all have to live here, thus, it is in your own interest – literally – to “be an environmentalist.”

This is a radical idea: for everyone to embrace a broader, deeper sense of environmentalism. McKibben: “For that to happen, we’d need to change…dramatically…We’d need to see ourselves differently – identity and desire would have to shift.” Those in the developed world would need to voluntarily reduce such luxuries as eating whatever produce we desire year-round, living in enormous houses, driving large cars whenever and wherever we please.

Can we actually do that? Can we truly reduce these luxuries? McKibben notes that since World War II, the American standard of living has nearly tripled (compare growing up in the 30s to growing up in the 60s to growing up in the 90s). However, in the same time period, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves “very happy” has remained steady. We don’t need these luxuries to be happy. They are not the bounty of our inalienable right to pursue happiness.

So, perhaps it is not too radical of an idea. If we can still live our lives with the same measure of happiness, and reduce our impact on the planet, it sounds downright reasonable. Perhaps we can even enhance happiness – many environmentalist ideas embrace holistic approaches that build a sense of community (i.e. community gardens), a tried and true source of happiness.

What We Learn From Borat

I've been following the Borat discussions that have ensued the release of Sacha Baron Cohen's blockbuster movie, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Everyone recognizes that this satire, as well the character Borat in Da Ali G Show, exposes something unattractive about American life. But what exactly? There are two chief theories. First, being a foreigner with odd and perverse beliefs, the presence of Borat somehow naturally makes Americans feel more comfortable sharing their own odd and perverse beliefs, beliefs that they normally suppress except in extraordinary circumstances. This is the view that S. B. Cohen himself once expressed.

The second theory has been well formulated by Christopher Hitchens writing in Slate: "But it's that attitude of painfully maintained open-mindedness and multiculturalism that is really being unmasked and satirized by our man from the 'stan." According to Hitchens, Borat shows Americans most vividly what their multiculturalism amounts to with respect to the racist and sexist beliefs and actions of a man like Borat. Most Americans probably disagree with Borat, but they nonetheless act toward him and his beliefs with respect.

Both theories I think constitute the core of the story. When we combine them, however, we get a new, third theory: Borat reveals to us when it is political correct to be politically incorrect. Borat shows that Americans will express politically incorrect views in order to act politely in regards to a foreigner. If we look at how the Americans relate to this strange foreigner, they appear polite to a fault. Yet at the same time, if we focus on the politically incorrect, prejudiced opinions they assent to or espouse in the process, they appear to be a perverse, even dangerous group of people. But once we see that many of Borat's victims say politically incorrect things in order to act in a polite, politically correct way, we are able to laugh at Borat's encounter with rather ordinary American customs. Without the mixture of politically correct actions and politically incorrect beliefs on the part of Borat's victims, Borat's hijinks would not be funny. Borat thrives, then, not just on political incorrectness, but on a multiculturalism of political correctness as well.

The Return of Fancy Ray

Some time ago, the malevolent Mandingo wrote of departing Minneapolis legend Fancy Ray, also known as the best-looking man in comedy, also known as the Human Chocolate Orchid.

Well, after a sabbatical rivaling the PiedPiper's, Fancy Ray will be back on cable access for a special episode of Drinking with Ian. The episode will run on MCN 6 at 12:30 p.m. on both November 16 and November 23.

And, in case you want to gain some familiarity with Fancy Ray in the meantime, check out this video from 1994, where our enigmatic host plays with a youthful Weird Al. Wow.

Pie-Eyed Poll: Slackin' To Victory '06 Edition

Hear ye, hear ye, the Pie-Eyed Poll on global warming, which has been tallying votes for many moons, is now finished. This exhaustive study is now ranked as one of the definitive scientific tomes on the subject of climate change, and its results will be combed over by climatologists for decades. The journal Nature is, in fact, publishing our findings in its next edition. However, the statistics below represent the first time this information has been disseminated to the public. Our findings:

Question: What is your interpretation of global warming?

Inconvenient Truth - 53% (68 votes)
Convenient Truth - 37% (48 votes)
Outright Lie - 3% (4 votes)
Half-Truths and Fuzzy Science - 7% (9 votes)

I'm still waiting on analysis from Jeff Greenfield - crack statistics guy at CNN - but I'm pretty sure this poll is important in many ways.

And now, the Pie-Eyed Picayune tackles another major question of the day: How much did the Democrats shelac the Republicans in 2006?

Remember, PePpers: Vote early and vote often!

The Beginning of a Great or Terrible Joke, Depending Upon Your Perspective

So, George Allen and Jim Nussle walk into a bar, and.......

(Leave your punchline in the Comments!)

And, yes, this is how I chose to return to the blog after yet another extended hiatus.

On Politicians of Two (or more) Minds

Some have in their heads the idea that it is bad for politicians to change their mind, not to mention 'flip-flop.' Any thinking person will tell you that this idea is stupid. Listen to John Milton's seventeenth-century prose:

Certainly parliament ought always to be impartial and free to consult the commonwealth's interests as well as is possible according to the occasion; nor should they be so devoted to their previous opinions that they should feel scruples later on about voting more wisely for themselves or the commonwealth when God has given them the understanding and the opportunity to do so.

Other random note

I haven't looked much into this but it looks like marriage amendments were successful in the face of the democratic wave.

John Bolton, US/UN Ambassador...

Looks to be the next official on the way out.

Rumsfeld Stepping Down...

To be replaced by an Ex-CIA chief. Drudge has the sirens going.

Hang Him High

It was announced yesterday that Saddam Hussein was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging.

Does anyone else find the timing of the announcement rather convenient? Since when does any court release their verdict and sentences on a Sunday, unless of course it is the Sunday before a congressional election where any good news out of Iraq could help Republicans. Maybe releasing the news the day before the election just seemed far too obvious, plus that wouldn’t give the president enough time to utilize the announcement for political purposes.

I think that Riverbend, author of the blog Baghdad Burning, summed up the situation the best.

The most ironic part of the ruling is that the crimes that Saddam was convicted of actually took place one year before the famous meeting of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld.

Economist Blog

The Economist has jumped onto the blog bandwagon and has two new blogs: Free Exchange and Democracy in America. The primary contributor is Megan McArdle. She writes under the pseudonym "Economist.com/New York" also has a great blog Asymetrical Information where she writes under the pseudonym "Jane Galt".

For those of you that enjoy reading economics blogs I would recommend Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen of George Mason University) and Greg Mankiw's blog (of outsourcing fame).

Overheard on the Radio

"My father never told me to play the blues. But he didn't tell me not to. Heh heh."
—some dude who now plays the blues

Prince as Elvis

Pack your bags we're going to Vegas. Prince will be taking his act "indefinitely" to the Rio Hotel and Casino in Vegas.

Comments on Kerry

John Kerry has yet again put his foot in his mouth. I am sure Rove is locked in some little nook with pictures of J.F.K. part never pasted all over a wall chortling as he engages in self-gratification. That said I think this moment will be forgotten quickly. I think this is yet more evidence that stands in the way of this notion of Kerry being smart. The guy is a moron. He got worse grades sober than Bush did drunk.

All of that aside, I find this depressing. Rewind to '04, those were the choices: Bush-Kerry. How is it that knuckle-draggers become viable candidates for the most important position in the world?

Barbara Cubin: less than a gem

An election-frenzy surprise: Republican Barbara Cubin, the six-term Representative from Wyoming, is in trouble. The most recent poll shows her Democratic challenger, Gary Trauner, within the margin of error (44 to 40 points, if I recall correctly).

The GOP is providing major cash for her re-election, unusual in such a red state.

What's the problem with Cubin?

Well, maybe it's the racial slur she uttered on the House floor in 2003. Maybe it's the ties to Jack Abramoff (though these seem weak) and Tom Delay.

Maybe it's the comment she made to her opponent from the Libertarian party after a recent debate: "if you weren't in that chair, I'd slap you." (the Libertarian opponent happens to have multiple sclerosis and be in a wheelchair)

These embarrasments are described by wikipedia.

Maybe it's her lack of political presence and performance, despite a decade in the House.

Beyond that, her probable intimacy with mining/extraction call into question her ability to fairly represent the people of Wyoming.

The fact that she seems to lack decency and common sense probably doesn't help.

According To Michele Bachmann All Muslims Are Going To Hell & The Pope Is The Antichrist Vol. 2

So the Star Tribune finally picked up the story of Michele Bachmann’s synod’s view that the Pope is the Antichrist and last night on the 6 o’clock news WCCO ran a story about it (though I can’t find a link to the video).

Here is what Catholics United For The Common Good had to say about Bachmann.

Its about time this gets some attention and since it is exactly one week before the election it couldn’t have come a moment to soon.

See also: According To Michele Bachmann All Muslims Are Going To Hell & The Pope Is The Antichrist

Look What We Started

Some of you may remember a recent post of mine entitled According To Michele Bachmann All Muslims Are Going To Hell & The Pope Is The Antichrist, where I brought up the questions of whether or not Michele Bachmann believes that the Pope is the Antichrist since the synod she belongs to holds that belief.

Well I was perusing WCCO’s website recently and found this video where the issue has finally been raised. Hopefully this becomes a major campaign issue over the next week considering that 30% of voters in the 6th district are Catholic.

Furthermore if our little blog ends up having anything to do with Michele Bachmann not getting elected I think the country owes us a debt of gratitude, and by gratitude I mean six packs of beer…I personally enjoy Summit.

Starbucks…You Bastards

So there was an interesting article in The Guardian today concerning Ethiopia’s attempt to copyright certain styles of coffee that are indigenous and specific to the coffee growers of Ethiopia. Basically if Ethiopia is allowed to copyright three types of coffee they could increase the market value of Ethiopian coffee that is exported from the country by 25% or an extra $88.8 million yearly (I converted the figure into American dollars). This is a giant increase considering Ethiopia is one of the most impoverished countries in the world.

So I and most other people would see this as a very positive thing, a way that a struggling African economy can improve the living conditions of its citizens without any additional international aid or debt relief that is so long as you are not Starbucks.

Starbucks is working hard to ensure that all of these copyright applications are denied. But keep in mind that so far this year Starbucks has enjoyed a 22% rise in annual global turnover, equaling $14.7 billion.

I think Phil Bloomer, Oxfam's policy director, summed up the situation perfectly:

"Starbucks has made some progress towards helping poor farmers in recent years, but their behavior on this occasion is a huge backwards step, and raises serious questions about the depth of their commitment to the welfare of their suppliers. By acting responsibly, they could set an example for others by supporting Ethiopia's plan to help the 15 million struggling Ethiopian farmers who depend on coffee for their survival."

So there you have it, that is why Starbucks is nothing more then one big over caffeinated global bastard.

God Spoke To Me In A “Vision” and Told Me Michele Bachmann Is A Nut Job

Alright so I am sure that many of you have either seen or heard of Michele Bachmann’s speech that she gave at the Living Word Christian Center last weekend. Aside from the fact that the pastor broke IRS tax laws by publicly endorsing Bachmann, which is ironic since Bachmann is a tax lawyer, the best parts of the video are Bachmann’s own comments. Here are some of my favorites:

1) “It wasn’t a big romantic surge that led us to each other [her husband] it was his [God’s] word. We were praying one night, a girl friend and I, not my husband, and the lord gave each one of us the exact same vision. And it was this, it was a picture of me, marrying this man in the valley where his parents have a farm in western Wisconsin…I had no idea that at the same time the Lord was speaking to my husband and he showed my husband in a vision that he was suppose to marry me…and over the next two years the lord began to romantically knit these two hearts together.”

2) “And eventually the Lord took me to law school, I went to the first Christian law school there was in the United States down at Oral Roberts University where they taught the law from a biblical world view, and from there my husband said now you need to go and get a post doctorate degree in tax law. Tax law? I hate taxes, why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says be submissive, wives you are to be submissive to your husbands. So we moved to Virginia Beach, Virginia and I went to William & Mary to law school to get a post doctorate degree in tax law and I pursued this course of study. Never had a tax course in my background, never had a desire for it, but by faith I was going to be faithful to do what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.”

3) “God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought what in the world would that be for? And my husband said you need to do this and I wasn’t so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed, we said Lord is this what you want? Is this your will? And on the afternoon of day two he [the Lord] made that calling sure.”

So there you have it, sound life advice courtesy of Michele Bachmann. When making any important life decision simply wait for God to talk to you through a “vision” or be submissive and do exactly what your husband tells you to do. Does she scare the bejesus out of anyone else or just me?

According To Michele Bachmann All Muslims Are Going To Hell & The Pope Is The Antichrist

So I had a little extra free time at work today and decided to take a look at Michele Bachmann’s website and discovered in her biography section that she is a member of Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church of Stillwater which is associated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. So I decided to check out the WELS website and discovered a fun little tool on there, the Q & A section.

Here are some of the best parts of what the church that Michele Bachmann belongs to believes in:

“From my personal reading I believe Islam (reflecting statements in the Quran and historical developments of a fairly consistent ideology) has never been a tolerant religion and actively seeks peace only if it does so for its own purposes--eventually to dominate the world religiously and culturally.” (link)

“Although Muhammad was an antichrist and Islam is anti-Christian, we do not identify Muhammad with the Antichrist because he does not fit the description in 2 Thessalonains 2:1-2.” (link)

“. . . we accept that the Pope is the Antichrist . . . because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy.” (link)

So there you go, basically according to the church that Michele Bachmann proclaims to be a member of (1) Muslims are trying to dominate the world religiously and culturally, (2) all Muslims are going to hell, (3) Muhammad was an antichrist but he wasn’t THE antichrist, and (4) the coveted spot of THE antichrist is reserved for the Pope.

Oh and her church doesn't believe in any form of evolution (link, sec. 2 #7) either.

Bush: A Failure In Diplomacy & Leadership

As I am sure everyone is aware earlier this week North Korea announced that they had successfully tested a nuclear devise. So now one of the craziest and by far the sexiest dictator in the world has nuclear weapons at his disposal. So what does all of this mean?

Well as far as the future goes I don’t think anybody, not even the pundits on the 24-hour news channels, have any idea. But all one has to do is look back at the policy of the Bush administration in relation to North Korea and see that it all adds up to one giant diplomatic failure and a complete inability on the part of President Bush to actually act as a leader.

Now I realize that when something goes bad for the Bush administration and Republicans the first thing they do is immediately blame everything on policies implemented during the Clinton administration. And that is exactly what happened; take for instance what Sen. John McCain said earlier this week during a speech in Detroit. McCain stated:

“I would remind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the Framework Agreement of the Clinton administration was a failure.”

Now for those of you not familiar with the Framework Agreement, this was an agreement reached through direct negotiations between the Clinton administration and North Korea. The agreement came after a very dire threat of war in 1994 and it froze North Korea’s entire plutonium facility at Yongbyon. There were seals on the doors, closed-circuit televisions, and at least two UN inspectors on the ground, 24/7, all the time. This agreement held from 1994 until 2002 and denied North Korea the plutonium that would have allowed them to make more bombs.

Now if one simply wants to look at this agreement and nothing else then it would be very easy to say that the policy failed since in 2002 North Korea purchased nuclear technology from America’s ally and close partner in the so called “war on terror” Pakistan, broke the terms of the Framework Agreement and restarted there nuclear program.

But to simply look at the breakdown of the agreement outside of the broader Bush foreign policy would be completely naïve. So what happened in 2002 that could have had an impact on North Korea’s decision to violate the Framework Agreement?

In January of 2002 in Bush’s State of the Union address he famously referred to North Korea as one part of the "axis of evil", Bush announced his policy of preemption, and under the policy of preemption we illegally invaded Iraq. And in response to these actions North Korea made the decision that America would not take action against a nuclear power, the reason why we invaded the weakest of the three so called "evil" nations first, and thus North Korea resumed their nuclear program. Couple this with the fact that since coming into office, President Bush, unlike his predecessor, has refused repeated overtures by Kim Jong Il to open direct talks, insisting that all negotiations with North Korea occur within a 6-party framework.

So basically the Bush administration’s arrogance, stubbornness and complete lack of diplomatic tact is one of the major causes of North Korea’s rise to a nuclear power. And history will now forever record President Bush’s legacy as being the sitting American president who allowed North Korea to become the world’s ninth, yes ninth because unlike everyone in the corporate media I am not forgetting about Israel, nuclear power.

I would also like to take this time to thank all of the unwavering, flag flying Bush supporters out there. Thanks to your collective ignorance and steadfast fear that around every corner lurks some phantom terrorist ready to kill you, the world is now neck deep in the worst nuclear crisis since the Cold War.

To all of you brainwashed Bushites, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart, you may have just f*cked us all.

Comparison

"L'etat, c'est moi" - Louis XIV (1638-1715), King of France

"I am the decider" - George W. Bush (2006), U.S. President

Classic

"In a speech in Iowa, John Kerry said he is not sure whether he is running for president. Not sure? Really? What are you doing in Iowa?"
—Jay Leno

Time To Bust Out Your Homer Hanky's

It's nice that in the run up to a major midterm election and a very divided populous that there is still one thing that can bring us all together, Twins Baseball!!!!

So with the Twins taking on the Athletics tomorrow at noon it is time for everyone to bust out their 2006 homer hanky (if they can find one), a past homer hanky, or in Mandingo's case a soiled bath towel and show your Twins pride.

GO TWINS!!!!!

Democrats Blow

I made the Star Trib.

Bollocks…That Is What This Bill Is

Late today the Senate gave the go ahead to President Bush’s detainee bill by a vote of 65-34. Here is what 609 law professors wrote in a letter to Congress concerning the legislation that President Bush will, in all likelihood, be signing on Friday in a grand we are tougher on terrorism then they are ceremony:

"Taken together, the bill’s provisions rewrite American law to evade the fundamental principles of separation of powers, due process, habeas corpus, fair trials, and the rule of law, principles that, together, prohibit state-sanctioned violence. If there is any fixed point in the historical understandings of constitutional freedom that help to define us as a people, it is that no one may be picked up and locked up by the American state in secret or at an unknown location, or without opportunity to petition an independent court for inspection of the lawfulness of the lockup and of the treatment handed out by the state to the person locked up, under legal standards from time to time defined by Congress. This core principle should apply with full force to all detentions by the American state, regardless of the citizenship of detainees."

Sen. Dayton Needs to Stand Up and Lead The Spineless Democrats!

Yesterday the House approved the Bush administration supported Detainee Bill which sets standards for prosecuting alleged “unlawful enemy combatants”. Debate began on this topic back in June after the Supreme Court struck down the military commissions Bush had established to try people suspected of being members of al-Qaeda.

The main problem with the bill that was passed by the House and the bill currently being debated in the Senate is that these bills miss the point, that being that both versions strip away the fundamental right to habeas corpus, the right to challenge your detention in a court of law.

The bill also does not clearly define the term “unlawful enemy combatant” and therefore under the language of the bill any U.S. citizen could have their right to habeas corpus stripped from them so long as the executive branch labels you an “unlawful enemy combatant”. Here is what the bill states:

"(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(c) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who --
(A) is currently in United States custody; and
(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." (p. 82)"

However Sen. Specter and Sen. Levin have introduced an amendment to the Senate version of the bill which would grant habeas corpus rights to detainees.

If the Specter-Levin Amendment is not included in the Senate version of this bill then Democrats must stand up and stop this bill through any means necessary.

The problem is, as the Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday, that Democrats are not planning any organized effort to filibuster the controversial military commissions and detainee treatment bill even though many do not agree with some of the specifics in the legislation. Democratic aides say they did not want to give Republicans an opportunity to paint them into a corner ahead of the November elections. One senior Democratic aide said “We’re going to do what we can to limit the amount of daylight between us and them on national security issues in order to neutralize this as a political issue.”

I find the argument that is being made by Democrats to be completely spineless and yet ironic. For years now the Democrats have been making the argument that Republicans are playing politics concerning matters of our national security and constitutional rights, yet when the time comes for them to finally stand up and protect one of America’s most basic constitutional freedoms they are refusing to do so because it is an election year. It basically just demonstrates exactly what is wrong with our two party political system, that being that neither party cares about doing what is right, they only care about maintaining power or gaining more power, and frankly it is pathetic.

I am making the argument that a filibuster is completely necessary, and the perfect person to do so would be Sen. Dayton. He is not seeking a second term and has no need to worry about any political repercussions for doing so. But alas I have almost as little faith in Dayton’s ability to stand up for what is right as I have faith in Senate Democrats actually growing a spine.

In the end I am sure this bill will pass and everyone will get back to campaigning, because getting elected or reelected is much more important then protecting basic American ideals of justice and fairness.

I think a recent editorial in the New York Times summarized the Democrat’s response perfectly: "Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts."

FINALLY...SOMEONE SAID SOMETHING!!!!

Gentlemen: Beware of Mute Virgins

When scrutinizing a potential mate, be sure you figure out his or her disposition before you decide to marry. Many of the "best govern'd men," writes John Milton in his famous Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, "knows not that the bashfull muteness of a virgin may oft-times hide all the unliveliness and naturall sloth which is really unfit for conversation." Translation: she may be less bashful than utterly stupid.

Brand Identity

Why don't liberals/DLCers/Progressives go by the moniker Social Democrats? It's a label that hasn't caught on in Americ but seems more appropriate than others.

Naughty Benedict

The Pope recently gave a speech that caused quite an uproar. The thrust of the speech was to engage Post-Christian Europe or rather to scold Europe for its atheism. Of greater consequence, Benedict also quoted an old text, essentialy to disguise his own voice, to assert themes of violence within Islam. Certainly Pope Benedict's statements were less than tactful. However, I am sure that there are better ways to challenge the Pope's assertion of Islam's innate tendencies towards violence than by burning churches and threatening to assasinate the Pope. Just a thought.

Men Are More Intelligent Than Women, Claims New Study

Ok, I am linking to an article that I haven't read, but I was so excited by the headline (which also happens to be my headline). See, whenever my girlfriend and I get into an argument, I try to reason with her that we should stop because I am right. My standard line is "I'm right, you're wrong because I'm a man and you're a woman", at which point she knees me in the groin. Frankly, that is an irrational response and corroborates my original point, which is that I am right becuase of my innately superior reasoning capabilities. Now I have proof and I will say "I'm right, you're wrong because I'm a man and you're a woman, a study says so!" I just need to get a cup before I try it out.

On Plagiarism

I read in an article today that "Peter Levin, a former lecturer at the London School of Economics, has produced a guide to avoiding plagiarism," in which "he says the system of learning promoted in western universities - with its reliance on learning from other people's writing and lectures - actually forces students and academics to plagiarise."

Here's my question: how else are people supposed to learn if not from other people's writings and lectures? Ideas and words, I'm sorry to have to say, do not float around in the ether; they come from what people say, and people like to write things down so that their utterances endure and can be passed on. The claim that learning from lectures and texts practically "forces" one to plagiarize sounds like something one would hear from a student caught in the academically dishonest act of plagiarism.

From my experience, the best thing to do to discourage plagiarism is to be specific about what is expected that the student will do in his or her paper. In this way you can "force" students to write something that is more than a reproduction of what has already been written down by someone else.

Best Line of the Day

From Christopher Buckely in "Let's Quit While We're Behind":

'My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to “Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change.”'

The Greatest Career Stats in the History of Sports

I know that the PeP doesn't much cover sports, but I just stumbled upon this on my daily espn.com browse. Charlton Jimerson, which is without a doubt a fantastic name, has the best possible line for a baseball player. Batting 1.000 with a 4.000 slugging percentage. His OPS is, then, 5.000. Not even Albert Pujols can beat that.

Senate Debate from the Great Minnesota Get-Together

Shorter Mark Kennedy:

"Amy Klobuchar is negative and made me feel bad....Oh, and she is a bad person and will do a bad job and everything is bad about her."

Batten down the hatches, it's going to be a cold one

As reported in the NY Times and elsewhere, The Farmers' Almanac has released its winter outlook. If you love the feel of frozen nostrils and the bite of frostnip, you're in for a good winter.

The Farmers' Almanac, using a top secret meterological formula involving astronomy and sunspots, has been giving weather predictions since 1818; it is reportedly on-target 80% to 85% of the time.

According to the Almanac, this winter will bring temperatures as much as 40 degrees colder than last winter for the entire country, and particularly for the near west (Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana). The midwest may also see unusually heavy snowfall.

If you ask me, as of today they are spot-on. Here in Wyoming we had a painfully warm/hot summer, but two weeks ago it was like a switch was flipped, and autumn arrived. Last week we posted two 39 degree mornings, and Saturday's overnight low is 31 degrees. Last year at this time it was sticky hot in the day and 50 degrees at night.

Just across the valley, a friend of mine did the drive over the Snowy Range two weeks ago - a road up to about 10500 ft - through a thick snowfall.

Conservatives and Liberals Unite, Realize They Still Don't Like One Another

I'm not sure if anyone else was following this, but it seems that little birdies that live in Alaska don't like having their government pork suspended.

The Scenario: Sens. Obama and Coburn, in a bi-partisan lovefest, sponsor a bill that would create a searchable database of governmental expenditures, "The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" (S. 2590). The searchable database will have Google-like capabilities, and will be called Fedoogle. Or FFundoogle. FFAToogle. Frogger.

Democrats love this idea because it will help their constituents uncover Republican pork. Republicans love this idea because it will help prove to their constituents that Democrats waste money on social programs. Everyone wins. Just like those soccer games that 7 year olds play where the coach buys pizza when the team gets outscored. Hooray.

The bill had broad support, and was supposed to be voted on before the August recess, but all of a sudden it was stopped in its tracks. What could it be? Some bad press? A scandal involving former interns and blowjobs?

Of course not. It was the arcane Senate tradition that allows Senators to put "secret holds" on bills and doesn't allow them to come to a vote until these holds are taken off.

The political blogiverse (blogosphere is so 2005) went wild, with the right and the left teaming up to call their Senators until ever galdamned one of them 'fessed up to their secret holding ambitions. And who should we find as the culprit after all of this? Why, Ted Stevens, bridge-to-nowhere man, the king of pork. TPMMuckraker notes that Stevens was concerned about the cost of the bill. Which was something like 15 million dollars. Yes, 15 followed by 6 zeroes. We spend that about every 2 and a half hours in Iraq. Ted Stevens appropriated/porked 223 million for a bridge linking an island with no people to a city with no people. I mean, no people need bridges. But not 223 million dollar bridges. They need Indiana Jones-type rope bridges or something.

So Senator Stevens is evil, the blogiverse has done its job and rooted out another Republican trying to pork the United States until satiated. Left and Right, everyone comes together to feel good and eat marshmallows.

Until, of course, we found out that former Exalted Cyclops (the Klan knows how to do phallic innuendo) Robert Byrd (D-WV) also put a secret hold on the bill. He has since released it, but it does no good since the Senate went into recess on August 2 and we've had to wait all this time and get all this in-a-huff over it. I want my Fedoogle.

"The Scream" Found by Norwegian Police

As a recovering Art History major I have been monitoring this story. Last year Edvard Munch's "The Scream" was stolen in broad daylight. One massive Henrik Ibsen book burning and Norway was pretty much up the creek as far as cultural contributions go.

For Your Reading Pleasure

An interesting piece from the Democratic Stratagist that isn't just Lakoff Wankery: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0609/kima.php

DOUCH BAG

I believe you meant Douche Bag.

Here is the definition from Dictionary.com

douche  /duʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[doosh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, douched, douch‧ing.
–noun
1.a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity for medicinal or hygienic purposes.
2.the application of such a jet.
3.an instrument, as a syringe, for administering it.
4.a bath administered by such a jet. –verb (used with object)
5.to apply a douche to. –verb (used without object)
6.to use a douche or douches; undergo douching.

Cavity, hmmmm. Anyhow, I can't get terribly excited about Rep. Wiener's comments. You are correct in that the State Department does not consider the PLO a terrorist organization. I suppose I am more likely to get excited by such an omission than Rep. Wiener's misstatements of the facts.

Why Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Has That Last Name

Recently Amy Goodman interviewed New York Democratic Congress member Anthony Weiner. Back in May Wiener successfully added an amendment to a House bill banning aid to the Palestinian Authority. The amendment would outlaw the Palestinian delegation at the United Nations and kick them out of the United States. Here is a transcript of part of the interview:

AMY GOODMAN: You called for the Palestinian delegation to the UN to pack their bags, or more specifically, to pack their “little Palestinian terrorist bags.”

REP. ANTHONY WEINER: Right, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

REP. ANTHONY WEINER: Well, for the longest time, the Palestinian -- the PLO Mission -- PLO hasn’t been an accepted voice of the Palestinians for the longest time. Congress has said very clearly back in the 1980s, as recently as the middle of the 1990s, that they were not welcome here in the United States. And frankly, the PLO is an organization that, frankly, no longer seems to represent anyone, but they're still considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

AMY GOODMAN: So would you call the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a terrorist?

REP. ANTHONY WEINER: No.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, the people who are at the UN --

REP. ANTHONY WEINER: Not the Mission of the Palestinian Authority. This is the PLO Mission. Mahmoud Abbas does not represent -- I hope he doesn't represent the PLO. He certainly doesn't say he does. He represents the Palestinian Authority. The PLO is a terrorist organization. It’s acknowledged it’s a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. And the only reason that they're still there is because a court ruled that they were an adjunct of the United Nations, and thus there were two conflicting laws that are in place about -- one that says the PLO has to leave the United States and the other that says that missions to the United Nations may stay. And so, frankly, I think that what I tried to do with the amendment you're referring to is just clarify the PLO is not welcome in the United States, nor should they be.

AMY GOODMAN: They represent the Palestinian government. The Palestinian government is led -- the president is Mahmoud Abbas.

REP. ANTHONY WEINER: Not true. The PLO Mission, the PLO Mission. The Palestinian Liberation Organization is a terrorist organization and is acknowledged that by the United States government. The Palestinian Authority, which is headed by Mahmoud Abbas -- arguably that doesn't represent the Palestinian people anymore since the election either, but that’s a whole different story. But the PLO is a terrorist organization, and I believe that they should lose their quasi-diplomatic status, as they no longer represent anyone -- any of the Palestinians, and they are considered a terrorist organization.

Unfortunately Weiner has no idea what he is talking about since Mahmoud Abbas was the successor to Yasser Arafat, when Arafat passed away and he became the chairman of the PLO Executive. So he's clearly a member of the PLO.

Secondly the PLO is not on the State Department’s list of terrorist organization. They were on the list in the 1980’s but have not appeared on it since 1988. Here is a link to the State Department if you want to check it out.

So Rep. Anthony Wiener (D-NY) since you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, although you do so with much passion, I am officially labeling you a DOUCHE BAG.

Rumsfeld Called Me a Nazi…kind of

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (pictured above) yesterday likened critics of the war in Iraq to those who tried to appease Nazi Germany during the 1930's. In a speech to the American Legion veterans group in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld referred to the period before World War II and said that "some seem not to have learned history's lessons...I recount that history because, once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism."

So apparently I and 60% of the people who live in the United States are now the modern day equivalent of Nazi appeasers because we have the audacity to actually question and criticize our president and his policies. Does anyone else see the irony of that?

I hope that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration are very comfortable in the unicorn filled bubble they are currently living in.

"Houses will begat jobs"

President Bush, trying to win some credit with the victims of hurricane Katrina in Mississippi, stated, “There will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.” Houses will begat jobs??? Even Google was confused when I typed that in, suggesting instead that perhaps I meant to type "Homes will beget jobs."

I can understand how jobs may beget houses, but I'm a little confused as to how houses beget jobs. Maybe President Bush wanted to convey the message that there are a lot of homes to build in the wake of Katrina, and therefore many people will be employed to build them. But to a person who lost his home, being told that "houses will begat jobs" or that "jobs will begat houses" is not a very hopeful message, to say the least.

Pied, Dingo (ManGina) BE WARNED

Best lead in a Craigslist ad:
each of these bikes has one flat tire, just needs a new tube, both were purchased by my husband with plans to fix them up/modernize them into our new and spiffy commuter bikes, but i kicked his cheating ass out of the house and now i need to get rid of everything he left behind.

About Our "little blog"

The PeP, now harboring more than 500 posts (many of questionable credibility, to be sure), is many things, but it is not a "little blog." The Pie-Eyed Picayune has appeared on the websites of the City Pages and the Pioneer Press, both of the Twin Cities, and even, briefly, on the website of the Washington Post (via Technorati). We like to think - or at least I like to think - that nothing can be said about our blog that Nietzsche hasn't already said about man himself: "man is, relatively speaking, the most unsuccessful animal, the sickliest, the one most dangerously strayed from its instincts - with all that, to be sure, the most interesting!"

Forbes Study Seriously Flawed

Speaking anecdotally, no one who has visited America's largest cities—i.e., Chicago, Portland, Austin, New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, etc.—would rank the Twin Cities as the nation's second drunkest city. So when Anti-Everything advertised that Forbes's special report on "America's Drunkest Cities" offers Minneapolis-St. Paul as second only to Milwaukee, something is certainly mistaken. Sure enough, a quick look at the methodology behind David M. Ewalt's (pictured) report reveals a seriously flawed method of ranking.

The chief problem with Ewalt's rankings is that they are significantly more precise than his database allows. His data on "Drinkers," "Heavy Drinkers," and "Binge Drinkers" comes from the 2004 "Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey." The results for Minnesota can be found here. The results are state-level estimates often based on a small number of respondents. In 2004, the survey says, "almost 6 percent of Minnesota adults reported heavy drinking in the past 30 days. Minnesota adults are similar to adults nationally in reporting heavy drinking." Minnesota hovers right around the national median. Nothing new, nothing to write home about.

But in the hands of David M. Ewalt, author of "The Best-Selling Videogame Franchises," and " How To Become A Superhero," such data magically becomes a quasi-scientific way to rank the drunkest metros in America. What he doesn't say is that the difference between number 2 and number 10 is probably .1 percent, which is also probably well within the huge margin of error, if he bothered to calculate that. Forbes.com should not be trafficking in such bogus reports that don't withstand even the slightest scrutiny.

Here's To You...Drunkards

Forbes magazine just announced thier list of the top 35 drunkest cities in the country and Minneapolis/St. Paul ranked a very impressive second, getting beaten out by none other then Milwaukee.

I was just in Milwaukee last weekend and judging from the hundreds of people that showed up at 1 p.m. on a Saturday afternoon to throw back numerous beers on a local brewery tour I can't really argue with the second place finish.

But I am challenging everyone out there to take up the cause of getting the twin cities into the top spot next year, so when last call comes around and you know that you shouldn't have another I say go ahead, its not about you, your liver or how you are going to feel the next morning, it is about the greater good of the community.

Mangina: From Rags to Riches

One of the PeP's contributors has arrived. Why, it was only a few weeks ago that Mandingo, with barely a cent to his name, U-Hauled all of his worldly possessions and, with his new wife, started a new life in D.C. And now he's got something to write to the world about: a salary. It has allowed him to join a gym and clean his ass with plush, three-ply toilet paper, which is one of those luxuries of the rich and famous that is more trouble than functional, as it fails to prevent after-shower "rust stains." But no matter, he'll just buy a new towel when he finds that his is just rust (better not buy a red one).

But more importantly, he's found that a salary has given him time to reflect on the symbolism of his hair, which is thinning as fast as his youth is (symbolically) fading, leaving only a faint semblance, a dried husk, of his former, thick-haired, toilet-paper stealing self. For some people, their hair seems to thin in proportion to the profundity of their thinking, growing grey as they ponder an ageing world. Not Mandingo. He finds that the thickness of his hair is directly proportional to the "symbol of" the fecundity of his male generative powers. He laments that his hair may no longer signal that he is potent and generative.

What will people think? I don't know what people think of Mandingo's hair. But if they read his postings, from his first to his latest, they might think that he, to quote Xtra, "has managed to unwittingly emasculate himself before our eyes with his recent spate of pathetic, wimpering posts. Thus...[the] more fitting [name]: manGINA!"

Conservation: nuts and bolts

I have picked up a variety of jobs this summer to make ends meet; currently I am live-trapping black-footed ferrets in central Wyoming, as part of the recovery plan for this species, the rarest mammal in North America. Closely related to weasels, black-footed ferrets are small carnivores that feed almost exclusively on prairie dogs.

This species was declared extinct in 1979 after the last known individual died. In 1981, a pet dog on a private ranch in western Wyoming brought home a dead ferret, and the hunt was on for an extant population. Researchers found a small population near the town of Meeteetse. They brought several into captivity and began a successful breeding program, and re-introduction efforts have been underway since.

All the money involved, all the agencies, all the meetings - but how are ferrets, or any species for that matter, actually studied?

The field season, in which the wild populations are actually trapped, examined, tagged, and released, starts at dusk in a desolate Wyoming basin at 7PM.

At 6500 ft, August nights drop into the 40s. A crew of 13 people sort out spotlights, batteries, radios, GPS units, backpacks, and burrow traps. I spend the next 12 hours alone on foot, criss-crossing prairie dog towns, swinging my spotlight, looking for a pair of tiny green ferret eyes to peek out from a burrow. On the way, I see ferruginous hawks, mountain plovers, mice, long-tailed weasels, cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, swift foxes, coyotes, and pronghorn (during the day, this area looks like a rocky wasteland, littered with ankle-high sagebrush; hard to believe it sustains so much wildlife).

When I see a ferret, I set a trap and start hoping. If I catch one, I put it into a transfer tube and gingerly carry it back to the pickup, and drive it across the basin to the processing trailer. There, it will be anesthetized, examined, and tagged with an implanted microchip. After it recovers, I release it back at the trap site. Then I pick up my pack and return to walking. At 1AM I return to the truck for coffee and granola bars. I pull my traps and finish up as the sun rises.

Mandingo, ney, Henceforth: MANGINA

Mandingo has managed to unwittingly emasculate himself before our eyes with his recent spate of pathetic, wimpering posts. Thus, I call on Pied' to strip Mandingo of the Dingo in his title and change his handle to something more fitting: manGINA!

The MACACA Award Goes To: Andrew Young

In the tradition of my Senator, George Allen, this little blurb via The Plank from a since resigned Wal-Mart spokesperson, Andrew Young, on the virtues of Wal-Mart:

'In the [Los Angeles] Sentinel interview, Young was asked about whether he was concerned Wal-Mart causes smaller, mom-and-pop stores to close.
"Well, I think they should; they ran the 'mom and pop' stores out of my neighborhood," the paper quoted Young as saying. "But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores."'

Bikes vs. Cars

With the news of the death of a young woman on a bicycle near the U of M, we're going to get an earful of advice about bicycle safety, most of which we've already heard before. The main point is always that bike riders should wear a helmet. True enough. Nonetheless, it seems absurd to me that our first reaction is to blame the person on the bike for not being a "safe" enough driver. If a motor vehicle hits a bike, the vehicle always wins, period. Blaming bikers for getting entangled among cars is like blaming cows for mad cow disease -- it's not their fault.

Moreover, the idea - who knows where this comes from and why it is still circulated - that riding on sidewalks makes bikers more invisible to cars is absurd. It's safer on the sidewalk, if only because there are no cars there. Truth be told, alert drivers see bikes and pedestrians on sidewalks all the time. And to those who think that sidewalk biking is dangerous for pedestrians, I have one thing to say: show me the evidence. Show me the headline: "Bicyclist mows down pedestrians, one dead."

"War on Terror": More than a Metaphor

Whereas a good metaphor brings us closer to an otherwise abstract reality, bad metaphors obscure and thus impede our ability to deal with reality. America's war on terror, as George Soros explains in a recent essay, is a war misguided by the metaphor "war on terror," which is unsuited to the phenomena to which it is applied. His fourth point bears repeating:

The war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

Quotables

From A DEFENSE OF ANN COULTER: Weenie Roastby Elspeth Reeve in the The New Republic:

'Or take Coulter's most infamous line: Writing about her friend's death on September 11, she finished her essay with, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Wow, that's pretty indefensible. The United States could never--would never--do such a thing. Instead, we've invaded their countries, killed their leaders, and are desperately trying to convert them to secularism. (It's not like mullahs appreciate the difference.)'

Professor Ahmadinejad

“Thus you will see how from a silly question many wise answers can be produced, and such is probably the cultural function of naive interviews.” —Umberto Eco

If you caught Mike Wallace's interview with President Ahmadinejad on 60 Minutes last Sunday, it was obvious that Wallace underestimated the sangfroid (GRE word!) of the Iranian president. Wallace confessed that he expected Ahmadinejad to be a "firebrand," rather than a smart professor (he still teaches a graduate level course), and acted accordingly. Wallace tried to badger the President into giving more "concise" answers, cutting him off, and asking him at one point to "just answer...yes or no." It was painful to watch Wallace attempt to get the President to speak more candidly.

Ahmadinejad handled Wallace masterfully. According to CBS's own transcript, the interview didn't even start with a question; Ahmadinejad started with an unequivocal proclamation: "I fully oppose the behavior of the British and the Americans." When Wallace tried to to ask him about Hezbollah, the tables were already turned. Ahmadinejad took control of the interview: "'Are you the representative of the Zionist regime? Or a journalist?' Ahmadinejad asked Wallace." Knowing that Wallace was in retirement and that this was probably his last interview, Ahmadinejad probably knew that this would make Wallace livid. "'I'm a journalist. I am a journalist,' Wallace replied"--pleaded, would be more accurate.

The interview did not get better for Wallace. "I think that you're getting angry," Ahmadinejad remarked. He was right. Wallace acted like a freshman frustrated at a professor's prolix way of answering questions. Ahmadinejad saw right through Wallace's attempt to appear tough and courageous: "'Do you, perhaps want me to say what you want me to say?' Ahmadinejad said to Wallace." Again, in these words, spoken in a very relaxed manner, Ahmadinejad displayed his control of the situation.

For his part, Ahmadinejad was rather successful in justifying his opinions and policies in terms of self-defense, independence, and international law. To justify his support of Hezbollah's actions, he appealed to the charter of the United Nations, which in his words affords every person "the right to defend his house." And to justify his words and actions against the U.S. occupation of Iraq—"I ask you, sir, what is the American army doing inside Iraq? Iraq has a government, a parliament"—he appealed to "international law" which on his account assigns the responsibility for providing security to "the occupying...army." "So," Ahmadinejad reasons, "I ask them...why are they not providing security?"

Moreover, Ahmadinejad deftly cast himself in the role of a great liberator and friend of oppressed people everywhere who desire peace. "I despise heinous action," he claimed, actions including Israel's recent invasion and occupation of Palestine, as well as America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, both of which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including innocent women and children. America, he says, wants to build "an empire," but Iran isn't going to "sit idly by and watch them with our hands...tied." From this interview it is evident that Professor Ahmadinejad has learned all too well, from his experience and his studies, that in the face of empire, if you rest on your laurals, you'll lose them.

The Meek

"Jesus said the meek would inherit the earth, but so far all we've gotten is Minnesota and North Dakota."

---Garrison Keillor, "The Old Scout," published 8/13/2006

Hypocrisy

Ilya's post brings to mind an important, albeit pernicious, undercurrent in political discourse today: hypocrisy or the other side of the coin, authenticity. Al Gore is proven to be a hypocrite, he comes nowhere close to approaching the carbon neutral lifestyle that he advocates for others. So he is a typical limousine liberal. That said, what of his views. This is ultimately the important point, what are the merits of the argument. Liberal commentators have for years bludgeoned Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich or other advocates of "family values" for their hypocrisy. Newt Gingrich for one left his wife while on her death bed for one of his staffers, thus constantly referred to as a "first rate political intellect and fifth rate personal character". It is quite easy in these instances to resort to ad hominem attacks, literally taking it to the man. But what of the merits of their arguments? Do we take it to the man because we find that easier than challenging the premise of their arguments or the resulting conclusion? I suspect the answer is yes.

More on the Al Gore Predicament

John Tierney is not the only columnist opining on what I've now deemed the Al Gore Predicament (the discussion on this blog begins here and continues here), which arises from simultaneously preaching carbon-conscious lifestyle choices yet continuing to live day by day in a way that can be accounted as rather carbon intensive. Yesterday, Peter Schweizer of USA Today remarked that "if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed." He went on to detail what many people see as Gore's excessive lifestyle, out of step with his concern to curtail Global Warming:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

I think it is true that Gore created this type of response himself, by virtue of the success of his own movie. As I predicted, "it will be Gore's moral achievement if the audience of his movie should come to accustom themselves with the facts, and demand real action from politicians." That's what they are doing, only "they" are more or less a number of right-wing pundits who want to paint Gore as your typical liberal hypocrite, and Global Warming as a red-herring. Schweizer concludes: "The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives."

Pie-Eyed Pickle of the Week: Joe Lieberman

Candidate Lieberman: you got bounced! Politics is not a nursery, either go home or plot a big comeback.

Overpopulation

For background, see the post and ensuing conversation on the possible folly of attempting to live a modern lifestyle that is quote-unquote sustainable. The map above is supposed to show population density - concentration of red - around the world. I can't verify it, but it seems reasonable to me.

Overpopulation and environmental issues: how intertwined are they? And how different is the relationship between these issues in different parts of the world?

I ask because I often hear the subject of overpopulation come up in environmental discussions; but aren't the environmental issues related to overpopulation vastly differently in sub-Saharan Africa than in a suburb of Cincinnati? In what locales/situations is overpopulation enough of an issue (in terms of both impact and tractability) to warrant problem-solving action?

An Inconvenient Spoof

To go along with our question of the week a new video has appeared online mocking Al Gore’s fight against global warming and his film “Inconvenient Truth". In the short video Gore appears as a sinister figure who brainwashes penguins and bores movie audiences by blaming the Mideast crisis and Lindsay Lohan's shrinking waist size on global warming. The video is purportedly the work of a 29-year-old video-maker in Beverly Hills. But ABC News reports that the video appears to actually be the work of the public relations and lobbying company DCI Group. The company’s clients include Exxon Mobil. I personally prefer this cartoon version of Captain Planet, I mean Al Gore, better.

Pie-Eyed Party: Celebrate Mandingo's Imminent Demise TONIGHT!

As a result of Mandingo and His Queen's impending Trail of Tears out to our nation's capitol, the Pie-Eyed Network is cordially invited to a celebration in their honor tonight at the one, the only Sweeney's Saloon and the Dale Street Wine Bar. (Because of Mandingo's creeping middle age, and thus his maturing taste, he will be drowning in Zinfandel at the wine bar while the rest of us who remain young and fun will be enjoying pitchers with Her Queenship in the bar.)

Good times assured; better times optional.

Also, let's hear three Pie-Eyed cheers to Mandingo and His Queen as they embark on this Fantastic Voyage...Coolio-style.

Sustainable Living: The Predicament of the Environmental Movement

In response to my post belittling the idea of sustainable living from the point of view of one man who lives off the grid of modern life, Xtra, true to form, remarked that "The clearest way towards sustainable living is for all of us to pull our lips over our heads and swallow." Indeed, the quickest way to save the planet and stop global warming would be for everyone to kill themselves - but this of course would defeat the purpose, which is above all to live on earth, and to live here in a way that does not make the world increasingly polluted and uninhabitable for present and future generations. As A Green Cowboy, true to form, insisted, the best way forward is for everyone to do whatever they can, however minor, to live a more sustainable lifestyle. In principle, again, this sounds good. But it tends to fail in practice, or to fail to inspire practices consistent with the principles.

Let me explain. Rarely do I find myself, as I do today, agreeing with John Tierney's op-ed, in which he writes that "environmentalist preachers like Gore [should be held] to higher standards." Those who preach the need to live in an environmentally sustainable way lose their authority, their ability to influence the actions of others, when their own actions so obviously fail to embody their own values. As Tierney writes, while Gore's movie offers fine advice about cutting back on traveling and doing so in energy-efficient ways, "it would be even better if he journeyed to his lectures exclusively on Greyhound. But he seems to prefer cars and planes. When you tally up his international travel to inspect melting glaciers and the domestic trips between his homes—one in Washington and another in Nashville, not to mention the family farm in rural Tennessee featured in the movie—you're looking at a Godzilla-sized carbon footprint." Further, Tierney states that if Gore really wanted to save energy, he would also sell his second (third? fourth?) home. "If you're going to own a second home while ordering everyone else to carpool," Tierney writes, "you must atone for your excesses, and it's not enough just to offset the carbon."

One could object that Tierney could multiply such examples forever, until the absurd conclusion is reached that we must live like this guy, or just kill ourselves, in order to live in the name of a better society and environment. But this objection misses Tierney's point. The point is that the principles behind the idea of reducing carbon emissions or what have you are in practice ineffective, or at the very least need to be thought-out in greater detail. In other words, the principle of energy-efficiency currently functions no differently than the concept of recycling, which allows people to claim that they are being responsible consumers - and to hiss at people who do not recycle - while they are consuming more and more. Likewise, the idea of, say, public transportation allows people to claim that they are helping the environment while at the same time they are contributing to its pollution by riding the bus. Such things are falsely called a step in the right direction. Instead, the right direction consists in an absolute reduction of waste and an absolute reduction in carbon emissions. As far as the environment is concerned, anything less is still relatively more. That is to say, what counts as a relative reduction in pollution on the part of humans, still counts as an absolute increase in the pollution of the environment. This is the predicament of the environmental movement.

St. Paul Riverfront

MNObserved commented in my previous post on cycling in St. Paul that I must be crazed to suggest industrial vacancies along the riverfront in Minnesota's fairer city. Respectfully, I dissent.

If you were to venture past the High Bridge, down around the Randolph Avenue area, you will notice a landscape utterly devoid of forward-thinking urban planning. The argument here is not whether there are industrial vacancies or not (though I beg you to witness a brand-new "light industrial" complex sitting completely empty, having no particular reason to exist other than to take up space), it's why the riverfront continues to exist in the state that it is.

You are correct that there's a new Science Museum, Eagle Street park, etc. etc. There's even the new condo/apartment buildings (Soviet-style, as you mentioned) that have cropped up. St. Paul has done a fine job reconstructing about three blocks of the riverfront. But the city has the wonderful advantage of having miles of riverfront that it has for decades squandered. Yes, there are logistical reasons for some of that development. But there are no reasons (that I can see) why that sort of development (heavy industrial) has to exist side-by-side with high-density residential around the city's greatest natural resource. The river would be better left as a nature sanctuary than to continue to delapidate in the state that it's in.

And, yes, there are train tracks. But there are myriad places that have train tracks without detracting substantially from the beauty of a natural landscape.

Now, there are (and have been) stirrings of turning this around. On the West St. Paul side of the river there is the somewhat-maligned Bridges of St. Paul project. The city has also had a long-range plan in play for greater integration between the river, residential, and commercial planning. I'm confident and optimistic that eventually St. Paul will have a vibrant riverfront that both protects the natural wonder and environmental sanctity of the river while capitalizing on it through "smart growth." None of this, however, changes the sad fact that the St. Paul portion of the Mississippi River has largely been wasted - both by being sold out for industrial purposes and as a result polluted - for years and years.