DEEPLY CHAGRINNED

Dictionary.com defines "Chagrin" thusly: "A keen feeling of mental unease, as of annoyance or embarrassment, caused by failure, disappointment, or a disconcerting event."

Yep, that's the emotion I'm feeling right now.

If it wasn't obvious from last night's post, I am trying very hard to avoid seeing the devastation wrought on New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina through my political glasses. I don't think it's a healthy response.

It's not that I'm feeling generous. It's not that I'm trying to be "non-partisan". It's not that I have any particular desire to give Bush a free pass. It is, as I said last night, that I want to "put that stupid little man aside so we can focus on the tragedy at hand."

And yet...

He just makes it so fucking hard (emphasis mine):

[I]t was Hurricane Andrew, which hit Florida in 1992, that really energized FEMA. The year after that catastrophic storm, President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt to be director of the agency. Witt was the first professional emergency manager to run the agency. Showing a serious regard for the cost of natural disasters in both economic impact and lives lost or disrupted, Witt reoriented FEMA from civil defense preparations to a focus on natural disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation. In an effort to reduce the repeated loss of property and lives every time a disaster struck, he started a disaster mitigation effort called "Project Impact." FEMA was elevated to a Cabinet-level agency, in recognition of its important responsibilities coordinating efforts across departmental and governmental lines.

Witt fought for federal funding to support the new program. At its height, only $20 million was allocated to the national effort, but it worked wonders. One of the best examples of the impact the program had here in the central Puget Sound area and in western Washington state was in protecting people at the time of the Nisqually earthquake on Feb. 28, 2001. Homes had been retrofitted for earthquakes and schools were protected from high-impact structural hazards. Those involved with Project Impact thought it ironic that the day of that quake was also the day that the then-new president chose to announce that Project Impact would be discontinued.

Indeed, the advent of the Bush administration in January 2001 signaled the beginning of the end for FEMA. The newly appointed leadership of the agency showed little interest in its work or in the missions pursued by the departed Witt. Then came the Sept. 11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Soon FEMA was being absorbed into the "homeland security borg."

This year it was announced that FEMA is to "officially" lose the disaster preparedness function that it has had since its creation. The move is a death blow to an agency that was already on life support. In fact, FEMA employees have been directed not to become involved in disaster preparedness functions, since a new directorate (yet to be established) will have that mission.

Why?

Why? What conceivable reason could one have for dismantling FEMA? This is one of those "basic functions of government" that I would assume even hard-core conservatives wouldn't have an issue with. So what was it? Was it simply because Clinton liked the program and strengthened it and made it into a success? Tell me that wasn't the reason.

shit. I just... I need a fucking drink.

(sigh)

Anyhow. The situation down there is turning out to be as bad as our worst imaginings. If you're looking to do something positive and immediate, go here and give whatever you can afford. Because odds are they're not going to get much useful help from Washington D.C.

|

OUCH!

OK, I am not usually one to get all hysterical about gas prices, but holy fucking shit. Gas at the local Citgo station I go to has gone up twenty five cents a gallon in one week. I am now paying $3.09 for a gallon of premium unleaded.

And this is because of, what, Katrina? Are you shitting me?

This is going to get ugly in a hurry.

|

KATRINA

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I saw that Kevin Drum had the following exhortation posted on his site:

At the risk of sounding overly righteous every time disaster strikes, can I please suggest that Katrina is really not an appropriate subject for partisan jabbing right now? That goes for both left and right.

My first reaction was simple: Who could he possibly be talking to? Surely no one could be trying to pin a natural disaster on Bush, right? And even the loony right... well, actually, come to think of it, I can see the right trying to pin it on us -- wrath of God for liberal decadence, yadda yadda -- but certainly we wouldn't be politicizing this. Right?

Well, my very next stop on the afternoon surfing rounds was Shakespeare's Sister, where Shaker "D" points out this item from Salon's Tim Grieve:

In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.

The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.

One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president.

This sparked some righteous fury at BushCo in the comments thread over at Sis' place, and in a truly disconcerting turn of events, I found myself defending the Bush administration.

First off, as commenter wally pointed out in that thread, this budgetary change doesn't take effect until 2006, so it obviously wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference to the ongoing, unfolding disaster down there. Still, some seem to think the point stands that addressing New Orleans' need to bolster it's levee system (as well as the related projects Grieve mentions) is the kind of thing we'd be better off spending money on than Bush's goddamned stupid infernal war of choice.

Look, all due respect, but give me a break.

There are five hundred thousand things we could be emptying the nation's wallet for that are infinitely more important, more pressing, and more deserving than Bush's illegal boondoggle in Iraq. School lunch program; Amtrak; National healthcare; Veterans benefits; Alternative energy crash program; Even Bush's fabled manned mission to Mars would be more deserving. Guess what? New Orleans' levees weren't at the top of most peoples' lists before yesterday. So getting outraged now because the Bushies planned to cut funding on this particular item just seems a little off to me.

Let me be clear: I am not accusing any of the fine people over at Sis' place of consciously trying to "score political points" on this. No, what I think is that, for some of us liberals, five years of anger -- completely justified anger -- at Bush and his minions has got us in a mindset where, whenever anything bad happens, our anger at Bush bleeds over into our reaction to that situation. And I think that, in situations like this where we're dealing with something that truly makes politics seem trivial -- something that, at its root, is inherently an apolitical event -- it helps to take a deep breath and put that stupid little man aside so we can focus on the tragedy at hand.

In a later post this evening, Shakes Sis points out that it is possible to hold these two thoughts -- sorrow at the tragedy and anger at the Bush administration's funding decisions -- in one's head at the same time. Well, sure it's possible. But why would you feel the need to?

|

HAPPY BLOGIVERSARY!

Today is my second Blogiversary here at TwoGlasses.com! You can read my first-ever entry here.

|

SCRABBLE

So, yeah, it's the weekend, and this is when I'm supposed to catch up with my blogging, right? So why am I slacking, right? Well, the awful truth is that I have a new addiction: Internet Scrabble Club. If you're into Scrabble at all, this is a great way to play and a hell of a way to raise your game (the people on here have iNsaNe scraBBle sKillZ). BTW, my handle is "MrToast" and my wife's is "MrsToast" if you ever feel like giving us a match.

|

ROBERTSON

So some in the GOP are criticizing Pat Robertson for his recent call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez?

U.S. Senators Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota and Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, said a call by U.S. televangelist Pat Robertson for the U.S. government to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was ``irresponsible'' and ``incredibly stupid.''

I'm sorry, but no, that's not enough. "Irresponsible" and "stupid" make it sound like this was some sort of tactical error on Robertson's part. How about "despicable" and "immoral" instead?

|

RUM

Rum is funny. Rum is a sneaky little alcohol. Rum is the ninja of hard liquors. It can disappear at will, passing almost undetected into one's drink.

My father-in-law bought Tracy and I a smoothie maker for a housewarming gift. I have been experimenting enthusiastically with this wonderful device. It is especially good for making pina coladas, the drink which Mrs. Toast and I are enjoying right this very moment, as our, um, reward for the 26-mile bike ride we just returned from.

Let me tell you, reader, I put enough rum into that mix to drop a hoard of grizzled pirates, and yet the beverage which my efforts yielded is... mild, pleasant, not at all harsh. So I sit here sipping happily, and yet I can almost sense the ninjas creeping through my bloodstream, ready to appear out of the shadows and wreak havoc.

Verily, I say that this evening could be quite entertaining.

This is not an isolated incident, as far as the rum goes. Every X-Mas, Tracy and I make eggnog with Captain Morgan's. Last year, I believe we got the ratio as far as 1-to-1, and ya still couldn't really tell it was a strong drink until it was way too late. Ah, Rum. You are my friend.

|

FOR IRAQI WOMEN, YES, THERE ARE FATES WORSE THAN SADDAM

During the run-up to the Iraq war, I, like many liberals sane people, urged the pro-war types I found myself debating to consider the possibility that things could go horribly wrong in Iraq -- that we could wind up with a government worse than Saddam Hussein's. My war booster friends and acquaintances believed this was simply hogwash. In fact, their ultimate fall-back position was that no matter what happened in Iraq, and no matter which of their justifications for war was found wanting, the resulting state would, almost by definition, have to be better than life under Saddam. Because Saddam, remember, was the Most Evil and Dangerous Man On Earth.

Well, funny how life works out sometimes, no? As Iraq's squabbling factions stumble through the constitutional process, one thing has become clear: Islamic law is going to play a major role. For those Iraqis with penises, this might not be such a big deal. But for the other half of the population? Well... I think Shakespeare's Sister summarized their plight rather well:

Great fucking job. Turn the most secular Arab state in existence into an Islamic state. Fabulous. Exactly what do Bush-worshipping American evangelicals have to say about this, considering there's a not insignificant Christian population in Iraq, who will now be compelled to live under Islamic law? And what does the W is for Women crowd have to say about this, considering that Iraqi women will now be subjected to Shariah, which would take replace the rights that women had under Saddam to marry and divorce who they wanted with a statute that would prevent women of any age to marry without their families' permission? This is madness. In one fell swoop, they have turned back literally decades of women's rights in Iraq.

When all other rationales for this war were proved devoid of substance, the Right yammered about a humanitarian intervention—and so did the hawkish Left. The last time I checked, women were humans, too, and they ought not to be left with less freedom than they had before we got there.

Yep. Right on the money.

Saddam, although nowhere near the Hitler Lite that the 101st Keyboarders made him out to be, was indeed a Bad Dude. For the women of Iraq, however, it's beginning to look like the Dictator you know really might have been better than the Mullas you don't know.

|

NYT RED-STATE REACHOUT?

This Sunday's New York Times features a front-page article by Jodi Wilgoren on the "controversy" being generated by proponents of "Intelligent Design" Creationism. The title of the article -- Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive -- is so absurd that I was left to wonder if this wasn't part of the Times plan to reach out to red-state voters. The nitwits in the IDC movement have no more put evolutionary theory "on the defensive" than the mosquitos in my back yard have me "on the defensive" seconds before I swat them.

The glowing, airbrushed treatment which Wilgoren gives the Discovery Institute (the primary focus of the article) is so embarrassingly uncritical it could have been written by the institute's marketers themselves. Here are two of the less offensive opening grafs:

Financed by some of the same Christian conservatives who helped Mr. Bush win the White House, the organization's intellectual core is a scattered group of scholars who for nearly a decade have explored the unorthodox explanation of life's origins known as intelligent design.

Together, they have mounted a politically savvy challenge to evolution as the bedrock of modern biology, propelling a fringe academic movement onto the front pages and putting Darwin's defenders firmly on the defensive.

As my wife, ever the astute observer, was reading this earlier this morning, she stopped to ask "Nearly a decade? What's to study for that long?" Indeed, you have to wonder. What is a day in the life of a Discovery Institute "scientist" like?

"Hmmmm. Look at this microbe! It's so... so... complex. Surely this couldn't be the result of mere natural processes. It must have been designed!!!" (Pause -- set aside slide of microbe -- pick slide of photosynthetic cells) "Hmmmm. Look at these cells, turning light into chemical energy. They're so... so... complex. Surely they couldn't be the result of mere natural processes..."

Wilgoren, who spends almost the entire article outlining the political and financial infrastructure that undergirds Discovery, never breaks stride to ask why all this high-voltage backing is necessary for what is purported to be a "legitimate" scientific theory. You would think that the confluence of the Christian Right, GOP Power Donors, and the web army of Bushbots that have aligned behind "Intelligent Design" Creationism would set off a few alarms. Perhaps the reason this much muscle is needed is because, from a purely rational, scientific point of view, IDC is pure, Grade-A bullshit.

Alas, you'd be disappointed. Wilgoren, in true Times fashion, remains strictly agnostic on the worth of IDC and reports the story as a straight-up portrait piece on the renegade Discovery-ites and their quest to overturn Darwin.

What garbage. But, hey, who knows? Maybe NYT subscriptions in Kansas will get a boost.

For those of you who might -- just might -- be thinking "But, well, life is complex. Maybe they're right that blind, mechanical processes can't account for all the wonderful things we see around us." I strongly urge you to pick up any recent layman's text on evolutionary biology. I highly recommend Richard Dawkins "The Ancestors Tale", which I just read over the Winter. The intellectual beauty of evolution and natural selection is that mind-boggling complexity can arise from just a few simple processes. Take a replicator, add occasional random variation, shake for four billion years, and you've got a full-blown ecosystem populated with creatures that defy the imagination. That's the sort of thing that makes me stand awed before the world. Not some imaginary guy with a long beard crafting universes in his workshop.

|

RESPECT FOR ATHEISTS. WHAT A CONCEPT.

This afternoon, Tracy and I went to her uncle's interment at a veteran's cemetery in Massachusetts. He was cremated, so rather than a headstone, they put his ashes in this large bank of vaults. On the face of each vault was the name and rank of the deceased and, of course, the dates of their birth and death. Also, at the top of the face was, in most cases, a small cross.

As we were standing there I began idly scanning the names, and I noticed that one vault had, instead of a cross, what looked like a little atomic energy symbol. I walked over to it and, sure enough, that's what it was. I walked back over and said to Tracy "I bet that guy was an atheist." Curious, we asked one of the men who worked at the cemetery and he confirmed that that was the case. ("They're people who don't believe in a God" he helpfully explained.)

I found this remarkable. I was quite pleased. Tickled, you might say.

Not only does this veterans cemetery -- and, I would assume, what with the military having fairly universal standards, all others -- honor the specific beliefs of each deceased individual, but they even have a symbol for the tiny minority of us who are avowed atheists. And more than that, it's a symbol that makes sense and is actually positive and respectful. Rather than focus on the negative aspect of atheism -- lack of belief in God -- the symbol of the atom stands for what we do believe in: That which is real.

Outstanding. More treatment like this, please.

The gentleman from the cemetery said that they had a total of 17 different symbols representing all of the major world religions. I refrained from correcting him by saying "belief systems"...

UPDATE: Yep, it's an official VA thing. Here are the available symbols. Quite a few more than 17.

|

STICKER SHOCK

Walking out of the grocery store this evening I saw an SUV that was bumper stickered in such a way that it brought me to a complete halt and held me, transfixed and slack-jawed, for several moments. Here is a list of the stickers this vehicle bore:

  • Large Peace Symbol

  • Pink Floyd

  • Happy Bunny

  • Nine Inch Nails

  • Tool

  • "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you're criticizing them, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes."

  • "Read Banned Books"

  • "Everything I ever really needed to know I learned from reading banned books."

(Somebody really wants you to know that they're into "banned books". What the hell are they talking about anyhow? What books have been banned in this country recently?)

Anyhow, you should have a mental picture now -- or at least a vague idea -- of what sort of person this is, right? Now add this to the mix:

  • Bush/Cheney 2004

...Whuh?

Then, just so you'd know that last sticker wasn't meant as some sort of ironic gesture:

  • "W: Still the President"

I know what you're probably thinking. "Obviously, the stickers were put there by two different people, probably a parent and a child." But I don't think so. First off, what parent allows their kid to cover the family SUV in stickers? Second, there was something about the style and placement of the "W" sticker that suggested it was meant to fit right in with the Happy Bunny.

No, I think there is actually a human being driving around -- in my town, no less -- who does not see the contradiction between "Bush/Cheney 2004" and Peace. Nor do they understand how problematic it is to brag about their affinity for banned books while supporting a man who we all know would be happy to ban all sorts of books if he had the power.

People can be so deeply stupid.

|

POST OF THE WEEK

Ezra Klein's "Heroes". Just go read it.

(We can be heroes. Just for one day...)

|

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Mark Morford nicely crystallizes the views of social liberals everywhere:

"Don't believe in abortion? Don't understand gay people? Sexuality make you rashy? Think Harry Potter teaches kids evil and witchcraft? Don't marry a sexy gay witch abortionist. But don't you dare make laws declaring that I can't."

So, so, so simple to understand. What's wrong with you, Red America?

|

MASS TRANSIT

Over at Shakespeare's Sister, Paul (the Spud) has a post up about rising gas prices. Naturally, the comments thread for this was off and running quickly, what with The Pump being a topic near and dear to every American's heart. Anyhow, conversation turned to public transportation and thence the stimulation of the following mentation.

(Yes, sometimes I too wonder what the fuck is wrong with me.)

One of the coolest things about growing up in the greater metropolitan Boston area was the exceptional public transportation system. In fact, one of my earliest and fondest memories was going down to the train station to see Dad off to work, and then going back to pick him up at the end of the day. That was the norm. That's what Dads (and later Moms) did: Take the train into the city to go to work. Nowadays it's almost as common for city dwellers to drive out to office parks in the suburbs to go to work, and, well, that's just wrong. But I digress.

Boston metro area public transit. Great. You've got the "T" -- the subway system that extends out from Boston into the immediate urban and suburban belt -- and then you've got a commuter rail system which extends past that all the way out to the I-495 belt and, in some cases, further. The system is all centered on the Hub, of course, with bus routes out in the fringes to allow you to get from branch to branch without having to travel all the way into the center first.

It's not perfect. People bitch about how dirty, loud, and intermittently run down it is, but the truth is you can get pretty much anywhere you need to inside the I-95 (128) belt using public transit. New York City -- where I did not grow up but ever-more-frequently wish I had because of my affinity for it's sprawling grandeur, my love of the Jets and Yankees, and my concomitant festering hatred of the Patriots and Red Sox (long story) -- is similar, only on a much larger scale.

And here's the thing: These systems are used heavily and, for the most part, enthusiastically.

You hear a lot about how "in love with their cars" Americans are. True enough, as far as it goes. I love my car, and cars generally. I love driving. I particularly like driving on long trips. Lots and lots of people do. But let's be frank: NOBODY "loves" commuting. Commuting sucks. Rush hour sucks. Traffic jams suck. The mind-numbing routine of the commute sucks. (My new commute is actually short and rather pretty, but I promise you I'll get tired of it.) I don't think there's a one of us out there who wouldn't leave the car keys at home if someone gave us a convenient and reliable alternative. It's the lack of options that dictate so much of the one-person-per-car clogfests we have in this country. The options dictate the behavior, not the other way around.

Things have to change. Things are going to change. Peak Oil's coming (better hide your heart, girl).

Here's a prediction that's pretty much a lay-up: Public transportation is going be getting a lot of second looks in a lot of places. The trick, however, is getting it right. If you want people to use public transit -- if you need people to use public transit -- (if you'd LOVE people to use public transit) you have to make it easy for them.

I am not an urban planner or an infrastructure guru, and yet I bet I know what the single most important element of a successful public transit system is: Routes.

Not how shiny the subway cars are. Not how soft and well-contoured the seats on the train are. Not how quiet the buses are.

Routes.

If you want me to incorporate public transit into my routine, do not make me go out of my way to do it. Put the routes where I need them. Seems simple, no?

And yet take Connecticut. The Connecticut DOT recently proposed a $300 million dollar plan to advance commuter rail in the Springfield-Hartford-New Haven corridor. This is outstanding news! If... you... live within a mile or two of I-91, which connects Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven. If you don't, well, tough bananas.

This is silliness. This is not money well spent. Sure, I imagine if they add a few more stops along the existing rail line in that corridor and add new trains so they can run more frequently, it will boost ridership somewhat. But it's not going to do anything to help the huge majority of us in the area who live too far east or west of the I-91 corridor to make use of a single rail line that runs north-south like that. (There are no plans, at present, to add new track.)

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I work in downtown Hartford (I don't) and that I live 14.142 miles due north-west of said city (I actually almost do). Now, suppose that the CT DOT builds a station 10 miles north of Hartford. Am I going to drive 10 miles east, park my car, then get on a train that takes me 10 miles south into the city? By Pythagoras, I assure you I am not. Instead, I'm going to drive 14.142 miles south-east. Probably by myself.

Moral of the story: Good public transit systems are laid out radially. It's that simple. Spread out from a hub, branching as necessary to cover as much ground as possible. This makes the system convenient for the greatest number of people. Systems which choose an arbitrary linear path are, from the point of view of local travel, a useless waste of taxpayer money.

|

I.D. SMACKDOWN

Hey, that's not fair! Nobody told me it was Kick the Crap Out Of Intelligent Design Day! My oh my, what a treasure trove of riches we secular materialists have to enjoy today. First, there's Jacob Weisberg's essay in Slate which ever-so-tactfully points out that, no, evolution and religion really aren't all that compatible. Then there's Jerry Coyne's tour de force article in The New Republic which covers, well, pretty much everything you need to know about the "debate" over "Intelligent Design" -- the movement's origins, the (complete lack of) science behind it, and the motivations of its proponents. Coyne also does a yeoman's job of explaining evolutionary theory, giving a half-dozen-page overview that's more than sufficient to convince any open-minded, reasonable human being of the theory's factual basis and explanatory power. Finally, just in case you're not sated, there's Chris Mooney's piece in The American Prospect on the evolution of the ID movement. (Heh)

Outstanding work, gentlemen. Bravo!

I haven't commented much, if at all, here on the resurgence of Creationism that "Intelligent Design" represents. (P.Z. Myers just cuts to the chase and labels the movement "Intelligent Design Creationism".) The whole notion of "Intelligent Design" as a credible area of scientific inquiry doesn't even rise to the level of laughable. I mean, seriously, the game's up folks. Darwin won and the Invisible Sky God lost. Them's the breaks.

If you doubt this, you should read -- wait, what the fuck are you doing reading my blog if you don't accept evolution as valid? Go the fuck away, idiot.

What rouses me to toss a few thoughts out is not the "debate" itself, but the motives of the people on the other side. I look at all the words printed, all the effort generated, all the positioning and packaging, and I just need to know: What, exactly, motivates people -- some of them highly intelligent -- to go through all the mental contortions necessary to believe a false thing in the face of overwhelming disconfirmatory evidence?

No sooner had I begun stewing on this when Jerry Coyne provided a hint of an answer. In his article is this quote from the Discovery Institute (the leading ID think tank) describing their Center for Science and Culture. As they see it, the CSC's mission is:

"[T]o defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

So, long story short, we're back to the culture war again. These people -- again, many of them quite smart, some of them have doctorates in biology for god's sake (literally) -- are not primarily motivated by a desire to know and understand objective reality. They are, instead, motivated by a desire to protect certain received notions of morality and human purpose, and if that means twisting the empirical evidence beyond recognition, so be it.

Does this make sense to any of you? Indulge me for a moment here. Strictly for the sake of argument, let's assume that religious belief leads to "good" moral & social outcomes and secular materialism leads to "bad" moral & social outcomes. (I believe the opposite to be true, but then you all know that). Is that sufficient justification for turning one's back on the truth? Is the concept of truth only ultimately valuable for its practical utility? Because that notion seems utterly alien to me.

(Have to leave off here. I'd like to come back to this either tomorrow or over the weekend. Ya know, I'm not kidding when I list "epistemology" on my resume under "hobbies/interests"...)

|

O'REILLY - STILL THE BIGGEST TURD IN THE CABLE "NEWS" TOILET

I really fuckin' hate Bill O'Reilly. Hell knows that cable "news" networks are teeming with right-wing shit heads who make their living smearing their betters -- which would be just about everyone -- on this poor little world of ours, but O'Reilly remains the biggest turd in the toilet. He is King Shit.

What prompts this spewing of outrage at Big Bad Bill? Just his latest journalistic obscenity, his response to Cindy Sheehan's vigil down the road from Bush's "ranch"*:

Bill "Fuckface" O'Reilly: I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this [publicity] and also for the responsibility for the other American families who lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.

I have a question: Can this gushing sewer of gutter punditry go five fucking goddamned minutes without accusing someone of treason? Can a citizen of this country exercise their lawful right to criticize our government's actions without this pustulous scab on the face of humanity screeching that they're a traitor? Does his rabies-addled brain even grasp what concepts like "patriot" and "traitor" mean, or are they just labels he keeps handy to slap on friends and foes of the right wing's agenda? Oh, wait, I think I know the answer to that last one.

You know, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity, among others, play the treason card every hand that goes round the table, and yeah it makes me see red, but it's worse when O'Reilly does it, and here's why: I think people perceive those other assclowns as provocateurs and show(wo)men, and so dismiss their shrieks of treason as hyperbole. But I think O'Reilly still has a thin, chipped veneer of authenticity around him that leads people to take what he says far more seriously than anyone ought to.

He's a shrewd little fuckwad, O'Reilly. He deviates from the party line just enough to maintain a lifeline to the world of genuine human beings. He doesn't allow himself to come off as a complete maniac like Coulter or Malkin or a total GOP animatron like Hannity. He maintains an aura of plausibility. But then he turns around and uses that aura to juice up his bully pulpit so he can more effectively sling pus, vomit, and feces at good people like Sheehan and that poor guy who lost his dad in the WTC attack. It's disgusting. More disgusting than the antics of his more transparently partisan peers. That's why I hate the fuckin' bullying bastard so much.

Gotta put the scare quotes around "ranch". Seriously. I was listening to NPR this morning and they were talking about Bush at his fake-ass "ranch" and I wished the reporter had said something like "quote-unquote 'ranch'" or at least used a clearly sarcastic tone. It's important that people in the news get clear on the fact that this "ranch" is no more real than anything else in BushWorld.

|

DISCOVERY

Yesterday's successful landing of the space shuttle Discovery was a bittersweet event for me. Sweet because NASA finally got us back out there and -- despite a few problems that were probably overblown because of the Columbia disaster -- was able to successfully complete a mission. Bitter because... well, therein lies a rant.

I remember when the first space shuttle went up. It was a Big Deal. I was so impressed with the vehicle, so enamored with the idea that this baby was going to fly back to Earth and land on a runway, not plop down into the ocean and wait to be picked up like an air-drop delivery. The shuttles seemed so much more like proper spacecraft than anything we'd sent up previously. This was important to me.

I've been a space-flight booster (bah-dum bump) for as long as I can remember. It was an obsession for me in childhood. The space program seemed to stand for so much more than just the nuts and bolts of putting people and things in orbit. It was one of our greatest national achievements. It symbolized our aspirations not just as a nation but as a species. I believed -- still do -- that we were destined to migrate to other worlds eventually. Hell, I was hoping I'd live to see it, and I know there were geeks-a-plenty who felt the same way.

I think space-flight aficionados, science-fiction fans, and futurists generally had a vision back then -- a vision we thought the space program shared. Here's what 2005 was supposed to look like, according to that vision: A next generation shuttle, probably a true "space plane" of some kind that could take off from a runway and get itself into Low Earth Orbit. A couple of full-time, fully-staffed space stations (picture the Big Wheel from 2001). Maybe a Moonbase. Oh, and if we hadn't landed humans on Mars yet, the effort would at least be seriously underway.

Here's what 2005 actually looks like: Our "big achievement" this year is that we managed to hold the last of the shuttles together -- apparently using spit and bailing wire -- through a fairly routine mission. The International Space Station is a thoroughly half-assed affair. Hubble -- truly a notable achievement -- remains functional only because of a grass-roots effort to keep the NASA brass from shutting it down. And -- this is the real kick in the teeth -- NASA is seriously considering returning to using booster-and-capsule vehicles for its future projects.

I hope I'm wrong -- really, I do -- but this strikes me as a huge step backwards. This strikes me as a failure of vision. They've had 25 years to come up with a next generation spacecraft, and what have we got? Apparently, not much, because it looks like we're going back to the seventies.

Ah, well. No space plane ride for me, I guess.

Maybe it's wrong of me to expect our government to dedicate the time and resources necessary to make my boyhood dream come true. It just seems like we achieved so much in the sixties and seventies -- we went so far so fast -- and then we stagnated. We stopped reaching further, stopped trying to do the impossible, stopped pushing the envelope, and instead settled for the routinization of space flight. That saddens me.

|

HIATUS

Sorry for the unexpected hiatus. Off to a wedding for the weekend. I'll try to resume semi-regular posting next week.

|

HILLARY

Hillary Clinton has taken quite a beating from some precincts of Left Blogistan recently, and deservedly so. First she pulls a Tipper and starts screeching about inane, inconsequential shit like the sexual content in Grand Theft Auto. Then she goes and makes a high-profile speech to the irrelevant and impotent DLC. And she's our front-runner for 2008? Oh, joy.

What got my blood pumping was this nugget from the speech:

"In my dream, our faith in God and our shared values give us the strength to conquer our fears of one another and the unknown."

Um, excuse me, our faith in God?

I wonder if Mrs. Clinton appreciates the irony of that phraseology in a speech that called for "unifying" the Democratic party. Apparently, in Hillary's Democratic party (just like the Democratic party of Joe Lieberman), non-believers are not part of the equation.

I hate the fact that, for any viable candidacy for any office in this country, you have to pass a friggin' religious litmus test. I hate it, but I can deal with it. Still, there's a right way and a wrong way to do this thing, and the right way is this: Keep your fucking pronouns and possessives singular.

How hard is that? You need to profess your undying devotion to the Invisible Sky Being so the rubes will accept you as one of their own? Fine. Say "My faith in God", not "Our faith in God". If I recall correctly, Senator Clinton's better half knew enough to observe that rhetorical restriction. It looks like he needs to give her some pointers.

I know we could do worse than Hillary in '08, but still, the signs right now really aren't good.

Once -- just once in my life -- could the Democratic party run somebody who isn't such a complete fucking tool?

|

HOUSE BLOGGING

As most of you know, Tracy and I just bought a house in beautiful Simsbury, Connecticut. Simsbury is... well, it's kind of like the Shire. Peaceful. Friendly. Just about perfect, really. Anyhow, I thought I'd share a picture of our new place with you:

(sigh) It's a very, very, very fine house. The two cats in the yard, unfortunately, are going to have to wait until someone perfects those genetically-engineered non-allergenic cats I keep hearing about...

|

FORTY QUESTIONS!

OK, so I've been away from the blog for a bit. Sorry. Sometimes I just unexpectedly lose interest for a week or so. Happens about once or twice a year. Anyhow, here I am, and for those of you who have missed me, I come bearing gifts!

You know those "Get To Know Your Friends" e-mail surveys that make the rounds every few weeks? You do, I'm sure. You either love them or hate them, I'm sure. Well I love them, and I finally got around to doing something I've been meaning to do for a while -- I wrote my own. I tried to make things a little more interesting by staying away from the usual "Boxers or Briefs" stuff. Anyhow, here's a text template of it. Grab it, slap it in an e-mail, and go annoy your friends get to know your friends!

Feel free to e-mail me your answers. Or, if you're a fellow blogger, post 'em on your blog.

Here are mine:

1a. What year did you first start using e-mail on a daily basis?

1995 (or thereabouts)

1b. What year did you first use a cell phone?

1988 ('course, I worked for a cell phone company at the time)

1c. What is the ring-tone on your cell phone?

Heavy Action (Monday Night Football theme)

2. From where you are answering this, can you see out a window? If so, what do you see?

Yes. Tree in one of our building's courtyards with a sliver of blue-gray sky in back of it.

3a. What one physical characteristic would you change about yourself?

Lose the gut.

3b. What one personality trait would you change about yourself?

Impatience. It's bad when you're so impatient that it even annoys you.

3c. Thing you like about yourself the most?

Sense of humor. Like I said, I'm one funny fucking atheist.

4a. Favorite spectator sport?

NFL Football.

4b. Favorite team and/or player in that sport?

New York Jets/Chad Pennington.

4c. Professional sports team and/or player you would most enjoy seeing crushed in defeat?

New England Patriots.

5a. Favorite bumper sticker saying?

"These Colors Don't Run... The World"

5b. Bumper sticker saying that really pisses you off?

"Annoy a Liberal: Work Hard and Be Happy"

6a. Do you believe in astrology?

No.

6b. Do you believe in extra-sensory perception of any kind?

Trick question: No, but I thinks it's possible we have senses we're not consciously aware of.

6c. Do you believe in ghosts?

No, but I am afraid of them...

6d. Do you believe in God?

No.

6e. If you answered "No" to 6a, 6b, and 6c, and "Yes" to 6d, please explain.

n/a

7a. Favorite movie ever?

Star Trek II - Wrath of Khan

7b. Funniest movie ever?

Clerks

7c. Scariest movie ever?

The Ring

7d. Worst movie you've ever watched in its entirety?

Blue Velvet

8. If you were appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States for a day, what one thing would you outlaw? (Note: None of this "I'm not that type of person" crap. Indulge yourself.)

SUV's

9. Are you happy?

Yes. Absolutely. Finally.

10a. How many foreign languages are you fluent in?

None.

10b. How many computer languages are you fluent in?

Five (Note: I counted all web-scripting/rendering stuff as one since most of them aren't stand-alone "languages" per se.)

11a. What was your major when you entered college?

Aeronautical Engineering.

11b. And what was it when you graduated?

Science and Technology Studies (don't ask).

11c. And what would it be if you could do it all over again?

Computer Science.

11d. And if you were to go back to school now strictly for pleasure/self-improvement?

Philosophy.

12a. What one thing about George Bush do you loathe more than anything else?

His fake macho attitude. I mean, seriously, I've never been in a fight in my life, and yet I'm quite certain I could kick his ass seven ways from Sunday.

12b. Member of the Bush Administration you actually think is evil (as opposed to merely stupid, incompetent, wrong-headed or short-sighted)?

Rove. Of course.

13. Do you "share" music with your friends, and if so do you feel guilty about it?

Yes. Not really. I've overpaid for music my whole life. 'Bout time I got something back.

14. Favorite comic strip?

Get Your War On.

15a. Do you consider yourself romantic?

Yup.

15b. Have you found your One True Love?

Yup.

15c. Do you use cute nicknames for each other?

Yup.

15d. If so, what are... No, scratch that. Move along.

Heh heh. I crack me up.

16. Ever owned an "exotic" pet, and if so what was it?

Burmese python.

17. Physically-grueling activities: Love 'em or hate 'em?

Love 'em. They take me outside myself. They're like therapy.

18. Have you ever gotten a Letter to the Editor published? If so, what was it about?

Yes. The Hartford Courant featured my letter on Joe Lieberman's exclusionary God Talk during election 2000.

19. Would you say you're competitive? Feel free to elaborate.

Yes, but only in artificial situations like games and sports. I'm not competitive about work or status at all.

20. As a percentage, how much of what you've achieved in life would you say is due to "dumb luck" (e.g. where you were born, who your parents were, random chance, connections you've made with people, etc.) versus hard work, careful planning, and determination? Please round to the nearest 10th percentile.

90%

21. What actor/actress would you want to play you in the Movie of Your Life?

John Cusack.

22. Favorite philosopher?

Schopenhauer. He sort of saved my life, actually.

23a. What is the most enjoyable job you've ever had?

Pizza delivery guy.

23b. Putting aside talent, training, compensation, and any other practical consideration, what job would you most like to have?

Rock star.

23c. OK, now taking all the practical stuff back into account, what job do you wish you could have?

Op-ed writer.

23d. If you won Powerball, would you continue to work any kind of regular job?

Absolutely not.

24. Biggest phobia?

Insects.

25a. How often do you worry about death?

Two, maybe three times a day.

25b. What's the closest you've ever come to dying?

Six inches. True story: On a hiking trip with some of fraternity brothers. We get to the mountains late but decide to hike into our base camp anyhow. In the dark. Drunk. So about a mile in I trip at the top of a set of makeshift stairs and fall five feet, doing a face-plant in the dirt. One of the guys comes back to see if I'm OK, shines a flashlight on me, and about six inches to the left of my head is a jagged rock sticking up like a knife out of the dirt. Kind of experience that gives one pause...

25c. If you could be immortal, would you want to be? (Note: If you answered "Yes" to 15b, assume that person could be immortal with you.)

Yes. No question about it. People always say "But death is part of life". Sure it is. It's the part where it stops.

26. What period in history would you most like to visit?

Athens, around the time of Socrates.

27a. Do you think we'll ever achieve interstellar travel?

I hope so, but I'm not sure I still think so.

27b. If you could travel in space, even if it were "just" to a Moon base, e.g., would you go?

In a stone-cold heartbeat.

28. Name someone of your own gender that you consider "hot". (Note: Answering this does not mean you're gay, although feeling intense discomfort about answering it might. Oh, and if you are gay, name someone of the opposite gender you consider "hot".)

Chris Cornell. I covet his looks. Gaunt, sinewy, dangerous, yet soulful. Me? I look vaguely like a potato.

29. Book(s) you've tried to read but just couldn't get through that you still plan to read?

"Gravity's Rainbow"

"Godel, Escher, Bach"

30a. Favorite alcholic beverage?

Laphroaig single-malt Scotch.

30b. How often do you drink alcoholic beverages?

Daily.

31a. Do you enjoy taking surveys?

I enjoy any opportunity to spread my opinion.

31b. Are you pissed off that I said this was going to be 40 questions and, including sub-questions, we're already at, like, 52?

Not at all.

32. How many of the 50 states have you been to? (Note: For purposes of this question, "been to" can include driving through on the highway, but it cannot include airport stop-overs where you did not leave the airport.)

41

33. Person you'd most like to have a beer with (excluding friends/family)?

Jon Stewart

34. Person you'd most like to punch in the mouth?

You know damned well who.

35a. Describe your style of driving.

Fast but safe.

35b. If you could have any car in the world -- for daily use, not a "trophy" car -- what would it be?

1997 Toyota Supra Limited Edition Twin Turbo. (The car featured in The Fast and The Furious.)

36. Your Myers-Briggs personality type?

INTJ

37. Favorite color? Explain.

Blue. It's vibrant, refreshing, and alive, but not too earthy.

38. Favorite season/location combination?

Fall in New England.

39. Do It Yourself or Hire A Professional?

Do It Yourself.

40. It's Friday afternoon, almost quittin' time. Can't wait to get home so you can _____.

Crack a beer and play online scrabble with my honey!

|

ROBERTS

I must say, I feel rather foolish this morning. If you recall, I was one of those who suggested that Bush might nominate a relative moderate for O'Connor's seat so that he could then nominate a knuckle-dragger when Renquist steps down. Oh, how naive. I mean, ruhlly now. That would suggest an administration strategy built on a "Give and Take" view of the world, and as we all know, this group has a distinctly "Take and Take" philosophy -- they charge relentlessly in the same direction at all times, harder and harder to the right.

So while we were all speculating on whether it would be Gonzales ("Hey, he's not completely evil") or Clement ("Whoa, I hear she's pro-choice"), Bush and company were rummaging in the cupboard to retrieve a hard-core GOP partisan hack from their endless supply of same.

Damn. What's that line about not getting fooled again?

I realize that, at first glance, Roberts doesn't seem that bad. He is not, some will point out, a total freakshow like Janice Brown or Priscilla Owen. Yes, that's true. He's something even more dangerous than that breed of unhinged ideologue: A judge who's only guiding "philosophy" is to do the bidding of his masters in the party.

|

ROVE

On Sunday, Frank Rich had a thoughtful piece in the Times about the Karl Rove/Valerie Plame affair where he stepped back and tried to put Rove's underhanded move in the context of the administration's larger scheme to sell the public on the Iraq war. Today, the Times has a sort of companion editorial examining various issues around journalism, confidentiality of sources, and politics.

The message contained in these two seemingly well-intentioned pieces is clear: Don't get too hung up on this one "scandal" involving a single malicious act by Rove, no matter how outrageous it seems. We've got bigger fish to fry. There are more important things to focus our energies on.

Well, no. I have to respectfully disagree.

What's important right now is that Karl Rove be indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison.

This is not simply a lust for vengeance on my part, nor is it mere partisan fury. It is important that we get Rove in order to re-establish the lost concept of accountability. The Big Picture issues that Rich focuses on are indeed cause for great concern, but that's just the problem: They are too big, and there are too many players involved, to yield any easy routes to justice and to holding those responsible for the Iraq mess to account. Rove's exposure of Valerie Plame, however, is nice and tidy by comparison. It's a specific act of unquestionable wrong-doing for which we appear to have caught the culprit red-handed, and as such is an opportunity we cannot pass up.

|

SHORT MOVIE REVIEW

War Of The Worlds: Relentlessly intense, suffocatingly bleak, and often genuinely frightening. Might actually give me nightmares. This was not "Independence Day".

|

MOVING!

Well, today is the big day: We're moving to our new home! I will be without internet access from home until Wednesday at the earliest, after which I'll have to figure out how to configure my router to use Comcast's cable modem instead of our current DSL modem, so it might be a week before you see a new post here. Wish us luck.

|

NORQUIST REALLY IS A KNUCKLE-DRAGGER

This actually surprised me: Grover Norquist doesn't believe in evolution. I mean, I figured that one would have to be a bit of a simpleton to hold the views on taxation and government that he does, but really now, this is something else entirely. Look, evolution is real. It's "the truth" insofar as it's the single best theory we have to explain the evidence around us. And, oh yeah, it's the foundation for pretty much all of modern biology. So, you know, saying you "don't believe" in evolution is more or less like saying you "don't believe" in gravitation or electromagnetic fields. It takes a certain type of individual to say they "don't believe" in such things. Specifically, it takes a moron.

On a completely unrelated note, holy shit is packing for a move a pain in the ass. Ugh.

|

O'CONNOR --> GONZALES?

Quick thoughts: Can't believe O'Connor is going. God dammit. That means the Monkey is going to get to name at least two justices. My gut reaction to the rumor that Bush is considering Gonzales for O'Connor's seat is that, yes, he is Torture Boy, but we could get stuck with a lot worse. Prior to working for the administration, he did have a record of independent thinking and somewhat-solid jurisprudence. I'd put him to the left of the Scalia-Thomas-Renquist axis. Of course, I imagine the White House is thinking the same thing, and they're going to try to spin Gonzales as a "moderate" nominee so that when Renquist goes they can put a real barbarian on the bench.

|

THE JOYS OF HOME OWNERSHIP - PART II

Did I say that tearing up carpet and staples and tack strips was hard?

I apologize. I did not know whereof I spoke.

Sanding. That's hard.

Just spent 10 hours with a belt sander doing the edges of five different rooms. I can say with utmost sincerity that I never wish to sand anything again. Ever.

|

THE JOYS OF HOME OWNERSHIP

This is mainly a programming note to let you know that posting is going to be very sparse for the next couple of weeks. Tracy and I recently bought a house, and this is our big Prep Week before the move. Following that, I'll be completely dark for a few days while we wait for Comcast to come out and hook us up.

Yesterday was my first real exposure to the "joys" of home ownership. Prior to moving in, we decided to take up the wall-to-wall carpeting in four of the rooms. They had a dog, I have allergies, so carpeting wasn't a good thing. My Mom volunteered to come down and help with the removal. Having done this several times before, she assured me it would be a breeze. Just cut the carpet and padding in strips, roll it up, and then pry up the tack boards along the edges of the room.

Well, now. Let's just say that didn't go quite as planned.

The individual who installed the carpets apparently thought he was installing Anti-Gravity Carpet. Because, man, did he not want that stuff going anywhere. For starters, rather than just laying the padding down and letting the carpet do the work of keeping things in place, the Mystery Carpet Installer (the carpet pre-dates the people who sold the house to us) stapled the padding to the floor. Stapled all the way around the edge of each strip of padding. And not just a staple every foot or so to hold things in place. No, that would have possibly made sense. The staple density I'm talking about? Well, to give you an idea, you remember the old campus notice boards that people used to post stuff on, and how over the years as people tore down old notices and put up new ones, the staple density increased to the point where it began to look like a metallic rash? Yeah, that's what this was like. Thousands of the little fuckers per room, and each one needed to be extracted by hand.

But that wasn't the toughest part. No, let me tell you all about them tack strips. These are strips of wood about the size of a yardstick. On the top of them are these little tacks that come out at an angle towards the outside wall. The idea is that you stretch the edge of the carpet over the tack strips, which are nailed into the floor, and this keeps it from slipping around the perimeter of the room. Simple enough. Thing is, you typically nail these babies into the floor using a nail every foot or so, because they really aren't under all that much stress. The carpet, once it's settled in, usually doesn't try to go anywhere. Ah, but Mystery Carpet Installer believed otherwise. I know this because he spaced his nails at 6-inch intervals. Except, of course, for the random bouts of nail madness every couple of feet where he'd put half a dozen nails into a five-inch strip of tacking. I'm telling you, this was the work of a deranged mind.

And so it was that my poor mother and I spent yesterday hammering brittle little tack strips to splinters, prying up an endless sequence of nails, and pulling staples until our hands were bloody and blistered. Today we will do more of the same, and Tracy will have the pleasure of joining us. Should be wicked fun.

I can only hope that my remaining projects for the week go a bit more smoothly...

|

TwoGlasses Store
Toast's Lists!
BUY BLUE!!!


--BLOG BUTTER--
Hornswaggler
Emphasis Added
The Sideshow
Shakespeare's Sister
The All Spin Zone
Smart Patrol
The Vidiot


--BLOG ROLL--
Rude Pundit
James Wolcott
The Poor Man
Political Animal
Eschaton
Thought Mechanics
Clusterfuck Nation
Pharyngula
Hullabaloo
Ezra Klein
The Daily Howler
Some Watery Thoughts
Upon Further Review
Kung Fu Monkey
AmericaBlog
New Donkey
Orcinus
Altercation
Talking Points Memo
TPM Cafe


What's Toast Reading for
Non-Fiction These Days?

Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- And What It Means To Be Human

Radical Evolution

--POLITICS--
BartCop
Liberal Oasis
BuzzFlash
CJR Campaign Desk
Salon.com War Room
Media Matters

--NEWS & OPINION--
Tom Paine
Salon
The Nation
The New Republic
The American Prospect
Arts & Letters Daily

--SITES I LIKE--
MNFTIU
Robert Anton Wilson
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
General Semantics
BrainyQuote
Maddox
ScoobyTuner
Ale Street News
Internet Scrabble Club

--ACTIVISM--
Americans United
Amnesty International
ACLU
MoveOn


What's Toast Reading for
Fiction These Days?

The Power That Preserves (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Series #3)

The Power That Preserves (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever Series #3)


--SPORTS--
Sports Guy
King Kaufman
RotoWire
New York Post
Portland Oregonian


--ARCHIVES--
June 2005
May 2005
Mar-Apr 2005
Jan-Feb 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
Aug-Sep 2004
July 2004
June 2004
Mar-May 2004
February 2004
January 2004
Nov-Dec 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
Old Sports


Toast's Long-Term
Reading Projects

History of Western Philosophy

History of Western Philosophy


A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present

A People's History of the United States