Hey Suri . . .

F U too!

I Want Tong Po . . . GIVE ME TONG PO!!!!

The muscles from Brussels is back in the eponymous, yet abbreviated, yet f**king awesomely titled "JCVD." The "White Warrior" plays a 47-year-old, downtrodden, old before his time, forgotten action star - pretty much a biopic.

It's essentially two Van Dammes for the price of single admission: Van Damme playing Van Damme. I'd give this bound to be cult classic sleeper the tag line "one packs a punch, the other packs a piece - together they deliver!" if it wasn't already taken by his 1991 tour de force "Double Impact."

Can a buddy cop flick starring JCVD and a fat before his time Steven Seagal be long off now? NPH can play the mastermind villan. I demand this go into pre-production yesterday!

Oh, and Obama visits the White House today as a side note. Not that anyone cares since JCVD is forced to fight again because Xian Chow just told the bar patrons that their respective mothers "had sex with mules!"

The Executive Balm

President-Elect Obama will apply his politically mandated salve on the open wounds from certain Bush administration policies using retaliatory executive orders:

Barack Obama will assume the U.S. presidency with "a real mandate for change," and likely will use his executive powers to make quick changes, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and oil exploration.

John Podesta, who's handling Obama's preparations to take over in the White House on Jan. 20, said on Sunday that Obama was reviewing President George W. Bush's executive orders on those and other issues as he prepares to put his own stamp on policy after eight years of Republican rule.

Though sheer speculation at this point, one Bush administration executive order seemingly ripe for reversal is Executive Order 13435. Signed on June 20, 2007, EO 13435 supports alternative means of creating new lines of stem cells, but at the expense of readily available cell lines yielding the most promising medical research. As head of Obama's transition team, Podesta concedes as much in an interview with Fox News: "I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration, even today, moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country."

President Bush issued a total of 262 executive orders during his two terms and still counting. Some of them were doozies.

"The Perils Of 'Populist Chic'"

Mark Lilla of the Wall Street Journal proffers "what the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition" and mourns the death of the conservative elitism:

So what happened? How, 30 years later, could younger conservative intellectuals promote a candidate like Sarah Palin, whose ignorance, provinciality and populist demagoguery represent everything older conservative thinkers once stood against? It's a sad tale that began in the '80s, when leading conservatives frustrated with the left-leaning press and university establishment began to speak of an "adversary culture of intellectuals." It was a phrase borrowed from the great literary critic Lionel Trilling, who used it to describe the disquiet at the heart of liberal societies. Now the idea was taken up and distorted by angry conservatives who saw adversaries everywhere and decided to cast their lot with "ordinary Americans" whom they hardly knew. In 1976 Irving Kristol publicly worried that "populist paranoia" was "subverting the very institutions and authorities that the democratic republic laboriously creates for the purpose of orderly self-government." But by the mid-'80s, he was telling readers of this newspaper that the "common sense" of ordinary Americans on matters like crime and education had been betrayed by "our disoriented elites," which is why "so many people -- and I include myself among them -- who would ordinarily worry about a populist upsurge find themselves so sympathetic to this new populism."

The die was cast. Over the next 25 years there grew up a new generation of conservative writers who cultivated none of their elders' intellectual virtues -- indeed, who saw themselves as counter-intellectuals. Most are well-educated and many have attended Ivy League universities; in fact, one of the masterminds of the Palin nomination was once a Harvard professor. But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes. They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders. They ridicule ambassadors and diplomats while promoting jingoistic journalists who have never lived abroad and speak no foreign languages. And with the rise of shock radio and television, they have found a large, popular audience that eagerly absorbs their contempt for intellectual elites. They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them.

In the wake of a good walloping by the Democrats, there remains considerable (albeit surprising) clamor on the right for a Palin run in 2012. Word of advice: Think long and hard about your next nominee, Republicans. Don't rush to judgment with the wounds of the election still fresh. Take some time to convalesce. Embrace the back bench for a spell, react and dissent, play the watchdog, then methodically and pragmatically form your shadow cabinet. Each passing day brings a different world and a different political milieu. Be reflexive, yet patient - you cannot defeat Obama today or tomorrow.

Most important, in the words of Bobby Jindal, be "authentic." Denounce greed and graft without hesitation. Be loyal to the American people, not partisan obligation. Earn our trust back.

The Disgrace of Prop 8

WAP riled me up a little about something I was already riled about: California's disgraceful vote on Prop 8 and gay marriage.

I'm not going to link to any articles here - you can go do the research yourself. Several news outlets have reported the ultimate irony, which is that the high African-American turnout is part of the reason the vote went the way it did. Apparently an overwhelming number of black voters stood in the booth on the historic day this past Tuesday, and voted for a minority candidate for president with tears in their eyes and joy in their hearts... right after giving gay Americans the middle finger on Prop 8.

Now, I'm not going to lay the blame for this disgrace at the feet of black voters alone - that's unfair. But apparently they missed the irony of deleting civil rights for one minority group whilst celebrating the ascendancy of a member of another long-oppressed minority on the same damned voting ticket. How a minority group could be so self-centered and lack perspective on such an issue is amazing to me.

But I want to take this all one step further. I will not put the blame on one group. The blame is on us all, even those of us who are in favor of gay marriage. We aren't doing enough to protect the rights of this group of Americans. When we let a people be oppressed or denied rights that we enjoy, we are as guilty as those that put on pointy white hoods. We are oppressors by apathy.

I am pro-gay marriage. In fact, I consider it a national disgrace that gay Americans cannot get married. It's a black eye to our society that - mark my words - one day your children or their children will look at you and shake their heads in shame about. They will wonder how we could have possibly denied this right (yes, RIGHT) to a select group of Americans for reasons that are so absurd, petty or downright ghastly that it begs the question: what the fuck is our problem?

So I invite anyone - anyone - out there to take me on. Tell me why gay Americans should not be allowed to marry. Pat Bateman invites all dissent. Give me your reasons and I will prove to you that you're a bigoted idiot for having them. Please - I beg of you. The comments section is open for business.

Let's look through a few in advance though, shall we?

The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Well, first of all, the Bible says a lot of things, and if this is your argument, I expect you're following everything in that book to the letter. Otherwise, keep quiet. Do you take the Lord's name in vain? Do you covet? Have you ever stolen anything? Right, now go ahead and throw that stone and let's see if that house is made of shatterproof glass. I'll bet it isn't. But leaving that aside, using religious reasons for government policy is something that smacks to me of being verboten in this country. I'm no Civics professor, but I seem to remember something about the separation of Church and State. I feel like that's prominently featured somewhere in some sort of important document. If your argument for a law is based in religion, do not bother making it here in America. Move to a country where religious dogma and state policy can be one and the same, and such a dovetail is even encouraged. Might I suggest some countries in the Middle East?

If we let gay people marry, it's a slippery slope to other things. I love this one. It's a short jump to marrying your dog or your sister if we allow gay marriage, some say. This is my favorite argument. I just love it. It would be wet-my-pants funny if it weren't so frightening that people say it with a totally straight face. I'm still waiting to see the statistics proving that legalization of gay marriage fosters a jump in the incidents of man-pet love. If someone has those numbers, please send them my way.

It will destroy the sanctity of marriage. You mean like our national divorce rate of approximately one in four... or is it one in three? Or has it even crept higher than that by now? Good thing we aren't letting those gays get married. We straight people are doing a pretty solid job of wrecking it ourselves. I'm always confused how letting people who want to spend their lives together get married destroys the fabric of marriage. This hasn't been adequately explained to me, so perhaps someone out there can do a better job. If so, please enlighten me. It's dark in this cave of ignorance.

Marriage is meant for reproduction and gays can't reproduce. Well, again, I think this mostly comes back to the Judeo-Christian admonition that thou shalt marry and multiply. Which, again, is not a valid basis for law in this country. But I think this is a good point. This argument has merit. But why are we stopping here? While we're at it, let's not let impotent men or men with low sperm counts get married. Or women who have had cervical cancer and cannot have a baby. These people are getting married for entirely the wrong reasons. They will be unable to reproduce and thus should also be banned from getting married. Sure, if they want civil unions, that's cool, but marriage? If they cannot have children? Inconceivable! Weirdly, nobody ever suggests this - it's only gays that are subject to the reproduction argument.

Gay people are morally wrong and we shouldn't countenance their lifestyle choice. I respect this opinion, actually. You see, at least this line of argument doesn't hide what it really is saying - it is outwardly bigoted, but at least it's honest. It doesn't dress up its message in pseudo-science or quasi-legal terms. It says what it means - you're wrong, I'm right and thus you shouldn't be able to do what I am permitted to do. I respect that honesty. But it doesn't make it any more right than any of the other "reasons" listed above.

This reason also often has an element of "gay people choose to be gay, and if they just would choose to be straight we wouldn't have this problem." Frankly, I cannot speak to this even though it's absolutely amazingly ignorant. I am not gay and cannot explain why someone who is gay cannot make themselves not be gay. I can, however, offer this: I am a guy, and I'm a guy who likes women. It's just one of those things that has always been. I don't know if I was socialized to like them from all those beer commercials, or if it was the presence of a strong father in a positive relationship with my mother that made me this way... or hey, maybe I was just born to want to have sex with women. I don't know if it is genetic or I've been socialized. Whatever the reason, that's just kinda how it is. I really wouldn't appreciate it if someone tried to change me. I kinda like women. I really don't care why I do. I'd bet gay Americans don't really care why they like sleeping with who they like sleeping with - I would bet they simply would appreciate you leave them alone to their sex like they leave you alone to yours.

These are the "justifications" offered most often when I see opponents of gay marriage open their pie holes and spout their dumbassness. And for anyone reading this and saying "just another typical liberal who thinks they know better than I do." Well, know what? Guilty as charged. It doesn't make me smart or eggheaded. I don't live in an ivory tower. It doesn't make me a genius. It just makes you a bigoted idiot. Someday I look forward to celebrating and toasting to the equality of gay Americans just as I toasted to the historic moment America had on Tuesday. But I am sad and also angry that day is not today.

That's my rant and I needed to say it. We came a long way on Tuesday, but Prop 8 and others like it in two other states prove that we still have far to go as a nation before all of us are equal and able to enjoy the rights due and owing to all Americans.

Roly-Poly Ranieri Runs Out Of Investment Product Pizza

Lewis is the sartorial slob two neocons down from the First Lady.

The chickens do come home to roost. The father of subprime securities gets devoured by the subprime economic crisis:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Regulators shut down Houston-based Franklin Bank and Security Pacific Bank in Los Angeles on Friday, bringing the number of failures of federally insured banks this year to 19.

The co-founder and chairman of parent Franklin Bank Corp. (FBTX) (FBTX), Lewis Ranieri, is credited with inventing mortgage-backed securities two decades ago, but apparently was unable to save his own company from getting ensnared in the home-loan bust.

The bank's failure is a bitter irony because it is the mortgage securitization business of which Ranieri is known as a pioneer - the repackaging of home loans as bonds that are sold to investors - that was at the heart of the mortgage and credit crises. Last spring, the audit committee of the company's board found in an investigation certain weaknesses in accounting, disclosure and other issues relating to residential real estate loans.

Lewis S. Ranieri joined the mortgage-trading desk of Salomon Brothers in the late seventies. He coined the industry term "securitization" for his progeny of converted bonds backed by home loans. Most relevant to today's fiscal mire, Ranieri was instrumental in breaking the regulatory barriers intent on curbing the widespread trading of these exotic investment products:

Salomon and Bank of America Corp. developed the first private mortgage-backed securities (MBS) -- bonds that pooled thousands of mortgages and passed homeowners' payments through to investors -- in 1977. Not a moment too soon: Skyrocketing interest rates were turning the business of savings and loans -- funding long-term mortgages with short-term deposits -- making it a financial death trap for banks just as the housing demands of maturing baby boomers began to surge.

Ranieri's job was to sell those bonds -- at a time when only 15 states recognized MBS as legal investments. With a trader's nerve and a salesman's persuasiveness, he did much more, creating the market to trade MBS and winning Washington lobbying battles to remove legal and tax barriers.

Thanks for the gift, Lew. But I'm pretty sure I didn't get you anything this holiday season? And what a pretty wrapping job. That's a big bow! I'm opening it early, okay?

Um . . . an empty box? Lew, you old card. Good one.

The Election Year Coda of Bill Ayers

With the votes counted, William Ayers, former leader of the Weather Underground, "unrepentant terrorist," Obama's "pal," speaks on his prior dealings with the President-Elect and inculpates Hillary Clinton as the but-for cause for GOP character assailments:

During the primary, the blogosphere was full of chatter about my relationship with President-elect Barack Obama. We had served together on the board of the Woods Foundation and knew one another as neighbors in Chicago’s Hyde Park. In 1996, at a coffee gathering that my wife, Bernardine Dohrn, and I held for him, I made a donation to his campaign for the Illinois State Senate.

Obama’s political rivals and enemies thought they saw an opportunity to deepen a dishonest perception that he is somehow un-American, alien, linked to radical ideas, a closet terrorist who sympathizes with extremism—and they pounced.

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign provided the script, which included guilt by association, demonization of people Obama knew (or might have known), creepy questions about his background and dark hints about hidden secrets yet to be uncovered.

He cannot resist the visceral urge to take a cruel, ironically radical cheap shot at John McCain:

It was inevitable. McCain would bet the house on a dishonest and largely discredited vision of the ’60s, which was the defining decade for him. He built his political career on being a prisoner of war in Vietnam . . .

The war in Vietnam was an illegal invasion and occupation, much of it conducted as a war of terror against the civilian population. The U.S. military killed millions of Vietnamese in air raids—like the one conducted by McCain—and entire areas of the country were designated free-fire zones, where American pilots indiscriminately dropped surplus ordinance—an immoral enterprise by any measure.

And he visualizes the tableau conjured up by Governor Palin:

When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin got hold of it, the attack went viral. At a now-famous Oct. 4 rally, she said Obama was “pallin’ around with terrorists.” (I pictured us sharing a milkshake with two straws.) The crowd began chanting, “Kill him!” “Kill him!” It was downhill from there.

Asked to comment on Bill Ayers's summation of the past few months, Reverend Wright bellowed, "NOT GOD BLESS, MCCAIN. GOD DAMN MCCAIN! NOT JOHN MCCAIN, BUT JOHN MC-K-K-K-CAIN. CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST! WOOOOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOO!"

Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko could not be reached for comment.

Channeling the Spirits of First Ladies Past

As noted below, President Elect Barack Obama (or as we like to call him in the Pants’ household, PEBO) gave his first presser. Other than calling himself a mutt, which is awesome – I’ve referred to myself in the same way before, it was pretty uneventful. Except for the Nancy Reagan dig. Eh. My only problem is that he got it completely wrong. Nancy Reagan didn’t hold a séance in the White House. She only consulted an astrologer regularly. It was Hillary Clinton that held a séance to channel the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. Come on, PEBO, get your facts straight.

Nevertheless, in another Potatoe exclusive, we were able to obtain the audiotape from the séance:


Hillary: Madame First Lady, I need guidance.

The Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt: Well first off, enough with the pantsuits. Would it kill you to wear skirt once in awhile?

Hillary: Wait? What? Never mind that. I found out about Bill . . .

The Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt: Hey, he came on to me!

Hillary: He came on to you? What? I don’t . . .

The Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt: It was late one night. He was gorging on cheeseburgers and porn surfing in the Lincoln Bedroom. I floated by. One thing led to another . . .

Hillary: How could you?

The Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt: Well, he is very charming.

Hillary: No. I mean how could you? How is that even possible?

The Ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt: Haven’t you seen Ghostbusters? I’m dead, not a dead fish.

My Buddy's Inactive Jdate Profile

From the "About Me" section of my Jewish buddy's no longer circulating Jdate profile:

Describe myself???? Sort of a weighted question - I'm betting most people go with superlatives here. Hey, I'm short, fat, have a lazy eye, chew with my mouth open, have no job prospects, live with my mother and fear intimacy like Richard Simmons fears pants. I don't think that's going to get me on your HOT LIST!

Let's try some puffery. I'm lean and athletic, have outrageously high standardized test scores, I'm fluent in 12 languages (including Ora - an African click dialect), live in a house made of diamonds, read books to the blind on Sunday mornings and have never attended Yom Kippur services . . . because I have never sinned.

Still not working? Let's go to my wheelhouse - a comedic approach. I'm a spittin' image of George Clooney, except for the fact I look nothing like him. I can actually speak only 6 languages if you include the five Greek words I picked up during a week in Santorini and jive. Yes, I'm fluent in jive. I'm really into showering and am a huge proponent of soap. And I acknowledge the irrefutable truths of the world: Batman Begins is a superior picture to Batman, 85% of Yankees fans have mild autism, the world's oil supplies have peaked though petrol consumption continues to rise exponentially, and poetry sucks (you're on notice, William Carlos Williams!!!!).

And I was definitely psyched when Jdate made the switch from 5 pound to 2 pound increments for the "Your Weight" section - allowing me to sleep at night when I reported in at a svelte 198 pounds, instead of two bulging bills! Having recently emerged from a long term relationship, I am still shedding some of the "comfort" weight, a standard result of the "who do I have to look good for anymore" attitude part and parcel of prolonged commitment.

Don't you want to get to know me? No? Um . . . wow . . . I sort of expected a different answer. Wow! This is awkward, huh? So . . . well . . . what, should I log off or are you going? Would it make any difference if I said I kept Kosher?

Let's just say my buddy had limited success with this approach. Fortunately, he has found comfort in the arms of the Schiksa community.

More Powerful Lens

You thought Barack Obama was under the microscope during the campaign? His very first post-election press conference refuses to pass without incident:



Obama takes shot at nancy reagan
by dollarsandsense123

Ben Smith at Politico.com describes Obama's response to a question about seeking the counsel of former presidents as "being looser than he's been in months" with the strange timerity to conjure up the great Republican ghost of Ronald Reagan.

Of course, Malkin is outraged. She describes the peculiar moment as a "tasteless joke about Nancy Reagan" that "went beyond creepy" and nothing more than a "classless" attempt at humor.

***UPDATE***: Payback is a bitch. From mediabistro.com:

Nedra Pickler (AP), Lee Cowan (NBC), Jake Tapper (ABC), Chip Reid (CBS), Karen Bohan (Reuters), John McCormick (Chicago Tribune), Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times), Candy Crowley (CNN), Jeff Zeleny (New York Times).

Which network didn't get a question? Fox News.

I'd find this development concerning if President-Elect Obama had actually given the cold shoulder to journalists.

Global Warming?

Overblown? Worse than we think? An excuse to elect Dennis Quaid president?

Discuss.

This party got started over email, and will be replayed in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . 1 . . .

WAP: Radio this morning, Charlie Rose interview of Michael Crichton. Pretty interesting dude. Very learned. From a medical/science background - stated he believes the global temp. will only raise 1/10 of a degree over the next 100 years, believes Global Warming has only a small human component, called many in the GW camp "opportunists" and stated he is not a "catastrophist."

I continue to believe Global Warming has a bit too much hyperbole and not enough hard science. I know this sticks in Bateman's craw, but this is not a world is round, sun is the center of the universe type of revelation yet. It just isn't.

Bateman: Thanks for misstating my position on this issue for the thousand-and-first time.
My stance on this - for the FINAL time - is that I believe global warming is real and has been demonstrated. I think this is a fact that we cannot ignore.

But I actually don't care if people do NOT agree with that. What I can't figure out is why even if you think the Earth is NOT in climate change why you wouldn't invest in green technologies, buy fuel efficient cars, research renewable energy and do something as stupidly small as buying an energy efficient light bulb for your desk lamp. What CANNOT be denied is that having cleaner technology would be better for our air, our water and would render countries like Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and Russia to be far less globally important than they are right now because of the black gold under their feet. And that is unequivocally good.

These are things that even if Global Warming is totally WRONG still benefit us. We had this debate years ago and you said you personally, Warm Apple Pie, would change nothing about the way you live, period, because this situation has been completely overblown and is a hysterical liberal scare tactic.

Stop talking about what sticks in my craw when you - again - misstate what it is that sticks. What sticks is not people being unconvinced. What sticks is people such as you have been about this subject not appreciating that cleaner fuels and higher energy standards benefit us even if Global Warming is 100% bullshit. You don't have to believe in it for it to be beneficial to follow the recommended course of action. But you reject it AND doing anything that would be the smallest departure from your lifestyle. If I still had access to my old email, I would go back and find your borderline insane ranting on this subject from three years ago when we discussed it.

Jack K: And as a well-respected ecological scientist, your conclusions carry a lot of weight. Come on dude, even the Bush administration scientists,who don't even believe in science accept the reality of global climate change.

Sidecar: Doesn't the Global Warming debate really come down to whether the current climate change is man-made or not? The fact that the Earth is warmer now than before is a fact, based on empirical data. But, the issue is whether this is simply part of Earth's cycle and we are in a"warm" period or whether man is responsible for the change.

I have heard, and I can't quote this, that some scientists believe that God created warm periods - its called Hell and you are all going there.

No, seriously, I have heard that some scientists predict that in the next 15-20 years the Earth will enter a "cool" period.

Bateman: I think that's called an Ice Age. I think that's considered to be "bad"

Jack K: If global warming continues unabated, the polar icecaps will all melt,flooding the oceans with fresh water, which will dilute the salinization of the oceans. This will affect the jet stream, which will no longer be able to push warm air across the earth as it doe snow, thus resulting in a dramatic cooling. Ironically, unabated warming will create an ice age. See here for full explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzThUApm5SY

Sidecar: Not an ice age - a couple of degrees

Bateman: Yes. Sort of like The Day After Tomorrow, but, like, not overnight. And Dennis Quaid will not be prominently involved to my knowledge. But, um, it's not a good thing for humanity. The Earth itself - as the George Carlin routine goes, the Earth will survive just fine. We... well,that's a different story. See, if you believe in Intelligent Design, you don't worry about things like global flood, famine and disease or a climate event that could wipe out human civilization. Because the Designer designed us for a reason in His own image, and would never let that happen.

If you're not an idiot, you kinda worry about the forecasts of all coastal areas of the world being flooded in the next 50-100 years. I don't like the idea of Pennsylvania being beachfront property.

WAP: Ah, the mischaracterizer comes out again. I never said I wouldn't change my life patterns and practices because I thought GW was a liberal hoax. I said I'd remain entrenched because I'm seeking the demise of our government and social institutions so I don't have to be a mob accountant anymore. GW, if true, is the only way out.

Shit - Quaid's on board??????
Retract my statements.

EPA believes the global temperature will rise between 2.7 and 7 degrees over the next 100 years. That's a pretty uncertain margin, no? My point (and if you snoop around - ALL scientists concede this) is that there is no reliable metric to determine what we are facing. We're facing something, but there are competing theories on what that something is.
And f**k Al Gore.

Bateman: That is 100% accurate except for the part where it isn't. DP, please do a search through the back emails to this subject if you feel so inclined and show Mr. Hyperbole his prior statements on the matter. Again, for the cheap seats, I don't give a F$%^ if you believe GW is real or not. However, I DO give a f*&% if you don't understand that the potential solutions to the problem benefit us as a society even if GW is 100% false. It would be like saying "religion says love your neighbor as you love yourself. I don't believe in God so I'm going to be a dick."Unequivocally, treating people nicely is something that even if there is no God is a net POSITIVE. Virtue is its own reward.

Jack K: Yes, the range is wide, but the point to focus on is twofold: (a)there is consensus that there will be a rise, (2) a rise of 2.7degrees is a MASSIVE rise, that will affect myriad ecosystems, wipe out large numbers of species, and effect radical change on many environments. A rise of 7 degrees would be cataclysmic.

Bateman: Again - does not MATTER if it is FACT. Doesn't the THEORY that it COULD happen scare the SHIT out of you? Isn't that ENOUGH? Especially when the solution is not cut off a limb or sacrifice your first born on a pyre. It's buying long lasting light bulbs and developing more hybrid engines. I mean, very little is being asked of us. Really, "turn your lights off when you're out" or "buy a fluorescent bulb" - is it really worth quibbling?Why not just do it anyway? The WORST thing that happens is your ConEd bill goes down. That's the WORST possible result.

The Realization

Two ongoing, exorbitantly priced wars; thousands of U.S. casualties. An economic collapse now crowning above the surface of the murky, fiscal depths. A $10,000,000,000,000 escalating national debt. The indefatiguable threat of Islamofascism. Iran's distemper, still pursuing nuclear capabilities. Russia champing at the bit to be a world player again, dusting off Cold War rhetoric and chest-thumping. A 6.5% unemployment rate as of this morning - the highest in 14 years. The unrealistic expectations of a country all-in on your streaming concepts of change and hope.

It must be a hell of a thing, that moment you realize the American people have accepted your application for employment. Congratulations! You've just been hired for the loneliest job in the world. In Thomas Jefferson's words: "The second office in the government is honorable and easy; the first is but a splendid misery."

Welcome to your two-month orientation program, Mr. Obama. Splendid, miserable work begins on January 20.

Move Over Tina Fey

Heads Begin to Roll

So, Newsweek is reporting that Harry Reid is considering stripping Joe Lieberman of his senate committee chair position as what I gather is punishment for supporting John McCain and spurning the party that gave birth to his Senate career.

Reid, in a sternly worded statement after the 45-minute meeting, said no official decisions have been made. But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Know what? I don't like it. I don't like this idea of collective punishment of McCain supporters. I don't respect Joe Lieberman's flip floppery, but let's also remember he isn't ACTUALLY a Dem anymore. He lost the Democratic nomination in his home state and had to run as an independent. He's always been a toe-the-middle-line Democrat, often crossing the aisle, and now he's actually officially an independent. So removing him for essentially no other reason other than "eff you, Joe - we won, your guy lost and now you can suck on it" smells to me like exactly the sort of things Democrats whined about Republicans doing years ago.

Be gracious in victory, Harry. Act like you've been there. Leave it alone.

Abject Ann Rues The Day

Ann Coulter's take on the election. A conciliatory tone, perhaps?:

Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country! . . .

Thought so. Some more low-lights:

And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?

Jesus Christ! No seriously: Jesus, are you listening? These are the characters you'll pluck up during the rapture? I'll take my chances with the anti-Christ.

On Palin:

Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.

Pinch me. Am I dreaming? Because all this is too good to be true. Thanks Barack.

The Faint Sound Of Impeachment Drums

As reported by Serendipity, on his negative 62nd day on the job, the first calls for the impeachment of President-Elect Barack Obama.

President-Elect, Fix Our Schools

This is disturbing. An elementary school teacher in Asheville, North Carolina brings her politics into the classroom to pollute raw young minds.

While we are fundamentally transforming things, ground zero for change has to be our crumbling public schools, the dearth of quality educators and the engagement of the teachers' unions with tough, frank dialogue.

I found this gem on Michelle Malkin's blog. Of course, she advocates a fair and decent position, then takes it one step too far into absurdity as her mixed-up ideology always demands:

This is ghastly. If you are a parent with elementary schoolchildren, you will hit the roof. A teacher in the Asheville, N.C., school system was caught on tape by Finnish documentarians making a film about Barack Obama’s supporters. The teacher, Diantha Harris, uses the classroom as a propaganda vehicle to shove her politics down the children’s throats.

Watch her bully a little girl who dares to answer “McCain” when asked who she supports for president. The child is the daughter of a soldier. Watch the teacher mock the girl and her father (”So that mean yo’ daddy could stay in Iraq for another hundred years!”). Watch the little girl’s eyes well up in tears. Is this the kind of education reform Barack Obama advocates?

Don't know if the last sentence is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer it to be certain: No.

Always making news, Michelle. Never just reporting it.

Robert Gibbs To Be Obama's Press Secretary

From Politico:

Robert Gibbs, a top aide to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on his campaign and in his Senate office, will be named the White House press secretary, a top Democratic official said. Gibbs was usually the senior official on Air Obama, the campaign plane.

As communications director of Obama's Senate office, Gibbs was a key strategist in Obama's rapid move to the national stage.

Transition planning is still at an early stage and the job has not been formally offered or accepted, officials said.

You may know Gibbs from his savory evisceration of Sean Hannity in the spin room after the second presidential debate:

Political Mandates In The Eye Of The Beholder

Stupid loves company.

Robert Novak's opinion of President-Elect Barack Obama's 369 electoral vote, 7 point popular vote victory stated on November 5, 2008:

When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins. But Obama’s win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.

The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Robert Novak's opinion of President George W. Bush's 286 electoral vote, 3 point popular vote victory stated on November 6, 2004:

Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?

NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday.

I don't mind that Novak is a moron. At least he's consistently moronic.

The Palin Candidacy - An Interpretive Dance

Safe for work.