David Broder Writes From "The Broder Zone"

RSI would like to congratulate David Broder on the publication of his 5,000th column on the "Need for Bi-Partisan Compromise." According to Broder:

"Scholars will also make the point that when such complex legislation is being shaped, the substance is likely to be improved when both sides of the aisle contribute ideas. And they will argue that public acceptance of the mandated changes in such programs will be greater if the law comes with the imprimatur of both parties."

Such an accomplishment. That's truly an important milestone and puts David Broder back ahead of Charles Krauthammer's "Israel Should Never Give An Inch" columns on the all-important, all-time list for "op-eds making the same point."

Nobody knows the story of the sacrifices David Broder has made to keep telling the bi-partisan story.

But here at Red State Impressions, we've learned from a real anonymous source that Broder has entered an alternative universe that was named especially for him--The Broder Zone.

In the Broder Zone, there's a special kind of bi-partisanship where moderate Democrats and conservative Republicans come to mutually beneficial compromises. Democratic presidents are more than willing to compromise with their conservative Republican colleagues and Republican presidents are always open to the ideas of Democratic moderates. The Broder Zone is such a wonderful place of compromise because both Democratic moderates and Republican conservatives recognize that liberals must be stopped at all costs.

All of that liberal talk about peace, health care, the environment, and corruption makes everybody who counts feel like they're immoral people or something like that. Liberals are bad, bad, bad. Liberals have cooties and bi-partisanship means that liberals will no longer be able to infect American politics.

Such is life in the Broder Zone.

Needless to say, the real world is not nearly as "nice" or "special" a place as the Broder Zone. That's why nobody as sane and sober as David Broder could write 5,000 columns about the Need for Bi-Partisan Compromise" if they lived in the real world.

In the real world, conservative Republicans lost all interest in "bi-partisan" compromise in 1999 when Tom DeLay became House majority leader. That's when conservative Republicans decided that Democratic liberals were not the only liberals. Follow this closely because the real world is much weirder than the Broder Zone. Republican conservatives decided that liberals were really Europeans, socialists, or even "fascists" if you've seen the cover of that Jonah Goldberg book nobody's read. Conservative Republicans then decided that Democratic moderates were the same as liberals, that Republican moderates were the same as Democratic moderates who were the same as liberals, and that many old-fashioned conservatives were the same as Republican moderates who were the same as Democratic moderates who were the same as liberals.

If you've read "The House that Jack Built," you'll understand how Republican conservatives were thinking.

So Republican conservatives refused to compromise with anybody because they refused to negotiate with liberals even if those liberals thought they were conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, or conservative Republicans. Conservatives wouldn't talk with anyone like Diane Feinstein (moderate Democrat), Susan Collins (moderate Republican), or Bob Dole (conservative Republican) because that would be the same as negotiating with liberals and liberals were fascists who had cooties.

David Broder heroically responded to the principled aloofness of conservative Republicans by trying to convince everyone else to become more conservative so that sensitive conservatives wouldn't feel so offended by the taint of liberalism.

But that didn't work either. Conservative Republicans wanted no taxes, big wars, and a picture of Jesus on every dollar saying "I say unto you, kill your enemies," and they weren't willing to compromise their principles.

Then conservative Republicans found out that they really had to negotiate with moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats in order to get legislation passed.

So conservative Republicans lost interest in passing legislation.

In some ways, that wasn't so bad.

At first, conservative Republicans enjoyed themselves immensely by having affairs with their staffers, looking up their favorite DC hookers, hitting on Congressional pages, and dipping into their huge money piles for golf trips to Scotland, jobs for their relatives, and really nice wardrobes.

But then the media ruined all that.

So conservative Republicans started quitting their elective offices. Trent Lott quit the Senate to become a lobbyist, Billy Tauzin quit the House to become a lobbyist, and all sorts of Republicans decided not to run for re-election again.

Now Sarah Palin is quitting.

The bottom line for David Broder is that you can't have "bi-partisan compromise" in the real world because there are so few conservative Republicans left in office and they still don't want to compromise with anybody.

Even worse, there's a lot more liberals around these days and David Broder is still convinced that liberals have cooties.

So, David Broder made the ultimate sacrifice.

In 1005, Broder left the real world and entered the Broder Zone where conservatives wanted compromise, moderates weren't liberals, and everybody still thought liberals had cooties.

And he's been writing three columns a week on the "Need for Bi-Partisan Compromise" ever since.

God Bless Him!

Return to the Estrogen Palace

I'm back from a five-week research trip to Philadelphia, back to the home I share with my wife Mrs. RSI and our daughters Miss Teen (almost 15) and Miss Tween (12).

A little world that has now become an estrogen palace.

Of course, the estrogen foundation was already in place. Miss Tween hit puberty and there's been a lot more talk about periods, pads, hormones, washing out panties, mood swings, and the details of menstruation. Videos, music, cell phones, and boys became more important; bikes and Scooby Doo less. There's also been an exponential increase in the bra population.

Mrs. RSI makes comments about the girls being "hormonal" when they're in bad moods. I'm not sure about this. I was "testosteronal" every minute of every day as a teen-ager and had a lot of sulky moods, bullying moments, and general over the topness. I'm not sure I'm all that tremendously different now either.

So, it seems that being human in any full sense of the term means being hormonal all the time.

And I generally think that's a good thing.

But I'm not so sure about the aesthetics of it all now Mrs. RSI and the girls have been painting the house in their own particular estrogen colors.

I'm highly allergic to paint. So there's always paint projects when I'm gone. But this time, I heard something new when the girls talked about painting various rooms. Miss Teen picked out an "egg shell yellow" for the kitchen and told me that it was "r-e-a-l-l-y p-r-e-t-t-y" in this sing-song voice I'd never heard from her before.

When I heard that, I thought it literally sounded like Miss Teen was drunk, but I also had a feeling that she was on a high from remaking the world to reflect her hormones.

She was painting an estrogen palace.

The next project was going to be painting the living room "rose-pink." Mrs. RSI vetoed that as too "girlie," but she then chose a luminescent green that's probably even more girlie. Now that I'm home, what's interesting about "the green room" is that it's so sensitive in light. The walls seem to "glow" in different ways as the light changes.

It has a very 60's kind of effect. Groovy, man.

But still girlie to the max.

Then there's the new baby, 'er puppy. Or as I heard over the phone-- p-u-u-p-p-y with a sigh at the end.

Our little family already included a dog and two cats. We also support a large avian population with all our bird feeders. But Mrs. RSI and the girls went shopping and Mrs. RSI fell in love with the look on Miss Tween's face when they were at the Pet Smart (entirely by accident I'm sure) and Miss Tween held up a puppy blue heeler mix and hugged it.

Love was in the air and I wasn't at home. So now the family has a new blue heeler puppy to swoon over.

Well, everyone except me.

I have to admit that I do swoon a little bit to see the girls growing up. Miss Teen has already started insisting on driving the car up and down the driveway in preparation for her 16th birthday in 2010. Dad's in Eastern Kentucky traditionally buy cars for their daughters and I'm thinking about adapting that practice if Miss Teen turns out to be a safe driver.

We're also starting to talk colleges and I'm going to take the girls to tour Cornell University next week when we attend a family reunion in my ancestral homeland of Upstate New York.

Why not think big?

But I'm not swooning over the puppy and not swooning over the luminescent green. Likewise, the teen-age boy in me is starting to question all the "cutesiness" around the house even as I make a conscious adjustment to living in an estrogen palace.

But there's nothing that says an estrogen palace can't have a "man hut" and I'll probably start building mine soon.

If only in my head.

Sarah Palin Skeet-Shooting with an Eagle

Here's a nice picture of Sarah Palin releasing an eagle before shooting it just like she was skeet shooting.

What a good sport.

At least she didn't kill the bird while it was in the box.

A Satisfying Fourth of July

As a result of the rain, the Fourth of July fireworks were cancelled in Morehead. However Mrs. RSI and I spent a satisfying 90 minutes of so re-watching the Army of the Potomac repulse Pickett's Charge in the movie Gettysburg.

I see where John McCain gave a desultory speech about American greatness in terms of being "leader of the free world" and bombing the crap out of Iran. But social justice is the most important measure of national greatness and the Battle of Gettysburg was a first crucial step in America's fumbling efforts to cash in on the promises of our iconic documents. Thomas Jefferson had written that all men were created equal and Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but it wasn't until Gettysburg that the United States began to decisively turn the tide on the evil of slavery. It was only with the defeat of the Confederate Rebellion that America could start to envision itself as fulfilling the promise of revolutionary democracy and Gettysburg was the turning point that made American victory almost inevitable.

In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln said that "this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." I don't believe that this or any nation has ever lived under a divinity, but I do think that the Battle of Gettysburg was a decisive event in the "new birth of freedom" that began with the Emancipation Proclamation. That new birth of freedom prepared the way for another birth of freedom in the Civil Rights Movement and the other new births of freedom associated with feminism, gay rights, and the growth of immigrant cultures.

The United States is a great nation because it has become a diverse nation that has leveraged the struggle against racial segregation into a general movement toward social freedom. I'm well into middle age, but I still hope that the expansion of freedom in my lifetime will develop into a movement for the social justice of equal economic opportunity as well.

That would make us a much greater nation still.

It should be mentioned that the Union Army at Gettysburg was in some ways a multi-national army. The Eleventh Corps that was so involved in the fighting on the first and second day was largely a German unit. Likewise, an Irish regiment played a decisive role in turning back Longstreet's attack on the Union left during the second day.

The Union victory at Gettysburg was also a victory for ordinary soldiers and low level officers. As had been the case for almost two years, the Union Army was plagued by poor generalship at Gettysburg. Union generals like Daniel Sickles were simply outclassed by Confederates rivals like James Longstreet. But Union regiments kept saving the Union position by making heroic charges or standing their own ground against Confederate advances. The bravery of units like the 20th Maine, 1st Minnesota, and 40th New York made up for the poor performance of the generals on the second day of the battle. The flanking fire of the 8th Ohio was an important factor in turning back the left flank of the final Confederate charge on the third day.

The romance of the Confederacy that developed after the Civil War still dominates popular presentations of the Battle of Gettysburg. That's why the final action of the battle is still thought of more in terms of the tragedies of Lee's hubris, Longstreet's agonizing, and Pickett's fatal charge than the importance of the Union defense for the future of this country.

But the Battle of Gettysburg was a tremendous turning point in the history of a country whose future is still bright now that the tide of modern conservatism has been turned back as well.

Watching Gettysburg was a fitting way to spend the Fourth of July.

RSI: No TV, No Billy Mays

Actually, I don't mean I miss Billy Mays in that I feel a sense of loss over his death. I mean I "missed" Billy Mays in that I had no idea that he was a TV celebrity. Not having had television for 14 years now, I never saw one of the Billy Mays ads, never realised that Billy Mays was a big deal, and didn't even know he existed until I read about his death.

I missed the whole Billy Mays phenomenon.

It's odd to say, but I'm kind of proud of that.

Four Paths for Sarah Palin

So what exactly is the big deal about Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska?

That's actually pretty difficult to define.

But I'm going to take a shot at defining Palin first, then defining the significance of her resignation.

Sarah Palin is the first major national political personality to emerge from the religious right since the emergence of the anti-abortion movement in the 70's. Where Ronald Reagan and George W. merely "appealed" to the religious right, Sarah Palin fully embodies the combination of brassy NRA aggression, evangelical sentimentality, and supreme disdain for urban, liberal, and minority culture that defines rural conservatism.

In other words, Sarah Palin is the Barack Obama of rural whiteness.

The significance of Palin's resignation is that it gets her back to the business of defining herself.

As Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin hasn't been in any kind of position to either defend herself from criticism or promote her world view. Not having her own media platform, Palin has been on the sidelines for debates over Obama's stimulus package, stem cell research, and the Sotomayor nomination. She hasn't been able to either represent or promote "her" values, keep her name in front of her constituencies, or promote the "Sarah" brand that started to develop during the McCain campaign

Palin has also been a sitting duck for her enemies in the Alaska GOP establishment, former McCain staffers, and the liberal wing of the mainstream media. People were filing the ethics complaints, Steve Schmidt was talking to any journalist who would listen, and magazines like Vanity Fair were making money running hit pieces.

Even Levi Johnston was taking shots at her.

In other words, the only people benefitting from the "Sarah" brand were her enemies. Being Governor of Alaska wasn't helping Sarah Palin seize the opportunities created for her by the 2008 presidential campaign. So she wants out.

With her resignation speech, there are four paths that Sarah Palin is likely to follow:

1. Run for President. If Sarah Palin runs for president, she'll be a top tier candidate for the Republican nomination along with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Given that Palin is more popular among evangelicals than Huckabee, it would have to be said that she would start out in a stronger position than Huckabee and could conceivably knock Huckabee out after the South Carolina primary. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which Palin knocked out Huckabee herself and counted on second tier candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich to hold down the Mitt Romney vote and give her a real shot at winning the nomination.

2. Become a Conservative Media Presence. There are a couple of media paths Palin could take. First, she could become a big bucks conservative motivational speaker, Republican Party fund-raiser, and evangelical/NRA personality. That would put a lot of money in Palin's pocket, place her in front of the friendly audiences that make her comfortable, and promote the "Sarah" brand with her core constituencies. It's also easy to imagine this as an extremely lucrative path leading to a presidential campaign. I can see the bumper stickers with "Run, Sarah, Run" on them now.

There's also the possibility of seeking a permanent position as a talk radio host or television personality, or commentator. There's big bucks in conservative commentary these days. These options seek less likely to me though because most of these kinds of permanent gigs require the detailed kind of policy knowledge that Palin avoids. People like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly all have a gift for formulating their conservative values, right-wing policy positions, and disdain for the opposition into a seemless package. It's tough to do and there are no comparable media figures on the left. Palin has a gift for expressing her values but isn't very good with either policy or engaging the opposition. So, it's hard for me to view her as the female version of Rush Limbaugh.

3. The Permanent Meltdown. There's also a chance that Sarah Palin could go into a more or less permanent state of meltdown. Depending on how one interprets "melting down," it could be said that Michael Jackson went through a 15 or 25 year state of permanent crisis. How long has Courtney Love been melting down? What about Amy Winehouse? Given the possibility of gigolo eruptions for her, bimbo eruptions for Tod Palin, and all kinds of other eruptions from her children, in-laws, and friends, it's easy to see the Sarah Palin soap opera as going on for a long time and not really ending while she's alive. It seems that popular culture in the United States needs a certain number of celebrities in a state of permanent meltdown. Maybe Sarah Palin could satisfy that need.

Finally, there's one more path Sarah Palin could follow.

4. The No Resignation Resignation. Given that Palin's not resigning until the end of July, there's a decent chance that the whole resignation gambit is a charade, that Palin is not going to resign as governor at all and is counting on an "outpouring of popular support" to persuade her to stay in office.

If I were Palin, I would start down the "conservative speaker" path and then make a run for the presidency.

But that sounds too reasonable for Sarah Palin's universe.

So, I would be surprised if Palin resigned at all.

However, the prospect of a permanent meltdown looms on Palin's horizon whichever path she starts on. My suspicion is that Palin is just not plastic enough for the constant re-invention that goes into being a national level politician or mega-celebrity.

Ultimately, it's easy to see being nominated as John McCain's vice-presidential candidate as the beginning of a long and ugly process of personal destruction for Sarah Palin.

The Iconic Michael Jackson as the Joker Picture

This looks like it's going to be the iconic "end of days" picture for Michael Jackson. It's a sad thing because he reminds me a lot of Jack Nicholson's Joker.

Will the Right Ever Invest in the Economy

The unemployment rate moved up to 9.5% yesterday. Listening to callers on C-Span this morning, I can't help but wonder if conservatives aren't so disenchanted with Obama that they'll never reinvest in the economy. If that's also true of liberals during Republican administrations, I wonder if the U. S. is not too divided of a country to be very prosperous.

Heading Home to Kentucky!!

I'm on the road in lovely Chambersburg, PA. Tomorrow, I'll be back in Morehead.

The Al Franken Senate Sixty Celebration

The News: Al Franken won the court case, Norm Coleman conceded, and now Al Franken is going to be Senator.

The Question: Should we react like Clarence Thomas did when his nomination to the Supreme Court was finally approved--

Whoop-de-damn-do?

The Answer: Hell No! Why spend our whole lives being cynical and defeated before anything bad actually happens? That's for people like Clarence Thomas.

It's un-fucking-believable.

I feel like the Jeremy Piven character in Grosse Pointe Blank--SIXTY VOTES! SIXTY VOTES MAN! SIXTY! S-I-X-T-Y! SIXTY!

Ok. Back to my sober, serious, analytical self. Ric, you have a Ph.D. in political science. Pull yourself together. There are moderate Democrats out there who might be offended.

Oh, screw it. SIXTY VOTES MAN!!!

Get rid of the filibuster!

Confirmation for Dawn Johnsen!

The Public Option for health insurance!

More regulation for Wall Street!

More Green Energy!

A War Crimes Investigation for Dick Cheney.

Come on President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Let's get stuff done!

What's even better is that the Democrats have a decent shot at actually increasing their Senate majority to 63 or 64 in 2010.

Yeah, progressives.

God's Plan for Mark Sanford

Being an atheist, I don't normally discuss God's plans. Given that there is no God, there can't be a God's plan.

It's something about the laws of physics.

But Mark Sanford is so enthusiastic about God's plans that it's hard to talk about Mark Sanford without talking about God.

So, I'm going to pretend there is a god so I can discuss God's plans for Mark Sanford and why they might be different from Mark Sanford's idea of God's plan.

And why my idea of God's plan for Mark Sanford is closer to the spirit of Jesus than Sanford's own idea.

Mark Sanford's idea is that his on-going disgrace over his affair with Maria Chapur will allow him to "walk in the spirit of humility" while serving as South Carolina governor and in fact make him a more successful governor.

Their belief was that if I walked in with a real spirit of humility then this last legislative term could well be our most productive one - and that outside this term, I would ultimately be a better person and of more service in whatever doors God opened next in life.

Sanford had attempted to refuse money from the Obama economic recovery package, but had been defeated in his efforts by both the Republican-dominated South Carolina legislature and the courts. Sanford's friends--and he completely agrees with them--suggested to him that Sanford lost the stimulus battle because of the same "sin of pride" that had led to the affair.

A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise - that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly [by resigning]. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride. They contended that in many instances I may well have held the right position on limited government, spending or taxes - but that if my spirit wasn't right in the presentation of those ideas to people in the General Assembly, or elsewhere, I could elicit the response that I had at many times indeed gotten from other state leaders.

In other words, Sanford thinks he didn't lost the stimulus battle because refusing the money would have harmed South Carolina's educational system. He lost because he wasn't in the "right spirit" to be convincing to his political allies and that God was somehow ensuring that Sanford failed until he got into the right spirit. Now that Sanford has been "humbled" by his affair, he'll be walking in the right spirit and will be in a position to be more successful.

Sanford doesn't quite say this, but he seems to be thinking that God's plan was to humble Mark Sanford so he could be bigger and more successful. The affair was God's plan. Getting caught was God's plan. Looking like an idiot was God's plan.

And it would all make Mark Sanford more successful now or in the future.

In other word, Sanford thinks God is heavily invested in the success of Mark Sanford and is managing Sanford's affairs beautifully so that Sanford can be successful "the right way."

God! The ultimate career counselor.

But God doesn't work that way, at least according to the New Testament. Here's the money quote from the Luke version of the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed be ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and wep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets. (Luke 6: 20-24, King James version)

Passages like this are part of the reason I'm an atheist. I believe that those who are depressed, unhappy, grieving, or impoverished should be seen as a blessed part of a community of people who are trying to ease their suffering. But I'm a million miles from thinking that those who "laugh now" or are "well liked" are on the fast track to hell. The pronunciation of damnation on those who laugh now is one of the best reasons I can think of to reject Jesus and Christianity.

But Mark Sanford is a Christian. So, I assume he doesn't have this problem. Sanford's problem is that he's a wealthy, important, guy who men have spoken quite well of until now and God's plan for those kind of guys is to send them directly to hell without letting them pass go or look back like Lott's wife.

At least according to Luke. Or Matthew!

So, what is God's plan for Mark Sanford. Well, it looks like Sanford's going to try to hang onto his job as Governor despite calls for him to resign. I hope he succeeds because I can see the Jesus version of God as having a very important use for Mark Sanford if he remains as Governor.

In other words, God's plan might be to use Mark Sanford to pass health care reform.

There are 45 million uninsured people in the United States.

They need God's help.

If Mark Sanford's religious friends do talk him into remaining as Governor, Sanford's presence will make the Republican Party even less credible than they are now, weaken their resistance to the health care reform package taking shape in Congress, and make it more likely that health care reform will pass this year.

That would help poor people, people suffering from difficult illnesses, people who are afraid of not being able to pay medical bills, people who are struggling with the illnesses of their friends and loved ones, and people who are in grief over recent deaths.

In other words, health care reform will be a blessing for many of the people that the New Testament views as "blessed."

According to the God of the New Testament, Mark Sanford is doomed to rot for eternity.

But if benefitting millions of people through health care reform is part of the plan, who am I to object?

Worse Than Adultery?

Mark Sanford lists his sons' names as "Marshall, Landon, Bolton and Blake."

Don't tell me he named one of his kids after John Bolton.

Sanford/Edwards Mistress Throwdown Continues

Buried in the South Carolina's The State's lengthy report on the l'affaire Mark Sanford is a little nugget on the potential for Sanford to have multiple mistresses.

In their morning meeting, State editors decided to immediately inform the governor and his inner circle about the e-mails.

A reporter called a Sanford staffer, saying the paper had e-mails that outlined an affair between the governor and Maria. Unless Sanford would address the issue privately, The State would have no choice but to ask him — with TV crews filming — if he knew Maria at his press conference that afternoon.

The names of two other women tumbled into the newsroom.

Stanford denies having three mistresses, but who in their right mind would believe Mark Stanford at this point.

Certainly, it will be interesting to see if women emerge now that Door No. 2 and Door No. 3 have appeared.

Maybe Sanford has something to say about their tan lines as well.

For those keeping up with their biblical dimension of Mark Sanford's affairs, it appears that Sanford will have to give up his King David analogy and go all the way back to Abraham and Isaac for examples of Biblical leaders who kept up little harems.

What's good for the original Hebrews is good for America!

In terms of the Mark Sanford/John Edwards mistress throwdown, I'd have to say that the possibility of three mistresses plus a much needed bible lesson tops one piddly sex tape.

This round goes to Mark Sanford.

The Depths of John Edwards' Dumbness

One of the unintended consequences of the Mark Sanford affair is that a fair amount of "after-crap" is hitting the fan for John Edwards as well.

Former staffer Andrew Young is divulging that Edwards definitey fathered Rielle Hunter's baby.

Young says that his belief in Edwards ran so deep that he agreed to take the fall for the candidate, inviting the pregnant Hunter to live with him, his wife, Cheri, and their three children. Later, after Hunter delivered the baby, Young and his family moved to a different home in California. As if anyone ever doubted that.

Young also drops that he came into possession of an Edwards/Hunter sex tape.

While he was unpacking, Young discovered a videocassette, according to the book pitch. Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.

The purported sex tape confirmed to Hunter that Edwards was even more reckless than he thought.

It's hard to tell which is more stupid--making the tape or leaving the damn thing laying around. But Edwards has to take the grand prize for plumbing the depths of dumness

Even over Mark Sanford.

Dark Article About Michael Jackson

Ian Halperin has an extremely dark article about Michael Jackson in the Daily Mail--extremely sad.

That is . . . if it's true.

Limbaugh Gives Hope To Us All

Did you ever hope the American right would just give up and go back to their caves. Did you ever hope Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would decide that conservativism has lost and that they would just move to the Keys, stoke up their blenders, and lose themselves in their personal margueritavilles.

Did you ever imagine an America in which we could address public policy issues without having to be distracted by the hatred of liberals, African-Americans, gays, and Hispanics spewing forth from the conservative media?

Did you ever think there would be a time when war isn't the first, second, and third option of American foreign policy?

Well, Rush Limbaugh is beginning to imagine that time.

In his own particular way

In response to Mark Sanford's news conference last Wednesday, Limbaugh speculated that Sanford wasn't so much in love but that he was just giving up the fight for the conservative cause.

And Limbaugh warned that "there are a lot of people," a lot of conservative people, who are looking at the political landscape and becoming so dispirited that they're thinking of just giving up and "enjoying life."

There are a lot of people whose spirit is just. They’re fed up . . . say the hell with it. I don’t even want to fight this anymore. I want to get away from it. Rush, are you kidding, this theory of yours about Sanford?" No, I'm not. My first thought was he said: "To hell with this. The Democrats are destroying the country. We can't do anything to stop it. I gave everything I had to stop it here in South Carolina. My wife's left me, the hell with it. I'm going to enjoy life what little time I've got left." Folks, there are a lot of people that are looking at life, they're saying screw it. They're saying screw it. Before Obama takes away all their money, before Obama takes away their house or the economy takes away their house, there are people who are simply saying the hell with this. They've tuned out. The hell with it. I'm just going to try to enjoy it as much as I can. . .

Jason Links of HuffPost thinks that Limbaugh is just blaming Obama for Sanford's affair. But it sounds to me like Limbaugh thinks a lot of conservatives are ready to run up the white flag.

And that's reason to hope . . . and maybe celebrate.

Keep fighting team.

Same Old Plots Against Khameini

There's been a lot of chatter about more moderate Iranian ayatollahs like Hashemi Rafsanjani making a move against election-rigging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. This morning's HuffPost headline is "Hard-liners and moderates plotting against Khamenei."

The power struggle inside Iran appears to be moving from the streets into the heart of the regime itself this weekend amid reports that Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani is plotting to undermine the power of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But where's the evidence of the plotting, let alone that the plotting is making any progress?

It's all starting to sound like wishful thinking to me.

Gay Chicken: Ahmadinejad Wants to Play

People probably want to know "what is gay chicken" and how fraudulently re-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could have a "gay chicken foreign policy."

But I'm not going to go there quite yet.

First, it needs to be stressed that the "gay chicken" model is enormously important in politics and is the best way to understand the foreign policy problems the Obama administration faces with North Korea and Iran. Large numbers of heterosexual guys highly their homoerotic affectionate ties with other men despite wanting sex with women and engage in rituals to heighten the homoerotic charge in their lives. Some of those guys grow up to be Republican politicians and the Bush administration was filled homoeroticized heterosexual men whose entire approach to "rogue nations" like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela was to play "gay chicken" with them.

And the rogue nations loved it.

In fact, Iranian and North Korean leaders liked "gay chicken" so much with Bush that they've extremely frustrated with President Obama's lack of interest.

In North Korea's case, Kim Jong Il is so (sexually) frustrated that he's threatening a nuclear attack on the U. S..

And I'm not really kidding here.

So, what's "gay chicken?"

According to the Urban Dictionary (courtesy of Chris Hamilton on facebook):

A game played with straight people to see who has more balls, metaphorically the game is played in several ways. The most simple, and weakest, is the kiss. One 'player' moves in for a sensual kiss until one of the 'players' backs off. I've seen this lead to tongues but someone will always pull away.

Another way gay chicken is played is by groping the other 'players' genitals or breasts or anything you can get your hands on. The most common form of the game is gay pillow talk in which each interaction escalates until someone laughs or just
can't respond. Lastly, 'players' can initiate dry humping sessions. Hardcore 'players' will use a combination of three tactics to win the game. Some have been known to even use all four tactics at once. This plan of attack is very tricky.

[For example,] Joshua is the King of gay chicken. I saw him pulling down Daniel's pants while he was kissing his neck. Then he proceeded to dry hump him as he tried to run away with his pants down.

But, of course, homoerotically inclined straight guys like George Bush and Dick Cheney don't have to play gay chicken by actually simulating gay sex (although I'm sure they'd want to), they can also play gay chicken by one upping each other in macho bluster. Bush includes Ahmadinejad and Kim in his "axis of evil" and speculates about nuking Iran. Then Kim responds by threatening to annihilate the United States and Ahmadinejad blusters something about bombing Tel Aviv. In the very first post for this blog, I pointed out the tremendous erotic satisfaction that Bush and Kim got from threatening each other.

My conclusion is that Bush is really engaged in an elaborate mating ritual with Kim Jong-Il, the "Dear Leader of North Korea. For the last five years, Bush has been sending a wide variety of signals that he's interested in Kim's affection--love songs for Kim Jong-Il, if you will. There's been the bellicose denunciations of Kim, the refusal to talk, and the withdrawal of aid. Kim eats this stuff up. He doesn't want food aid for his country anyway. Guantanamo? It might not be based on a North Korean model, but it was sure to get Kim excited anyway. Nothing like adding a little torture to your everyday supermax confinement to get Kim's attention.

The only difference is that I'd now call it a "gay chicken" ritual rather than a mating ritual. After one round of threats is completed, those good buddies Bush, Kim, and Ahmadinejad would start a new round of threats to show each other other how tough they were and how much they really liked each. The constant escalation of the threats produces a homoerotic sexual charge for everyone involved. After they masturbate, they even follow up with a cigarette.

"Another good day at the office."

The problem with Obama is that he doesn't want to play. Instead of threatening Iran and North Korea, he wants to "communicate." What's up with that? What kind of manly dictator wants to "communicate" or "negotiate" with anyone? Those kinds of behaviors imply equality and if dictators were interested in equality, they wouldn't be dictators in the first place.

So, when Kim Jong-Il threatens the United States with nuclear annihilation, what he's really saying is that he wants Barack Obama to come out and play a little "gay chicken," to threaten to starve Kim into submission or unleash "the fire of a thousand suns" on the North Korean homeland.

Otherwise, Kim might start a nuclear war.

Now that he's been fraudulently re-elected, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to play a little gay chicken as well. According to a Fox News headline entitled "Ahmadinejad Seeks to Lure Obama into War of Words Amid Iran Election Turmoil":

Ahmadinejad was notorious for his heated rhetoric toward the United States during the Bush administration. He had taken a more tentative approach after Obama's election in November, but now the verbal gloves are coming off.

"You should know that if you continue, the response of the Iranian nation will be strong," Ahmadinejad said Saturday in a speech to members of Iran's judiciary, which is directly controlled by the ruling clerics. "The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse."

In other words, Ahmadinejad is doing the rhetorical equivalent of moving his lips a little closer to Obama's. If Obama starts talking about "regime change" in Iran, then Ahmadinejad will know the game is on and he can start thinking about his strategies for rhetorically dry-humping his American counter-part.

Until then, Ahmadinejad will have to live with his disappointment that John "Bomb, bomb Iran" wasn't elected.

Joe the Plumber Likes A Little Lynching

Contrary to the Warholian predictions that Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher would be gone in 15 minutes, he appears to be developing a career as a conservative celebrity. Joe's not as famous as Limbaugh or Coulter but he's still very much an attraction for right-wing audiences.

What's the secret of Joe's success? Like other conservative celebrities, Joe is staying relevant by bidding up the violence and name calling. Here's Joe speaking at a meeting of the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing group that was heavily involved in the Tea Party protests.

Wurzelbacher has a reputation for being a blunt, politically incorrect speaker. Referring to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., more than once, Wurzelbacher asked, "Why
hasn't he been strung up?"

Joe the Plumber is far from being "blunt" or "politically incorrect." What he's doing is appealing to the "near fringe" of the conservative movement. That's the people who like to talk about things like secession, Going Galt, or survivalist dystopias but are far from the open warfare on American society that characterizes the neo-Nazis. By making the reference to lynching Chris Dodd, Joe the Plumber is satisfying the appetite for extreme rhetoric among his activist audience without "going too far over the line."

This is also what Glenn Beck's doing and I'm sure that Fox News management has had internal discussion about giving Joe the Plumber his own television show, what the format, what limitations (if any) would be placed on him, and the like.

It looks like Joe the Plumber's going to be with us for longer than originally anticipated.

The GOP Took Themselves Out of the Conversation

In a sneaky little bit of post-structuralism, Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun-Times worries that the Obama administration is "silencing other voices" on important public policy issues.

With Democrats in total control of the House and close to it in the Senate, fierce partisanship, long-cherished liberal goals and the pent-up energy of the Democratic left are driving the transformational agenda. There's no argument many of the bills address problems needing a fix, but that's best achieved with at least a degree of bipartisan support. Yet we're being force-fed a liberal prescription. A crowded agenda controlled by Democrats and a White House push for quick action crowd out competing views.

Actually, there is a ferocious debate going on between progressive and moderate Democrats on the whole range of issues before. Funding the war in Afghanistan, the financial bailout package, reforming the financial regulatory system, health care reform, and energy legislation have all been objects of considerable debate within the Democratic Party. Debate on the financial bailout ebbed back and forth as Nancy Pelosi and David Obey of the House staked out progressive positions and moderates like Claire McCaskill called for rolling back some of the spending and restrictions on the financial industry.

The same thing is happening with health care. Progressive Democrats pretty much control legislation in the House but moderate Democrats like Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Kay Hagan have been calling key elements of the Obama plan like the public option into question.

Of course, Steve Huntley is not referring to these debates. He's probably not even referring to the impact of Maine Republican Susan Collins on the financial bailout. Huntley's article reads like he agrees with most conservatives in thinking that moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and progressive Democrats are all just "liberals." For a mainstream right-winger like Rush Limbaugh, there's no distinction between Colin Powell and Henry Waxman. They're both liberals to Limbaugh and he would probably add that he likes Waxman's "honest" liberalism better.

But then, why aren't conservatives a big part of the debate on the major public policy issues before Congress. The answer is simple. Conservatives have taken themselves out of the debate. Conservatives Republicans in Congress didn't want a stimulus package at all and drove Arlen Specter out of the GOP for supporting the final stimulus bill. The same is the case with health care. The conservatives in Congress don't see any problems with the American health care system. They don't see any problems with 45 million uninsured Americans (they can go to emergency rooms according to former President Bush), don't see a problem with high pharmaceutical costs, and don't see a problem with the U. S. lagging behind other advanced economies in so many measures of public health. Conservatives don't want health care reform, have no health care reform ideas of their own outside the rejected "medical savings account" scheme, and don't want to compromise with Obama on his proposals.

Conservative ideas are not part of policy debate because conservatives aren't interested. The right responded to the financial bailout with the tea party protests where they expressed their real concerns over whether Obama is a Marxist, fascist, Muslim, or an American at all. Rick Perry got big cheers for speculating about Texas secession and Ayn Rand got even bigger cheers for the idea of wealthy people taking their marbles and going home.

Those are the kind of things in which conservatives are interested right now.

As a result, the full range of public debate is now occurring within the Democratic Party. If conservatives want their policy concerns expressed, they'll have to do so through the good offices of Democratic moderates like Ben Nelson.

Waiting for the Big One

It feels like there's an epic thunderstorm gathering over Center City Philadelphia.

It's just taking its time getting here.

Without any wind, it's hard for the storm to actually get here.

As a result, I did manage to sneak in a two mile walk.

Still, everyone into the storm cellars!

Dorothy'll be fine.

Maybe Michael Jackson Died From Overuse

Being away from home, I talked on the phone about Michael Jackson's death for an hour plus tonight with my teen-age daughter KC.

It's KC's first BIG celebrity death and she was eager to talk about Michael Jackson's early career, Thriller, The Wiz, and his seeming decline over the last twenty years.

Anything I might have known about Michael Jackson.

All 0f her friends were texting about it and she was sure one of her friends would cry and wasn't it interesting that Michael Jackson's death upstaged the death of Farrah Fawcett?

And . . . And . . .

And I talked it out with her because I try to be a better dad than your average Republican governor and because I know KC wants and needs to test her smarts, wit, and ideas against her college-professor father.

So I hung in there.

But it was tough.

That's mostly because I've thought that Michael Jackson was a very sad, damaged person whose life was primarily defined by the fact that he never recovered from being deprived of his childhood.

When I think of Michael Jackson, I think of someone who should not have been put on stage at age 6 and should not have had a record contract and been doing tours before he was a teenager. I remember Jackson himself saying that he built the Neverland Park as a way to compensate for losing his childhood. But I wonder if the rest of Jackson's strangeness doesn't go back to that sad fact as well.

I also can't help but wonder if Jackson's years as a child star didn't end up killing him.

It's well known that a lot of professional baseball and football players die at fairly young ages--in their late forties and early fifties.

The basic thought is that what kills them is the enormous amount of stress that sports puts on a person's major organs.

Generally speaking, a professional athlete will start with competitive sports when they're six or seven and are sports veterans of ten or eleven years by the time they graduate from high school. I started playing competitive tackle football in a "small fry" league when I was seven and had played for eleven years by my 1972 graduation. If NFL players finish a ten year career at age 33, they will have played competitive football for 27 years.

The same with baseball and basketball. I've read stories of guys saying "I've played this game a long time" even though they've just out of high school.

For somebody who's a professional athlete into their thirties, that's a lot of stress for a lot of years.

And they just kind of wear out.

I'm sure there's going to be a lot of investigation into Michael Jackson's death. There was already speculation that he was taking steroids to prepare for another "comeback" tour. Maybe he was a pill-popper or had some other addiction. Perhaps he had some kind of congenital heart disease instead and was lucky to live as long as he did.

But until the facts come out, I can't help but speculate that all the tours, rehearsal, recording, and other things connected with the music biz didn't wear Jackson down physically and ultimately cause his early death.

By the time Michael Jackson was 41 years old in the late 90's, he had been a professional musician for thirty years and had been performing with his brothers since age 6.

Perhaps that often daily routine of peak performance just wore him down and ultimately killed him.

John Kerry Being Stupid

This was a dumb thing for John Kerry to say.

The Bay State senator was telling a group of business and civic leaders in town at his invitation about the “bizarre’’ tale of how South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford had “disappeared for four days’’ and claimed to be hiking along the Appalachian Trail, but no one was really certain of his whereabouts.

“Too bad,’’ Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the
governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’

The Democratic-centric crowd laughed.

Allahpundit at the right-wing blog Hot Air gets a fair shot in on Kerry when he calls him "just a jerk."

Of course, the sad thing is that Kerry would have made a much better president than Bush.

Mark Sanford: Resign Now for Being Holier Than Thou!!

Now that he's confessed his affair with an Argentinian woman, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina needs to retrieve the old Confederate sword out of his closet . . .

And fall on it.

At least politically.

And while Sanford is falling on his political sword, he should ritualistically disembowel himself and hope he can be resurrected as a Fox commentator.

Oh yeah! Sanford should also resign as governor.

Sophia Nelson makes the argument that Sanford is a human being after all and that we humans are frail creatures who inevitably get off the straight and narrow path. What's more, few people in the media or politics haven't over-indulged in booze, used illegal drugs, or fallen off the monogamy wagon. Everyone should all understand that we too are fallen creatures, that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and forgive Sanford for his transgressions.

Nothing against Nelson. Her HuffPost article makes the case well.

But I'm still not buying.

Mark Sanford should resign because he's a sanctimonious prig who was selling a lie that he was five times more righteous than even your average South Carolina Republican.

True, Sanford isn't as bad as Elliot Spitzer. Given that Spitzer was an uber self-righteous prick, everybody instantaneously agreed that he was just too disgusting to remain in office. "Get him out of our sight" was the consensus.

But Sanford still needs to resign.

The self-righteousness, the hypocrisy, the months of deceit with his wife, the lies he told about his disappearance, and the breach of faith with his staff and the people of South Carolina are all too much for Sanford to remain in office. He really needs to remove himself from the public scene and reflect on his path in life.

Maybe he should get back with his wife and sons. Maybe he should see if it's going to work with his Argentinian mistress. Who knows?

Maybe he could even get a real, i.e., non-political job.

I'm not saying that Mark Sanford shouldn't have a future in politics. But if he is going to have a role in public life, he needs to go back to the end of the line and once again earn the trust of people who have a full knowledge of his fall from grace.

That's the only thing that's fair to the people of South Carolina and the Republican Party.

Otherwise, Sanford's just going to be one more GOP laughingstock at a time when it's really hard for anyone to take the Republican Party seriously.

Mark Sanford's Excellent Adventure, Part II

It appears that Mark Standord's staff has come up with a second version of the South Carolina Governor's whereabouts.

The new story is that he's been "hiking" the Appalachian Trail.

What happened to all of the "writing projects" that Stanford's staff and wife were talking about yesterday?

It looks like that the writing story's not going to stand up. The "Appalachian Trail" story probably won't stand up either.

Hopefully, Stanford's not "wandering aimlessly."

But that's still what it sounds like.

Harry Potter Still Rules

MSN has an article up about whether Harry Potter has lost his magic in light of the "Twilight" vampire series.

The answer to that question--NOT QUITE YET!!

Having kids really does help you stay in contact with the rise and fall of some trends. According to Miss Teen RSI, "Twilight" is the series that's already lost its magic and she can't understand why she ever thought it was cool.

But the authoritative response to the question comes from Miss Tween RSI. She and a friend have already had one Harry Potter film festival and plan to have a complete Harry Potter movie marathon before "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" arrives in theaters.

Harry Potter--Still Big, Really Big.

The Collapse of Republican Support

Among the kind of white progressives I hang out with, it used to be a kind of joke that one black person would be invited to every party.

Eventually, there were enough black people around so that African-Americans got above token level. You couldn't realistically have "just one." Then, it became cool to invite a token gay person. Wasn't there also a Sex and the City episode about lesbian couples being the in-thing at parties?

Now, no one can have a real party unless they invite a transsexual.

Even in Kentucky.

But I'm wondering if Republicans aren't going to become so scarce someday that they actually have value as token guests for progressive gatherings.

"Look everybody, there's the Republican we invited."

At least that's what the public opinion trend surrounding the Republican Party.

Here's the "favorable opinion levels" for Republicans as reported by Research 2000 for DailyKos.

All-- 24%

Ethnic/Racial/Gender
Blacks -- 3%
Latinos-- 8%
Whites-- 31%
Other -- 9%
Women --16%
Men --32%

It's not so surprising that 94% of blacks and Democrats view the Republicans unfavorably. But so do 78% of independents, 86% of Latinos, 79% of women. Even 64% of the most favorable group for Republicans--men--view the Republicans poorly. Greg Sargent argues that GOP opposition to the Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court has killed Republican support among Latinos. But the Republicans are dead everywhere. Has the Sotomayor nomination harmed the Republicans among a wide range of groups or are the various groups unhappy with Republican conduct in general?

It's the latter I think.

"Hey, honey. We need to change up our guest list a little. No more "same old, same old." You know that Republican guy from work. He's actually a nice guy. We should invite him too."

Region
Northeast--8%
Midwest--18%
West--29%
South--45%

Favorable opinions of the Republicans are so rare in the Northeast that you could get a change of pace by talking to someone who would say something nice about Dick Cheney. Even the Solid South is not exactly solid for the GOP anymore. Forth-seven percent of Southerners view them unfavorably as well. Still, outside the South, Republican support is in something like a death spin.

Age:
18-29--9%
30-44--35%
45-59--21%
60+--23%

The Republicans are pretty much at the same token level among young voters as they are among blacks and Latinos. It would be sort of interesting to investigate why people in "early middle age" are less disgusted with the GOP than other groups.

Maybe they're not paying attention.

If I were a Republican consultant looking at these numbers, I would be thinking about starting a new party. The GOP doesn't look like they're popular enough to support all the conservative pollsters and political consultants out there. As a result, my ability to live in the manner to which I've become accustomed might depend on getting away from the Republican Party.

How bad is it? A Republican candidate could expect to get 35-45% of the vote if the election were held today--35% if it's Sarah Palin, 45% for a John McCain clone. But to get even to those still losing levels, the Republicans have to attract big parts of their support from people who don't like them. Given that only 24% of voters think favorably of the Republicans, they would have to get almost a third of their vote from (11% out of 35%) from voters who have an unfavorable opinion of them to get to the landslide level of 35%. To get 45% of the vote, the Republicans would have to corral almost 1/2 (21% out of 45%) of their votes from the unfavorably minded.

That's a daunting task.

As for winning in 2012, the Republicans can almost forget about that. They really need to focus on survival. Right now, the Republicans look like the Bear Stearns of the political world--aggressive, pugnacious, unpopular, and doomed.

Hey, that's another idea for our next party--invite an unemployed investment banker.

Mark Sanford Disappears--Check His Meds

Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, has at least temporarily disappeared. Well, his staff says they've located him. But it appears that his wife and his South Carolina detail have had no idea where he is for the last four days.

Gov. Sanford has made his name as being the farthest out on the fringe of the Republican governors with his neo-nullificationist approach to the Obama stimulus package.

Farther out than either Sarah ("Bridge to Nowhere") Palin or even that secessionist teaser Rick Perry of Texas.

But if I were a South Carolina voter, I'd be concerned about Mark Sanford.

That's because his wife is "not concerned." It appears these kind of episodes happen often enough that Mrs. Sanford isn't particularly worried about it.

The official line is that Sanford wanted to take some time away from his kids to get some writing done.

On Father's Day weekend?

Of course, it's common knowledge that many conservative Republicans like John Ensign, David Vitter, and Mark Foley are much less concerned about their own families than they are about "family values."

But I don't believe for a second that Sanford's "trip to nowhere" was about getting work done.

My own guess is that Gov. Sanford is on some heavy anti-depressant medication and that he's either gotten off his meds or needs another prescription.

Here's hoping that Sanford gets the help he needs.

MEMO TO WASHINGTON POST: YOU'RE FIRED!

A few days ago, I posted on Open Salon and RSI about boycotting the Washington Post in the wake of the Dan Froomkin firing.

Today, I fired them!

It was easy. I unsubcribed to their "Today's Headlines And Columnists Feedback" and wrote this comment:

This is to inform you that I’m no longer subscribing to the Washington Post’s
"Today’s Headlines and Columnists” service. As has been frequently observed, the Washington Post is becoming more and more of a right-wing mouthpiece while still enjoying the economic benefits of its reputation as a major “liberal” newspaper. However, with the Dan Froomkin firing, I am no longer willing to patronize the Post. So I am severing what little connection I have.

One suggestion though--you might think about having your editorials posted on the Townhall website along with the op-eds of Charles Krauthammer.

Then, I e-mailed my comment to editor Fred Hiatt. Obviously, I don't have much weight with Fred Hiatt, but it's important to add my little bit to the sum of disgust with the Washington Post's general rightward drift and their recent firing of Dan Froomkin.

Progressives are a well-educated, relatively high-income group that has considerable economic weight. Boycotting the Washington Post is an appropriate occasion for throwing that weight around a little.

Obama, Iran, and Founding Mythologies

In the United States, we don't often view ourselves through analogies with other nations. This is mostly a result of American military and economic power. We make other countries respond to us. We don't respond to them. Other countries have to think about us. We don't have to think about them. It's hard for American conservatives to even recognize that the French, Greeks, or Iraqis would value their own country over ours. Given that it's often hard for progressives to get beyond reacting to the dangerous blustering of the right, American politics tends to be myopic in the extreme.

But I believe the best way to think about events in Iran is in relation to American developments. This is part of the point that Mir Hossein Moussavi's spokesperson made the other day when he stressed that Moussavi was Iran's Obama and Ahmadinejad equalled Bush. In Moussavi's view, what's happening in Iran is not a replay of the Iranian Revolution or the Velvet Revolutions in the former Soviet bloc. If anything, it is a replay of last year's American election.

As America goes, so goes Iran

I would argue that the Iranian/American analogy goes beyond our 2008 election and last week's Iranian election. The best way to understand the Iranian situation is that protesters are trying to give the Islamic Republic what Abraham Lincoln famously called a "new birth." Much of what Moussavi brought out in his statement yesterday was the inspirational role of the 1979 Revolution in the current protests.

The spontaneous movement of the people chose the color green as its symbo . . . And the generation that was accused of being far from religious roots, arrived at Takbir among its slogans and leaned against "Victory Comes from God and an Opening is Around", "O Husayn" and the name of Khomeini to prove that this fine tree brings similar fruit whenever it bears fruit. Nobody had taught them these slogans except the Innate Teacher [God].

For Moussavi, the current protests recall the Revolution of 1979 on two levels. Symbols of the current protests like the color green and the name "Khomeini" point back to the birth of the Islamic Republic which was ". . . a revolution for freedom, a revolution for the rekindling of the compassion of human beings, a revolution for truth and honesty." More importantly, the symbols are inspired directly by God. "Nobody had taught them these slogans except the "Innate Teacher." Like the 1979 Revolution, Moussavi views this movement as divinely inspired.

The protesters want a new birth of Shia Islam and a government and religious hierarchy that is responsible to the people and based in freedom. They want the freedom, compassion, truth, and honesty promised in 1979. They also want to end confrontation with the West. If successful, the protesters will have established the 1979 Revolution, Shiite Islam, and Iran's system on a new footing. The founding of modern Iran in the original revolution will then be interpreted through the lens of their own revolt against election fraud.

If Moussavi represents the rebirth of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Barack Obama should be seen in terms of the rebirth of the American Republic. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln viewed the Civil War as a "new birth of freedom" which meant that government "of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth." But the United States had been constructed in such a way that it promised a general freedom but excluded a vast majority of the population from most if not all of the freedoms being promised. African-Americans were either enslaved or subject to harsh proscriptions, women were denied rights to vote and hold office, and new immigrants were subject to various exclusions.

The Civil War promised "a new birth of freedom," but freedom would have to be "reborn" many times in the United States before anyone could see that promise being fulfilled. The Civil Rights movement of the late 1950's and early 1960's, the opening of immigration to non-whites, the women's movement, the counter-culture, gay rights movement, and other smaller movements have all been new births of American freedom. It goes without saying that all of those rebirths have not happened without determined resistance. The conservative movement in the United States coalesced in opposition to the activism of the 60's and had been politically dominant for most of the last 40 years. But the new births of American freedom have gone forward despite a string of Republican presidents and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 is best seen as a manifestation of the new political power of all the groups that have been invested in the growth of American freedom.

In other words, Obama's election was another new birth.

In his comments yesterday on the Iranian government's violent response to the demonstrations, President Obama quoted Martin Luther King's statement that "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Because of the many rebirths of American freedom over the last fifty years, most Americans now view the founding of the American Republic, the Civil War, and keystone American events through the lens of Martin Luther King and the African-American civil rights movement. As contemporary Americans, we look at the original founding of the Republic from the perspective of the rebirth and we assign the original founding patriotic meanings that we have achieved in our lifetimes.

In the United States, we have been engaged in a fifty process of giving "new births" to the freedom we view as our "sacred" birthright. One of the reasons that the Iranians compare Mir Hossein Moussavi to Barack Obama is that they sense the momentousness of their movement as being very similar to the progressive social movements most powerfully exemplified by the Civil Rights movement. In a similar way, we can understand ourselves better and gain renewed energy for the process of expanding freedom in the United States if we reflect on the many ways in which the Iranians are like us.

Don't Drink the Notre Dame Kool-Aid

Cory McCartney of SI.com is pushing the idea that a soft schedule is going to land Charlie Weis and the Notre Dame football team in a big BCS bowl.

Who knows! I doubt it, but maybe there's a dog's hair of truth in that idea.

Then McCartney goes way over the edge by claiming that Notre Dame's game against Southern Cal is "winnable" for the Fighting Irish. Now THAT is really drinking the kool-aid. The scout team at Southern Cal is loaded with scary-good athletes who would be stars just about anywhere else. Notre Dame probably couldn't beat them let alone the real team.

Robert Gates Needs a Geography Lesson

There's a report today that the North Koreans are planning to launch a missile toward Hawaii:

North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July, the Associated Press quoted a Japanese news report on Thursday. U.S. military experts do not believe the North Korean missile has the range to strike U.S. territory, but that the threat in the near future is real.

To be honest, I don't really think the North Koreans are a threat to attack Hawaii. Mostly, Kim Jong-il wants to draw Barack Obama into a game of homoerotic mutual denunciations that would allow Kim to feel like a real man and a real leader.

God, Kim misses George Bush.

But whether the North Koreans are a threat or not, I'm much more disturbed that our Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't seem to know which direction the North Koreans would have to fire if they did attack Hawaii.

The United States has positioned more missile defenses around Hawaii as a precaution against a possible North Korean launch across the Pacific, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. "We do have some concerns if they were to launch a missile to the west in the direction of Hawaii," Gates said.

It's East Robert, East. Hawaii is east of North Korea. If the North Koreans fire their missiles west, it's somebody else's problem.

Boycott the Washington Post!

One of the things that continues to amaze me is why people on the left continue to patronize outlets like the Washington Post that pretend to be "the liberal media" but actually identify with the right. Yesterday, the Washington Post fired its token liberal blogger Dan Froomkin as part of its move to the right under Fred Hiatt and Dan Graham.

Former conservative Andrew Sullivan captures the firing well:

"Dan's work on torture may be one reason he is now gone. The way in which the WaPo has been coopted by the neocon right, especially in its editorial pages, is getting more and more disturbing. This purge will prompt a real revolt in the blogosphere. And it should."

But why should we limit our revolt to complaining? Why don't readers on the left fire the Washington Post in return.

This isn't to say that progressives should not read inform themselves of conservative views or keep up with right-wing politics. It's important that we do so and there are plenty of right-wing outlets like the Washington Times, TownHall, and RealClearPolitics that allow people to do so. Some of the conservative outlets like HotAir and Protein Wisdom are actually fun to read sometimes.

But why should we on the left allow an outlet like the Washington Post to maintain its reputation as a "liberal newspaper" while it pursues a right-wing agenda?

It's stupid and self-destructive on our parts to do so.

I'm not privy to the business model of the Post, but I would bet my bottom dollar that its ability to promote its advertising, sell newspapers, and generate on-line traffic depends heavily on the good will they'e earned among urban liberals and progressives.

The same would be the case with the New York Times and NPR.

But, now that the Post is taking a hard turn to the right, they no longer deserve the good will of people on the left. Given that the editorial page of the Post has become a major mouthpiece for neo-conservative war-mongering, it can even be said that the Post has become a significant vehicle for the most dangerous kind of right-wing politics.

In other words, patronizing the Washington Post has become the equivalent of sending checks to Newt Gingrich.

We shouldn't do it.

Moussavi=Obama, Ahmadinejad=Bush

At least that's according to Moussavi's spokesperson.

Mousavi spokesman on Obama. Via reader Heather, Foreign Policy speaks with Mousavi's external spokesman in Paris Mohsen Makhmalbaf:

FP: There has been growing criticism here in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama hasn't said or done enough to support those demonstrating in the streets of Iran. Do you think Obama is being too careful? Or even that he is helping Ahmadinejad by being cautious?
MM: Obama has said that there is no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Does he like it himself [when someone is] saying that there is no difference between Obama and [George W.] Bush? Ahmadinejad is the Bush of Iran. And Mousavi is the Obama of Iran.
FP: Would Mousavi pursue a different foreign policy than Ahmadinejad?
MM: As you may know, former President Mohammad Khatami, who is supporting Mousavi at the moment, was in favor of dialogue between the civilizations, but Ahmadinejad talks about the war of the civilizations. Is there not any difference between the two? We [Iranians] are a bit unfortunate. When we had our Obama [meaning President Khatami], that was the time of President Bush in the United States. Now that [the United States] has Obama, we have our Bush here [in Iran]. In order to resolve the problems between the two countries, we should have two Obamas on the two sides. It doesn't mean that everything depends on these two
people, but this is one of the main factors.

Like everyone else in the world, the Moussavi people know that the Bush administration opposed the Khatami government almost as much as the conservative mullahs.

They also know that the Bush administration was eager to start a war with Iran and that American neo-cons seemingly ended every meal with a chorus of "Bomb, Bomb Iran."

Maybe that's why they see the blustering Ahmadinejad as Iran's Bush and Moussavi as Iran's Obama.

Good Vibes at RSI World Headquarters

It looks like my book proposal for "Displays of Degradation" might be getting some fresh legs. As many times as it's burned and come back to life, I should be putting "phoenix" in the title. I'm still aways from getting a contract though.

Today was also an awesome research day.

Iranatologists Emerge From Hiding

Evidently taking the hint from RSI, Stuart Whatley attended a gathering of Iranatologists for speculation about the underlying meaning of the current protests. Taken altogether, the Iranatologists didn't have that much insight. But I thought the link was worthwhile.

Hillary Hurt: She Should Do a Commercial!

Hillary Clinton fractures her elbow. That must REALLY hurt. But there's no sense letting a serious injury go to waste. She should do a commercial explaining how the Obama health care proposal would help most Americans if they broke their elbows.

Health Care Message from President Obama

With the health care wars are getting under way, I got a "personal" letter from President Obama yesterday.

Here's a good chunk of it.

"The campaign to pass real health care reform in 2009 is the biggest test of our movement since the election. Once again, victory is far from certain. Our opposition will be fierce, and they have been down this road before.

To prevail, we must once more build a coast-to-coast operation ready to knock on doors, deploy volunteers, get out the facts, and show the world how real change happens in America.

And just like before, I cannot do it without your support.

So I'm asking you to remember all that you gave over the last two years to get us here -- all the time, resources, and faith you invested as a down payment to earn us our place at this crossroads in history.

All that you've done has led up to this -- and whether or not our country takes the next crucial step depends on what you do right now.

Will you donate whatever you can afford to support the campaign for real health care reform in 2009?

It doesn't matter how much you can give, as long as you give what you can. Millions of families on the brink are counting on us to do just that. I know we can deliver.

Thank you, so much, for getting us this far. And thank you for standing up once again to take us the rest of the way."

The bottom line is that the health care debate is going to be about money--in other words who has the money they need to best get out their message. The Obama administration has a good health care plan with a much needed public option for health insurance. Adapting President Obama's plan will be a big step forward in redesigning the American health system to serve the public as opposed to the health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers. I could say something about "bleeding the country dry while providing sub-standard care to large sections of the population." But I don't imagine Obama would like that kind of inflammatory rhetoric.

That's why I'm going to contribute up to $100 to the campaign. I hope others do as well.

Where's an Iranatologist When You Need One?

HuffPost has a headline about Iran's Assembly of Experts being called to an emergency meeting in the religious center of Qom.

There are very interesting things that are taking place right now. Some of my sources in Iran have told me that Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who is the head of the Assembly of Experts -- the eighty-six member clerical body that decides who will be the next Supreme Leader, and is, by the way, the only group that is empowered to remove the Supreme Leader from power -- that they have issued an emergency meeting in Qom.

Now, Anderson, I have to tell you, there's only one reason for the Assembly of Experts to meet at this point, and that is to actually talk about what to do about Khamenei. So, this is what I'm saying, is that we're talking about the very legitimacy, the very foundation of the Islamic Republic is up in the air right now. It's hard to say what this is going to go . .
.
An informed Iranian-American had a different take. "I think Rafasanjani is not going to ask for Khamenei's removal, but is bluffing to force Khamenei to drop support of Ahmadinejad."

But who really knows? Who can really guess? Iran's Assembly of Experts seems to be the religious version of the Politburo in the Soviet Union. They're the people who turned Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. They're the people who decide who will be the "deciders" even if they're not involved in the ins and outs of daily government themselves.

But who knows whether the Assembly of Experts is actually meeting or what they're meeting about if they're meeting? Back in the good old days of the Soviet Union when the world was simple and our enemies were "reasonable communists" rather than terrorists, the U. S. had brigades of Sovietologists who closely followed the Politburo. They probably didn't know all that much for certain, but the Sovietologists could at least make plausible guesses about what was happening in the upper leadership ranks.

Where's a good Iranatologist when you need one?

Maybe There's a Problem with the Drug War

I caught this line in a CNN story about the murder of a Mexican priest by a drug cartel.

As enforcement action in Mexico and the United States has increased, domestic drug consumption in Mexico has increased.

There are all kinds of signs that the drug war isn't working.

But I still didn't think that "increased drug enforcement" would be correlated with "increased drug consumption."

Everybody would better off if drug use were legalized and taken over by governments.

Compassion for John Ensign

How the mighty often fall! Sen. John Ensign revealed yesterday that he had an affair with a Senate staffer and that the woman involved was married to another one of his staffers.

"Last year I had an affair," said Ensign. "I violated the vows of my marriage." Ensign did not name the woman with whom he had the affair, saying only that "the woman who I was involved with and her husband were close friends of mine." He added that he was "committed to my service in the United States Senate".

There was also the possibility of blackmail.

Two Senate Republican sources close to Sen. John Ensign of Nevada told FOX News that a former employee had asked Ensign for money in what both sources described as a case of "extortion."

The employee, Doug Hampton, worked in Ensign's Senate office, and his wife, Cindy Hampton, worked for Ensign's re-election campaign. Both ceased working for the senator shortly after the affair ended, the sources said, with Cindy Hampton receiving a severance package. The circumstances of Doug Hampton's departure remain unclear.

But whether the aggrieved husband tried to blackmail Ensign or not, having an affair with the spouse of a staff member is extremely low behavior.

The underlying problem for Sen. Ensign is that he's a self-righteous guy from the religious right who's condemned the sexual foibles of other politicians in no uncertain terms. When the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, Ensign called on Bill Clinton to resign as president, saying he had "no credibility left." Ensign was also highly critical of Larry Craig's arrest in a bathroom sex-sting, saying that Craign should resign from the Senate: “I wouldn’t put myself, hopefully, in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that’s what I would do.”

That was in September, 2007. Three months later, Ensign was in precisely that position with one of his own staffers.

Adding everything up, it's easy to criticize Ensign as a self-righteous hypocrite and plenty of people are doing just that. And it's good for Ensign to feel the weight of that judgment. Maybe Maybe he'll be less of a jerk about other people as a result.

Still, I believe in compassion for politicians with wandering eyes.

I know I've posted on this before, but temptation is everywhere for politicians. Guys like Ensign are pretty people (Ensign has that Mitt Romney shock of hair) and they come into contact with all kinds of other pretty people who tell them how great they are in the most sincere way. A couple of drinks later, Mr. Political Big-Shot is turned on by someone who, luck would have it, is eager to go to bed with them.

That appears to be what happened with John Edwards and Rielle Hunter.

Or in Bill Clinton's case, an intern is flashing her thong your way.

That's temptation.

I'm not sure what happened in Ensign's case. Maybe the general sexual charge of politics was too much of a temptation for him. Maybe he is a hypocritical jerk calling on other "fallen" politicians to resign while actively pursuing affairs himself. Who knows, perhaps he's a monster like Eliot Spitzer choking prostitutes or Robert Packwood sexully harassing female staffers.

Hopefully, the tabloids will be able to sort everything out.

For now though, I'm going to give Ensign the benefit of the doubt, think it's a matter of temptation, and hope that he'll develop more sympathy for other people with problems.

Statement from Ayatollah Montazeri

Here (via Andrew Sullivan) is a recently released statement from Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri of Iran. Montazeri was an important clerical supporter of theocracy during the early days of the Revolution, but fell out of favor because of his support for a more open policy and spent some time under house arrest.

Given that Montezeri is no longer a powerful political figure, his statement probably won't have any impact on the policies of the current theocratic leadership of Supreme Leader Ali Khameinei.

But from an American perspective, Montazeri formulates his views in an unusual, almost unique kind of way.

In the name of God

People of Iran

These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections.

Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited
patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the government’s officials to bond with their people.

But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.

Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you :

1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. I fear that this lead to the lost of people’s faith in Islam.
2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore people’s confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting people’s vote has no religious or political legitimacy.
3- I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.
4- I ask the police and army personals not to “sell their religion”, and beware that
receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognize the protesting youth
as your children. Today censor and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide
the truth.

I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people.

Much like I've always thought of Iraqi Ayatollah Sistani as an impressive religious figure working through a very difficult time, Ayatollah Montazeri impresses because he apparently takes great care to drain any theatricality out of his statement. This gives his thoughts a simplicity and authenticity that's often lacking from the statements of Western leaders.

Another dimension of Montazeri's statement that I very much appreciate is his stress on the Iranian people as the touchstone for his thoughts. There used to be a phrase in the West that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" and Montazeri writes as though he agrees with that statement. He evinces enormous respect for the integrity of the Iranian people that has shown through the Iranian Revolution and the eight-year war with Iraq, and which still shows in the patience and non-violence with which all sectors of the people--"old and young alike, from any social category"--are carrying out the protests of the rigged election.

My reading of Montazeri's statement is that he views the full wrongfulness of the Iranian government in rigging the election and suppressing the protests as lying in its destruction of its bond with the Iranian people. The election represented a great opportunity for the Iranian government to "bond with the people" and the Iranian government failed in its duty by dealing with that opportunity in "the worst possible way." The Iranian government not only "declared results that no one in their right mind could believe," they "attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence" in front of the whole world.

For Montazeri, the Iranian government has broken any bond it had with God as well. A government that does "not respect the people's vote" has no religious or political legitimacy" and the police and army personnel attacking the children of the people risk the judgment of God as well as the judgment of the world.

Montazeri seems to believe that "the people" has an inherent bond with God and that the duty of Iranian government is to nourish that the various segments of the population that forms the people and thus strengthen the ties between God and his followers. He worries that the authorities have undermined "people's faith in Islam" as a result of their conduct.

Montazeri's stress on "the people" makes it possible for him to articulate a condemnation of the Iranian regime that has considerable moral and theological depth. We would do well to follow Montazeri's example in reestablishing the notion of the people as a central concept in our political thinking.

In the Western world, there used to be balance between the concept of the people and the concept of the individual. But American authorities have been successful in putting the whole weight of political philosophy on individuality and draining the concept of the people of any moral or political substance. The most important repository for any concept of the people is now African-American thought and African-Americans are starting to fall into individualistic patterns of thought as well. By disconnecting individuality from any collective sense in this way, the development of American political thought has made individuals more vulnerable to government and corporate efforts at manipulation and control. Losing a sense for the life of the people has come at the cost of a great loss of human freedom in this country.

Altogether, Ayatollah Montazeri articlated an impressive statement on the situation in Iraq, one which holds lessons for us in the United States as well as the Iranian government.

Painting the Estrogren Palace

It looks like I'll be returning to an estrogen palace when I get home to Morehead from my five-week stay in Philadelphia.

Mrs. RSI and the two daughters RSI started painting up a storm as soon as I left town. That's no surprise. I'm extremely allergic to paint and the only time anybody can do some painting is when I'm out of town for more than a week. The physical plant people at Morehead State painted my office and the halls in my building in January and Februar and I couldn't go back for more than five or ten minutes at a time until April.

But I have an ominous feeling about the colors. The kitchen is changing from whatever color it was (as a "guy's guy, I don't really notice these things) to "cocoa-butter" yellow.

I have no idea what color that is, but I got an ominous feeling when Miss Teen RSI told me how "pretty" it was.

I wasn't that excited about hearing the living room was being painted "rose-pink" either.

But there comes a time when every father of daughters has to "man up" and face the prospect of full-time immersion in the aesthetics of 21st century teen-age femininity. If the guy who lived across the street from my parents could get through raising six daughters, I can certainly survive the estrogen onslaught from my two girls.

It's the price we pay for our commitment to the traditional family.

Beck and the Far Fringe

In an interview with the Washington Post (via HuffPost), Glenn Beck reveals that he's not exactly the darling of the survivalist, Aryan Nation, militia, Neo-Nazi fringe.Washington, D.C.:

We have seen several domestic terrorist attacks already this year (Pittsburgh cop killings, Wichita abortion doctor murder, Holocaust Museum shooting) and Shephard Smith has acknowledged an increase in vitriolic hate-filled emails to Fox News. How do you balance providing your viewpoint with making sure not to push fringe groups over the edge towards violence?

Glenn Beck: Anybody who thinks that I'm pushing fringe groups to violence should read my e-mail. The fringe groups hate my guts. The fringe groups think I'm a government stooge. What people need to keep in mind is that some people in the fringe groups are CRAZY. If you want to target Fox News, feel free, but it's misguided.

Of course, the "far fringe groups" hate Beck's guts. HE'S COMPETITION.