Monday, December 31, 2007

HAPPY NEW YEAR

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A Happy New Year to all of you, wishing all of you the best for 2008. In the world of politics, and therefore also of political blogging, it should be an exciting year.

**********

2007 was a great year for The Reaction. There are many personal stories behind this blog, too many to get into, some simply too personal to get into, but it was a year that saw growth in terms of traffic, exposure, and recognition, a year that saw the addition of several new co-bloggers, a year, in a word, of improvement.

When I started this blog back in 2005, I had no idea where it would go. I'd never blogged before, didn't know much about blogging, and thought it might be a fun and interesting thing to do in my spare time -- a post or two a day, hopefully a few readers, whatever. If nothing else, I'd be able to express myself, opine. About what, I knew not -- politics, philosophy, culture, my general areas of interest, that much was clear, but I had no direction, just an empty blog and a few thoughts. It was slow at first, pointless even, but I kept at it, posting and posting, more and more.

Over time, I brought on a few co-bloggers, but it was in 2007 that The Reaction became not just a group blog but, more accurately, a community of bloggers -- if I may say so, a community of some of the finest voices in the blogosphere. It was me, just me, for a long time, and I continued to do most of the posting until just recently, but increasingly I wanted this blog to be more, much more, than just me and my opinions. I wanted it to be a forum for intelligent, thoughtful, dynamic blogging, for provocative and challenging posts, a community of diverse ideas and perspectives, of diverse voices, a website dedicated to news, commentary, and analysis of high quality, with a focus not just on the U.S. and Canada but on the international scene as well -- and not just on politics but on a wide range of other topics, from science and technology to philosophy and economics to culture and the arts and whatever else might deserve some attention.

There is always room for improvement, and hopefully The Reaction will continue to improve -- hopefully, too, our readership will continue to grow. But as we welcome in 2008 -- and midnight is now over two hours behind us here in England, where I'm on vacation -- I must say that I am immensely proud of this blog -- and extremely grateful to all the people who have made it what it is today. No, I had no idea back in 2005 that my little blog with no direction would become a group blog of this magnitude, but I would have it no other way.

You will see a few changes here in the next few days, some changes to the look and feel of the blog. Some of you may already have noticed that I took my name off the banner -- a move long overdue, perhaps, but it was time to recognize formally that The Reaction isn't just "by" me. Again, it's a community, and one with a more formal editorial structure. I am still the editor-in-chief, and I will continue to post as often as I can, but there are other editors, too, and the posts will come from many different bloggers. In that sense, nothing will change from what's been going on for many months now. Some may post a little more, some a little less -- we all have lives outside blogging, after all -- and there may even be some new contributors, but, on the whole, The Reaction will continue to be The Reaction. It will just look better.

So, again, best wishes to all of you from all of us. We hope you make us one of your blogging destinations in 2008.

**********

There were some fireworks out here in the countryside, but the fireworks in London, which I caught on the BBC, where quite spectacular:

Happy New Year!

A big happy new year wish to all who visit and co-blog at The Reaction. Michael, you've built a great home here. Co-bloggers, you are a great bunch and I'm proud to share that home with you. Here's looking forward an interesting 2008.

-Creature

My voting history

By Edward Copeland

My state won't get to vote until Feb. 5, so who knows how the Democratic field will look then. With the approach of Iowa though, I'm in a reflective mood since 2008 will mark 20 years since I first voted for president.

In 1988, my state's presidential primary was in March. By that time, my candidate, Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, had suspended his campaign but not dropped out, meaning he could still accumulate delegates. I voted for Simon anyway. I worked for Dukakis during the summer and voted for him proudly in November.

In 1992, Paul Tsongas was my guy. Unfortunately, the success of his candidacy seemed to have surprised even his campaign, who neglected to get him on my state's primary ballot. Still leery of Bill Clinton's ability to beat Bush 41, I voted for Jerry Brown with the dim hope of a brokered convention. Thank heavens for that mad dwarf Ross Perot, who enabled Clinton to win twice. I voted for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996.

Since there was no Democratic primary fight in 1996, I switched my registration to GOP and voted for Buchanan, just to screw with Dole.

2000 was incredibly depressing. I was a Bradley man, having despised Gore dating back to Tipper and the PMRC. I was moving between states, but Bradley's candidacy was already over, so I registered GOP in the hopes of helping McCain stop Dubya. In the fall, faced with a choice between two men I despised and living in the reddest of red states where Nader wasn't even an option, I voted for Harry Browne, the Libertarian.

In 2004, I wasn't sure how to go. At first, I felt John Edwards was an empty suit, but after seeing him in person, I was sold and voted for him in the primary, though he barely lost the state. In the fall, I gladly voted for Kerry and his loss led me into a funk that led me on the path to blogging.

This year, Edwards is still my first choice, but if he's out of it by Feb. 5, I'm going to vote for Obama to try to stop Hillary's ego from costing the Dems an easy November win. The Democrats are blessed with a field of worthy contenders, but the only serious candidate (not counting Gravel, entertaining as he is) with a worse chance in November than Hillary is Kucinich and I still like him better than her.

Every election, we like to say is the most important ever, but it's very true about 2008. The Democrats and the country in general can't afford to blow this one.

How odd...

By Carl

...Democracy
without a war?

DEOTHANG, Bhutan (Reuters) - Bhutanese voted on Monday to elect members to a new upper house of parliament for the first time, a step towards democracy after a century of absolute monarchy.

The tiny, conservative Himalayan kingdom has been preparing for democracy since former monarch Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided to hand power to an elected government, even as many of his citizens said they were quite happy with the way things were.


Not a shot fired. No nation invaded and displaced the king. No trillions of dollars spent to spread a philosophy.

In short, democracy grew from within, because the people were ready for it. In this case, the existing government was, as well.

And yet, even here in a country where the first TVs only came in 1999, the ugly head of Iraq is reared:

"I'm afraid that our country might end up like other countries who are having problems because of democracy," said Mila Wangchuk, 28, who runs a real estate business.


It's taken nearly twenty years for the king to agree to a general call for democracy. In that time, many Bhutanese have been expelled and ethnic Nepalese living in Bhutan have been denied the vote. We're not talking about a paradise here.

But it's a start, and should serve as a beacon to any war-mongering knucklehead who wants to be President that we will be vigilant about how our troops are used in the future, because here we have a clear example of how to do democracy the right way.

(crossposted to
Simply Left Behind)

Huckabee comes out

By Capt. Fogg

Mike Huckabee is almost a gift to those of us engaged in cynical bloggery. Face it, we need a respite from the horrors of an ever crazier and more nuclear world, and nattering about the differences between most candidates has gone on so long that many of us no longer care about any perceived differences between them.

It's less so with Mike. The main result of the weight loss he seems to feel has cosmic significance is that he's now limber enough to put one or more feet in his mouth without hardly trying. Even though his stunning conflation of Benazir Bhutto's assassination and Mexican immigration left many of his supporters open-mouthed at his illogic and his pathetic attempt to put every bit of news into that Procrustean bed of illegal immigration, he keeps doing it. If that asteroid hits Mars in late January, I'm sure we'll hear about the need to build an even higher wall along the wild and scenic Rio Grande.

The Huckster's latest attempt to appeal to the unlettered aired yesterday on Meet the Press. Homosexuality, said Mike, is a choice.
"We may have certain tendencies, but [we choose] how we behave and how we carry out our behavior,"
he said to Russert. "Very interesting," Arte Johnson used to say, "but stupid." Stupid indeed, unless this is Huckabee's attempt to admit the secret homosexual tendencies so common amongst his peers. If one has to choose which gender to be interested in, one might rightly be able to say it's a choice, but most of us never had to think much about it, our natures having been formed in utero at the latest. Most people have heard the "it's a choice" argument disemboweled long enough ago to be embarrassed to hear their candidate endorse it.

I don't know how many more of his supporters will head for the gang plank after this latest revelation of idiocy, but although the press continues to wave flags for him and invent opportunities to use the name Reagan in conjunction with his, he can't have many left. Telling us that he believes we are all sinners, he doesn't seem to realize that by calling homosexuality a sin, his argument cancels itself out, but all kidding aside, Mike Huckabee is an idiot who attempts to make other idiots feel good about their idiocy so they'll vote for him.

Cross posted from Human Voices

On the way to 2008

By Carol Gee

It is important to maintain perspective. With all the danger and tragedy in the news, it can be helpful to step back and come to know again what is really important to the bigger picture. In the case of the environment these seem important to me, but I know your lists might be very different.

Science matters -- We are reading many more stories these days that must be understood from a scientific point of view. A solid foundation in science is essential to staying up to date as we move into this next year. Reading science news from Scientific American, I found myself thinking about both the past and the future. My previous post was about the future of the natural earth (see Nature), and I have often written about the environment and energy in the past. I routinely reference Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club's blog, "Taking the Initiative," (12/19) regarding water shortages in Asia, from which I quote:

It will require a new kind of economic and ecological cooperation to avoid . . . beggar-your-neighbor scenarios -- and a recognition that, as Tom Friedman said Sunday in the Times, "It’s Too Late for Later." Building that kind of new world order is the biggest challenge facing the next American President -- if we don't want the 21st century to be a catastrophic string of conflicts and wars over control of the Earth's rapidly diminishing biological commons and ecosystems.

Art Matters -- as well as science. We can advocate for the environment in several different ways. A more creative way might be even more effective. Each way reaches a different part of the reader or listener. I recently composed a little piece of poetry as part of my transition into 2008. I called it, "Happy New Year, Dear Earth." It goes like this:

I want to wish you . . .
A Happy New Year, dear Earth.
You deserve better than a penny's worth
Of righteous effort from us.

I want to wish you. . .
A better bunch of friends in high places.
You deserve a set of brand new faces
Honoring their Bully Pulpits.

I want to wish you. . .
A decent shot at normal temp trends.
You deserve relief from over extended
Fossil fuel fires of waste.

I want to wish you . . .
A Chilly Winter at both your poles.
You deserve fewer gaping holes
In those precious ozone layers.

I want to wish you. . .
A Happy New Year, dear Earth.
You deserve at least a rebirth
Of higher rescue aspirations.

Copyright by Carol Gee
December 29, 2007

Love matters -- The 2007 holidays are almost in the past and the song, "As Time Goes By," from the movie Casablanca (an old favorite I just saw for the umpteenth time), is now running through my head:

You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss,
a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

Perspective matters -- With the environment the fundamental things do apply, and apply ever so seriously. But having fun along the way really lightens a burdened heart. Larry West, who writes "Your Guide to Environmental Issues," a blog for About.com, posted this for Christmas, in case you missed it. A Kiss is Just a Kiss:

Fun Facts About Mistletoe
Everyone knows about the power of mistletoe at Christmas, right? It makes holiday romance democratic by making everyone equally kissable. But there is more to mistletoe than kissing and holiday merriment. . . consider these fun facts about the unassuming little sprig that promises to enliven your holiday romance.

Compassion matters -- People acting in the name of science must have compassion,too. On the way to 2008, I came across this short article. It troubled me as I read it. There is an almost barbaric edge to the story, in my opinion. My questions are these. Was there no way to end this except by killing the subject? Am I just a fuzzy-headed liberal for wondering? The story is headlined, "Top 10 Scientific Discoveries - 50 Top 10 Lists of 2007 " to quote from TIME:

#9. The World's Oldest Animal

In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell. The clam species, the Arctica Atlantica, is particularly long lived — it has been known to survive some 200 and 300 years — and this particular specimen spent its protracted life burrowed in the sand 262 feet under water. When it first lodged itself down there, Shakespeare's Hamlet was on stage at the Globe Theater, and the English were setting up camp in North America.

Happy New Year, Everyone.

cross-posted at South by Southwest

BEST INTERNET VIDEOS OF 2007 (BREAK.COM)


Top 10 Internet Videos of 2007 - Watch more free videos

ERICA CHEVILLAR - THE BIKINI TEACHER







Erica Chevillar made national news last year when the West Boca Raton High School discovered that the 10th grade history teacher had an extracurricular activity - swimsuit modeling. They didn’t think the two career paths merged very well and took steps to have her removed from her job.

The school discovered that their first year teacher was one of 80 models featured on the website of the U.S. National Bikini team - a Boca Raton based company that sells calendars of models in provocative clothing. The rookie teacher was featured in two dozen photos ranging from wearing jackets that revealed some cleavage to some skimpy bikini poses. They were the same type of photos that you would find in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.

The ‘bikini teacher‘, as she has become known on the Internet, has since traded her teaching credentials for a lucrative modeling career. She was featured in the March 2007 issue of Playboy magazine in a spread called “Hot for Teacher“. She was also a Maxim Hometown Hottie 2007 finalist.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

16-0

By J. Thomas Duffy

Even though I, long ago, stopped being a die-hard, life-revolving-around, sports fan (hey, after the "it's only a game", it becomes really big business) it is, nonetheless, very sweet to see the New England Patriots and their 16-0 perfect season.

I am just old enough to have sat in the bleachers set up in leftfield (in front of the Green Monster), to watch the Boston Patriots, of the AFL, led by Babe Parilli, Jim "Bo" Nance (whose main rival was Buffalo Bill fullback Cookie Gilchrist - "Lookie, Lookie, Here Comes Cookie"), and Gino Cappelletti, at Fenway Park, in the early 60's ... I was at the preseason game in 1969 (or 1970), played at Boston College, when the stands caught fire ... I was at the opening game of 1970 season, played at Harvard Stadium (the year before they moved to Foxborough), when Bob Gladieux, sitting in the stands, drinking and smoking dope, was paged over the PA system to report to the locker room, where he suited up moments before the kickoff.

For much of my youth, and into early adulthood, the word "hapless" was often attached to the Boston/New England Patriots.

And with that experience, it's almost impossible to comprehend the achievements and success of the current team.

While it would be cool for any team to go undefeated, it is rather sweet to watch the Patriots do it.


The 16-0 Links

Sweet 16 - Brady and Moss are an unbeatable combination in comeback against Giants

Jackie MacMullan: Brady and Moss set the records straight

RECORD TRACKER: Marks the Pats set en route to 16-0

16-0! Recapping the Patriots' pursuit of perfection

'72 Dolphins toast achievement

Charles P. Pierce: Winners - Josh Beckett became the ace, Randy Moss is the missing ingredient, and Kevin Garnett is as advertised. Has there ever been a better year to be a Boston sports fan?
















(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

RIAA runs amok

By Libby Spencer

Back in the dark ages when I was young, musicians used to make vinyl albums. If you only wanted one song, you could buy a 45, which for you young folks who might not remember, was a little vinyl disk that required an insert so you could play it on your Hi-Fi. The first 45 I bought was Roses are Red by Bobby Vinton. The second was the Beatles, I Want to Hold Your Hand but I bought it for the B-side, This Boy.

Eventually, technology evolved to enable you to record from the albums to tape and this was good. Rarely does anyone love every song on an album and this allowed the listener to assemble compilations of their favorite songs. The industry whined about copyrights then too, but they didn't sue anyone since you still had to buy the album to get the songs and besides there was no practical way to track who was trading cassettes with their friends.

Now the latest technology allows the listener to download music without ever visiting a record store and share it much more widely. It also allows the record companies to track who is doing the sharing. I'll admit, I do have a little sympathy for the recording companies. To some extent, file sharing with hundreds or thousands of strangers starts to resemble stealing and the industry should be able to protect its product, but this is definitely a step that goes too far.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

This is such a greedy and stupid move. The industry needs to realize that it can't have complete control over its product once its sold, especially when their product isn't all that great anymore. Just as in every media format, the music industry has consolidated to the point where creativity is stifled and only a handful of artificially assembled groups get promoted. Most of them aren't really that good.

More and more musicians, in response to being shut out or otherwise exploited by the big labels, are taking their work directly to the public via the internet. Many give their work away for free to promote their tours. It's a model consumers have responded to positively. The recording industry could take a lesson here and adapt their own business model because if it continues to try to criminalize its remaining consumer base by threatening them with draconian rules of use, that base is likely to disappear altogether.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

ADRIANA LIMA - ENHANCED UNDERWEAR


THE LOST JAY LENO INTERVIEWS ???

An Endorsement

By Carl

(
NOTE: The following reflects the personal opinion of the writer and in no way should be construed as the official position of The Reaction. If you're going to write nasty response to Michael and crew. Don't. Direct them to me, please)

I've put this off long enough, even though in truth, I don't have to do this until the New York primary. Since that gets lost in the flurry of Super Tuesday endorsements, I figured I may as well stake my claim now.

I've spent the entire past year on the fence about whom to support for the Democratic presidential nomination. I had my list narrowed down to three people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and then, Barack Obama.

Edwards I discounted quickly, when his lack of character and toughness was on display for all to see with the whole "Catholic League/Bloggers" debacle. If he couldn't either shit or get off the pot..."Oooh, I don't want to arouse my base against me! Oooh, I don't want to take on the big, mean Catholic League!"...on that ridiculously inconsequential issue; if that's his idea of leadership, then he was the wrong choice. And that was just one issue: his flipflopping apology for the Iraq war vote smelled too calculated, and then there was the whole heartstring tug of Elizabeth's cancer, and running or not running.

Some will say that Marcotte and McEwan resigned of their own accord. That may be true, but I'd be willing to bet if Edwards had personally sat down with them and assured them that he'd take the heat (and that message was reinforced across the board), they'd still be blogging for Edwards today.

In truth, Edwards was on the list more as a hat-tip to the fact I voted for him in 2004 than anything he's done since.

Which left Obama and Clinton.

I admire both of them for different reasons, and none of those reasons have anything to do with the monumental courage each showed by just tossing a chapeau in the ring.

Barack Obama speaks to me of a new generation, a generation of ideals and idealists, unafraid to talk about issues despite the fact that he might actually have to take a stand on them. I like that. It appeals to the rabble-rouser in me. Even in his gaffes, he seems to have at least thought about what he leaves unsaid (as when he shorthanded his answer about meeting with Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez).

Hillary Clinton just knows so damned much and seems to have an answer for every question thrown at her: not only are her answers detailed, they're usually light years ahead of anything anyone else throws out there. Many of her contenders' answers sound more like "And then, at this point, we pray it all works out".

There is no perfect candidate in this race, to be sure, and so this isn't a choice between the more perfect of two people.

Neither is it a choice between the lesser of two evils as even some on the left have tried to paint a vote for Hillary as a vote for evil.

Without disclosing too much, I've known of Hillary since her days working with Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, with whom I've had some indirect contact. No less a conservative than Marty Peretz (nominally a liberal (LINO?), believe it or not) has called Edelman "Hillary's closest sister and ideological soul mate."

Which is why I find all the negativity from the left about Hillary so amusing and confounding. And why I also find the love-fest for Barack so intriguing.

After all, a careful examination of their voting records and public statements about Iraq show they agree on about 90-95% of the issues. And yet, Hillary's a DINO while Barack is a liberal love child.

I ain't buying that. It's easy to say "I would not have voted for the Iraq war authorization" and seem to mean it. It's another thing to
skip the vote on the "Iranian war authorization" (not even officially, just a "sense of the Senate" vote), then to chide others for having voted for it, particularly when you've voted for every single Iraq war funding bill that you've been able to.

Ironically, the candidate who's being touted as "change" is not.

In eight years in the Senate, Hillary has shown an unique capacity to enlist the help of people of all stripes. No one who serves with her has too many unkind things to say about her. That could be useful in a Presidency that, for the first term at least, is going to be about cleaning up the messes..."Mom."

On the other hand, it does leave her open to charges of being
too conservative, ironically the same charges leveled against her husband prior to his election, and look at what happened in those eight years: the greatest economic boom this nation, the world, had ever seen, without resorting to full scale war, and eight years of protection from terror attacks on our soil.

I say, "ironically," because Hillary was viewed in many corners, including left wing ones, as a bulwark of liberal thought in the Clinton administration and cabinet.

Barack Obama has demonstrated that he's not a man of character to me, despite his outward image. His actions speak volumes. With Hillary Clinton, we know what we're getting, and guess what? It's not a whole lot different than we'd get with Obama, but at least she's unfraid of her decisions.

Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for President. She has my vote.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Happy New Year, Earth

By Carol Gee


The year 2008 will be "crunch time" for the earth's healthier environment.
In small ways a few people people took a bit of climate control away from the Bush administration in recent months. Such news serves to wish a "Good 2008 to the Earth," if this trend continues. (Images from NASA)

Credit goes to these folks:

Al Gore -- Despite the fact that our current president (OCP) stole the 2000 election from Al Gore, our former Vice President stole the 2007 spotlight from OCP, winning the Nobel Peace Prize winner for his work to save the environment from the effects of potentially catastrophic climate change. Ellen Goodman wrote a great Gore tribute piece on Friday, December 28, 2007 that was published in the Boston Globe, and republished in Common Dreams titled, "War and Peace with the Environment." To quote:

Since this is the list-making time of year, allow me to add a tiny trophy to Al Gore’s very full shelf: the prize for the most elegant speech of 2007.

I wasn’t sure how the politician-turned-environmentalist fit the profile for a Nobel Peace Prize, but his acceptance speech connected the dots. “Without realizing it,” Gore said, “we have begun to wage war on the Earth itself. Now, we and the Earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: mutually assured destruction.”

How many Americans actually heard these words of war and peace? The coverage from Oslo was overshadowed by the coverage from Iowa. The presidential campaigns used up the oxygen that might have been reserved for the greenhouse gases.

. . . In 2007, consciousness rose with the thermostat. Scientists layered one set of facts on another. Gore wrapped these facts into an attention-grabbing movie. After Bali, the world’s leaders are just waiting for this presidency to pass. But we are still waiting for the renewable energy to fuel election-year politics.

On the day Gore spoke to the Nobel audience, he said, “we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer . . . We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.”

I still have a stack of greeting cards wishing Peace on Earth. Is it too corny to wish that we begin the new year making Peace with the Earth?

Congress -- Find the names of your House members who voted for the new Energy bill. Here are the vote results in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 18, 2007, for the Energy Independence and Security Act: 314 yeas, 100 nays and 19 not voting.

Delegates to Climate Talks in Bali -- A Guardian Unlimited (12/15/07) article about the recent Bali Climate Conference is a good summary of the "u-turn" the United States delegation was practically forced to make after being openly booed by the rest of the delegates. To quote:

A compromise deal for a new international climate change agenda was agreed at the UN summit in Bali today. . . Ministers from around 180 countries were united in accepting the agenda for a global emissions cuts agreement to launch negotiations for a post-2012 agreement to tackle climate change.

Consensus for the road map followed a dramatic U-turn by the US, which had threatened to block the deal at the 11th hour and been booed by other countries. It dropped its opposition to poorer countries' calls for technological and financial help to combat the issue. The sudden reversal by the US in the marathon talks which saw the country duelling with European envoys was met with rousing applause.


Scientists who find out what is true and talk about it -- In researching this post for today I discovered several interesting on line environmental resources:

One of the most interesting is "Geology.com," a must for anyone the least bit interested in the earth sciences. Geology.com introduced me to the great newsmaker website: "Carbon Tracker," unveiled in September by the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA. Their state map collection is another rich visual resource. It has a link to Google Earth, which I just downloaded today from Google Pack. Also included is a lot of good info regarding lands below sea level, and a link to Time Magazine's "Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007."

You, my readers -- can do your part to wish the Earth a Happy New Year; check out your area's carbon foot-print at, "Making Your Neighborhood a Better World."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Who shot Benazir?

By Capt. Fogg

The short video clip of Benazir Bhutto's last moments shown over and over again on CNN last night does not reveal the exact cause of her death, but two observations are unavoidable: someone was firing a semi-automatic pistol at her from less than 5 feet away and the security personnel, presumably her own bodyguards, riding on the back of the vehicle, took no action other than to duck.

There are reports that police abandoned their posts shortly before the shots and the explosion and although the official story is that she had no bullet wounds, a top aide to Bhutto who helped prepare her body for burial says she clearly showed bullet wounds to the head. Could the shooter have missed three times at point blank range?

Of course the official explanation evokes the al Qaeda bogeyman, but that's just what Musharraf, eager to keep those billions flowing in and himself in power would say if he were somehow complicit. Can this, as a reader commented on Human Voices yesterday, be a false flag operation?
"We in effect helped -- helped -- precipitate this dynamic that led to her tragic assassination,"

said John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN on Fox News Thursday. I find myself in agreement. Having urged Bhutto to return to Pakistan and seek power, may have been another bloody consequence to the Neocon doctrine of creating democracy by toppling dictators. I don't know what will arise out of the current chaos, but history suggests many unsavory possibilities other than a quick return to calm and a restoration of democracy.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

ISABELLA FONTANA = SEXY BRAZILIAN MODEL





EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT FARTING !

Flatulence expert defines 'normal' output rate
Updated Fri. Dec. 28 2007 4:35 PM ET
The Canadian Press

TORONTO -- So you think your husband's a little too adept at playing the colonic calliope? Wish your sleep wasn't interrupted by a fusillade of flatulence?

Well, if you think you've taken up residence in Beantown but he insists his output is normal, you can both at least take heart from the fact that debates like yours are raging all over.

You both should know this as well: Whether it takes the form of stealth bombers or noisy bottom burps, flatulence is a normal byproduct of the human body. Everybody farts, multiple times throughout the day and night.

But the whens and the hows can turn a basic bodily function into an inconvenient, unpleasant or downright embarrassing occurrence. And that leads some people to question what is normal and whether there's any way to turn down the tap, as it were, on the frequency, noise or odour quotients.

The fact of the matter is that while humankind has learned how to split the atom, manipulate genes and travel to the moon, it doesn't know all that much about how to reduce the production of natural gas.

"I know a lot about gas,'' says Dr. Michael Levitt, the American gastroenterologist who has unravelled much of what is known about human flatulence.

"I really can't treat anybody.''

Levitt is a veritable gas guru, a leading expert on the underappreciated field of flatus -- intestinal gas that escapes via the southern route. He admits his unusual expertise has put his three kids (one of whom is economist and "Freakonomics" co-author Steven Levitt) through expensive universities.

Levitt has gone to extraordinary lengths to plumb the mysteries of flatulence. He's captured farts in specially made Mylar pantaloons, measured the cocktail of gases they contain, even conducted a study devised to get to the bottom of what may be the most contentious question in the field: Which gender emits the smelliest farts?

So what have he and others learned about the fine art of flatulating?

It's a pretty common occurrence. Studies in which volunteers tracked their gas passage suggest people fart 10 to 20 times a day, with some hitting the 30, 40, even 50 mark, says Levitt, who is with the VA Medical Center in Minneapolis, Minn.

An Australian study that followed a group of men and women for a couple of months concluded men let rip on average 10 times a day, while women lag with eight emissions.

But producing less gas may create another problem for women -- and the people around them. Levitt's research suggests women's flatulence is more ... aromatic.

The study was the first ever attempt to provide an objective evaluation of the odour of flatus, Levitt explains. Volunteer judges, blinded to the identity of the generating gender, were asked to rank the potency of the end product.

Volunteer producers -- primed by a diet of pinto beans -- farted into aluminum bags via a rectal tube. The contents of the bags were measured for volume and for sulphur concentration. (Sulphur gases give farts their foul odour.) Syringes full of gas were withdrawn from the bags and wafted by the nostrils of the unfortunate judges.

"Some journal reviewed the worst jobs ever performed in science and this became the number 1,'' Levitt says with a chuckle.

"Now I might say the judges were paid well. Some of them complained of being dizzy and having a headache at the end of session.''

The conclusion: "Women had more sulphur gas and were judged to have more potent odour.''

Sulphur gases make up a tiny fraction of the overall volume of farts, Levitt says. But if that punch is concentrated, well, watch out.

"Individual passage of gas by males is appreciably greater than the individual passage by females -- in volume,'' Levitt explains. "So females could have a higher concentration of sulphur gases but the total amount passed per passage would be about the same.''

But who complains most about a partner's farts? Again, the distaff contingent takes the prize.

"It's often the women who are bringing the husband and saying: 'He's got a problem with gas.' And he says: 'No I don't,''' says Dr. Bruno Salena, a gastroenterologist at McMaster University in Hamilton.

Levitt concurs: "When I go to various parties, etc., I've never had a male complain about the gas passage of his female partner. But I've had so many complaints from the opposite direction it's ridiculous.''

In the main, flatulence is made up of five gases -- nitrogen and oxygen, which are swallowed while talking, chewing or drinking fizzy beverages, and carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane, which are produced in the gastrointestinal tract during digestion of food.

Gas produced or trapped in the intestine only has three possible routes it can follow. Some will be absorbed into the body. Some will be burped out. And some will pass as flatulence.

People who lack bacteria that break down certain food components -- say lactose, the sugar in milk or some of the sugars in carbohydrates -- may produce more gas when they consume those foods.

That explains the potency of beans. They contain sugars humans can't break down. "So it's automatic that they're delivered to your large intestine, these sugars, where they churn out and make gas," Levitt says.

As for the noise, well, that's a product of restriction and pressure, says Salena, likening the process to whistling.

"Depends on the variables: the volume and pressure and the restriction," he explains.

"It's like making a sound with your lips, blowing air through your lips. And you can make that sound by some restriction and pressure. Similarly it (farting) is a combination of restriction and pressure. So it's a vibration of basically tissue, just like the lips."

As for cutting back on flatulence production, Salena suggests trying to reduce the amount of swallowed gas. Levitt is pessimistic about that option, insisting breaking that habit is hard to do. That's because people who swallow air are generally unaware they are doing it, he says.

Diets with extremely low carbohydrate intake produce little gas, but are hard to live on, Levitt notes. And many of the foods those regimes eschew should be part of a healthy diet, Salena says.

Maybe years of exposure to the subject have inured Levitt, but he says he doesn't give a hoot about the occasional toot.

"I don't worry one bit about gas. And I don't worry one thing about what I eat. I eat everything.''

Some weird factoids about flatulence through the ages:

* Blue angels: Only certain people have bacteria in the gastric systems that produce methane, Dr. Levitt says. And only methane-producers can perform the time-honoured frat house trick of igniting a blue flame when they hold a match to an escaping fart.
* Musical toots: In the 1800s Frenchman Joseph Pujol apparently became so adept at controlling his flatulence flow he could sound musical notes. Called "le Petomane'' _ the fartiste _ he was reputedly the highest paid performer in France at his prime.
* Colonic explosions: In the early days of colonoscopies, attempts to burn off polyps in the colon ignited explosive hydrogen gas in the colon of several unlucky people, sometimes with tragic results. The colon-cleansing preparations people now take the night before a colonoscopy have solved the problem. Says Levitt: "I've never heard of an explosion in someone who's had a decent prep. But until they used these prep solutions, there was a problem with explosions.''

Yes, Virginia, even sadder, Little Billy Kristol is going to the NYT

By J. Thomas Duffy

Boy, our poor little Christmas girl can't catch a break.

First, we have to confirm to her that Yes, Virginia, There Is, Sadly, A William Kristol ..., and now this drops on her.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Little Billy Kristol will be taking his craziness to the pages of the New York Times (Bill Kristol To Become New York Times Columnist In 2008), only a week after Time Magazine gave him the boot.

I suppose this was inevitable.

A great deal of Bush Grindhouse water has pooled up since Judy Miller left, so the NYT had a need for another water carrier, someone with a big bucket, someone with "Big Lying" credentials.

Apparently, David Brooks wasn't up to snuff, or that his "body language" thing has even creeped-out his co-workers.

Jonah Goldberg is currently unavailable, too busy sticking his head up his own ass.

They probably could have reached out and pulled in Coltergeist, but why risk seeing the building explode into flames?

Someone should go check on Arthur Schulzberger Jr., just to make sure he didn't hit his head on a SUV sunroof lever.


Bonus Bad News Billy Links

Anonymous Liberal: Kristol's Secret to Success

Anonymous Liberal: Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar

Creature/State of The Day: The post in which my head explodes

Crooks and Liars: Bill Kristol is rewarded for being “wrong” on everything: NY Times gig is a comin’

Crooks and Liars: Bonus Bill Kristol Highlight Reel

It Takes A Neocon To Raise A Legacy ... They're Drinking The Kool-Aid Again ...

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"










(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

MOOSE GETS STUCK ON HIGH POWER WIRES ?


Pogo Moose Incident - Fairbanks , Alaska
"They were laying new power cables which were strung on the ground for miles. The moose are rutting right now and very agitated. He was thrashing around and got his antlers stuck in the cables. When the men (miles away) began pulling the lines up with their big equipment, the moose went up with them. They noticed excess tension in the lines and went searching for the problem. He was still alive when they lowered him to the ground. He was a huge 60 inch bull and slightly peeved!"

Friday, December 28, 2007

Iowa's brand of democracy

By Edward Copeland

The Iowa caucuses are a strange beast in general, with multiple locations where Iowans brave whatever winter weather might be occurring to stand in a room and publicly declare their support for a candidate. However, what's not so well known is Iowans who work night shifts are disenfranchised BY STATE LAW. Their employers are not required to let them off to go vote. From the Des Moines Register story:

Ruth Kennedy's boss won't let her take time off from her night-shift job so she can caucus. She's not alone — emergency workers and other Iowans on the night shift will miss the marquee political event in Iowa.
Three weeks ago, Kennedy asked to leave her customer service job at Mediacom at 5:30 p.m. on Jan. 3 so she could caucus for Democrat Hillary Clinton. She said her supervisor waited until Christmas Eve to deny the request, saying that they couldn't spare her, that they hadn't had such requests before and that one fewer person at the caucus wouldn't make a difference anyway.
"It made me so furious," said Kennedy, who lives in Des Moines. "I raised such a fit I'm surprised they didn't send me home."
Nothing in the law requires Iowa employers to give workers time off so they can stand up for the presidential candidate of their choice.


In something that's certain to hurt Dodd, emergency services in Des Moines are fully staffing firefighters and then some for caucus night, meaning the union that endorsed him will have a lot of members unable to caucus.

Two plus two equals a 17 foot wall

By Capt. Fogg

“We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

Said Mike Huckabee here in Florida last night. He repeated the theme today in Iowa:

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,”

The fact that this isn't close to being true is less amazing than the sheer irrationality of his non-sequiturs.

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,”

Sure, it is, only it hasn't happened nor has it been made more likely by an assassination in Pakistan any more than the assassination of President Kennedy made it more likely for Texans to sneak into Mexico carrying rockets. The fact that the Huckster thinks Afghanistan is east of Pakistan and confuses migrant fruit pickers with Islamic extremists from Waziristan, is only a small part of the evidence that the man has no idea what he is talking about but has a strong feeling that vague mumblings in an ominous tone will allow him to latch on to the Xenophobic and Nativist gravy train. That's just what we need to represent the United States' interests in the world; a dishonest idiot who thinks Jesus wants him in power and will do the thinking for him. Come to think of it, that's what we have been saddled with for these last seven years of bad luck, and that's what we customarily vote for.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Leadership in a very flat world

By Carol Gee

Today is the funeral day for assassinated Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. From space we cannot see people where they live and die. It is a very tragic and sad thing for her family and supporters, and certainly for her nation. But it is a sad day for us, as well, because of the flat world in which we live. The reality of her death reverberates far beyond Pakistan. Looking at the Middle East and Southwest Asia from far above reveals a two dimensional view in muted colors of sand and water. Two dimensions are flat; three dimensions reveal true perspective. When we first glimpsed the face of Benazir Bhutto, many of us instinctively held our breath, afraid to hear what was to come next.

(Aljazeera's image heads this paragraph)

Very quickly the world knew what was transpiring with this leader yesterday. Just after the Bhutto rally, the U.S. broadcast TV reports of the shooting and suicide bombing. As time passed the news got worse and worse. What we saw was coming from Aljazeera, from which I quote the beginning and ending portions of this very interesting and seemingly even-handed editorial:


FOCUS PAKISTAN : POWER AND POLITICS

Daughter of tragedy
By Kamran Rehmat (News Editor at Dawn News, an independent Pakistani television news channel).

What ever else the mind-numbing killing of Benazir Bhutto in Thursday’s suicide attack will mean for Pakistan’s future, there is little doubt that politics in this south Asian country will never be the same again.

. . . Bhutto may have been the first woman prime minister of a Muslim country but was twice ousted as premier on corruption charges, which she fought for the rest of her political life.

Ironically, it was only recently that corruption cases against her were "washed" clean courtesy of a controversial ordinance passed by Musharraf on the premise of national reconciliation but effectively seen as a means to win her support for his continued stay in power.

Regardless of what modus operandi appealed to her - and she took many that surprised even her family not to mention, her political adversaries - Bhutto remained a force to reckon with right until the end.

In her death, Pakistan may have lost its most potent political player, who remained at least for its vast moderate and secular population, their best hope.

Given the vitiated international climate vis-a-vis the war-on-terror for Islamabad, deep polarisation within the country and the institutional instability, her loss is colossal not just for Pakistan but for the rest of the world as well.

And very quickly following the news of Bhutto's death, leaders from around the world began to react. The presidents in Pakistan and the United States made statements. Leaders in the United States, and certainly other countries, made telephone calls to Pakistani leaders. And presidential candidates began to release statements or speak with the media on camera or by phone. And we instinctively knew to take the measure of their leadership capacity by how they reacted to the news of the death of this small and fierce unarmed woman halfway around our flat world.

Iowans will be meeting in caucuses in less than a week to make their choices for the POTUS. And the other primaries will quickly follow. It is entirely possible that these outcomes will be in large or small measure be influenced by the current news about the violence in Pakistan, and how the candidates behave as a result. It seems to me that the perspective provided by a reader's comment on my most recent S/SW post (12/19) on leadership -- cross-posted at at The Reaction -- is very apt for the current situation. The entire comment of "Ecophotos" follows:

Reaction: 1 Comment on "Behavior is an Indicator of Leadership Capacity"

Hi Carol,

My apologies for being late to this party, holiday diversions and all. A quick response to this post:

There is a lot of stuff being said about what we should expect from candidates with respect to comfort, character, consistency, and competitiveness.

My concern here is that most candidates repackage themselves according to the latest polls and focus group studies, and what we think we see is not always what we get. Ergo, a repeat of what we had. So I think an onus of responsibility should also be placed on voters to be more discerning. Here is a kind of inventory that voters should ask themselves:

Do you want a candidate who can govern effectively or one you can have a beer with?

Are you susceptible to propaganda, sloganeering, and sound bites, or do you read in search of veracity?

Are you swayed by artifice or authenticity?

Do you equate strength with arrogance or humility?

Voters should understand that elections are about "conquest and control" (no matter who wins); that all governments have a "primordial mean streak" and will violate their own stated principles when confronted with crisis. So the question is: Whose controls are more acceptable to you?

When I consider these criteria, I am able to narrow the field of candidates to one (not exactly one of the front-runners), but at least one in whom I have confidence. Unfortunately, we always get one based on popularity and consensus, never our first choice.

By ECOPHOTOS, at 12:09 AM


I close with some quick random thoughts. Senator Clinton's words seemed just exactly right for the moment. Senator Biden's words had a great deal of authority based on his vast knowledge. Senator Dodd's early words during a phone call with MSNBC carried a great deal of authoritative wisdom and subtlety. On the other hand, I was not impressed with John Edwards' report of a phone call directly to President Musharraf. Nor was I impressed by Senator McCain's litany of how much he knows about the situation, nor by Governor Romney's fear-mongering style of rhetoric. I plan to use Ecophotos' template for further study of all our candidates' potential for foreign policy leadership, based on their take on the current news from Pakistan.

My link to this article, "Non-violent protest has gone on line," in Common Dreams somehow seemed appropriate for today's post. It came to my notice a few weeks ago from my friend, "betmo," who always has a unique thoughts.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A timely review

By Edward Copeland

As it so happens, I was planning to post on my film blog today a review of Charlie Wilson's War, which now proves particularly timely in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. A brief excerpt:

As a member of an important subcommittee, Wilson, almost on a whim, doubles the amount of U.S. dollars being spent on covert activities in Afghanistan. Wilson's action attracts the attention of a wealthy Houston socialite Joanna Herring (Julia Roberts), who is as right-wing and Republican as Wilson is not but has made the Afghan situation a cause aimed at winning the Cold War. She encourages Wilson to add a trip to Pakistan on to a planned junket to the Mideast so he can meet with Pakistani President Zia (Om Puri), the man who hanged the late Benazir Bhutto's father in a previous takeover in Pakistan.

To read the full review, click here.

A Quickie

By Carl

In an effort to have Jonah Goldberg's book forever linked with...something unintended, Blogtopia (© Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo) has decided to Googlebomb it.

So here's to Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning , also known as Liberal Fascism


NICKI HILTON - MORE MAUI BIKINI PICS


FINALLY - A GIANT CHOCOLATE FOUNTAIN ! ! !





THE SIMPSONS HOUSE IS NOW REAL !





WORST MOVIE OF 2007 "ILLEGAL ALIENS"

WHO WOULD BELIEVE THAT A MOVIE CO STARRING ANNA NICOLE SMITH AND CHYNA WOULD BE BAD?



IN ALL FAIRNESS THIS IS JUST THE TRAILER, MAYBE THE MOVIE IS GOOD

NICKI HILTON - CHRISTMAS DAY - MAUI BEACH