Sunday, January 31, 2010

Are pigs flying?

By J. Thomas Duffy

What a weekend, and it was a Full Moon weekend, so that, in the end, may have something to do with it.

We started off with President Obama, walking into the lions den, to talk with, and then dance on the foreheads, of the PartyofNoicans.

Today, Roger Ailes, the mothernest egg chamber of the vile insects that inhabit the airwaves at Faux News, sitting in on the roundtable, of ABC News' 'This Week'.



I mean, the program also had Barbara Walters sitting in as host/moderator!

Trouble is, Paul Krugman was there, as well, and we'll let Blue Texan, from Firedoglake, take the mic;

I have no idea why Jabba the Ailes decided to appear on “This Week” — but after this beatdown by Krugman, I doubt he’ll be back.



Notice Jabba doesn’t refute Krugman’s charge. He just ignores it, belches up a total non sequitur, then starts spewing Republican talking points. The result? The master propagandist was made to look like an ass on live teevee.

A thing of beauty.


Also, in the same program, he butted heads with Arianna Huffington;

HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it's not a question of picking a fight. And aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree...

(CROSSTALK)

AILES: Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people. So I think he was probably accurate. Also, I'm a little....

HUFFINGTON: No, no, he was talking about this administration.

AILES: I don't -- I think he speaks English. I don't know, but I mean, I don't misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing, which he apologized for, but that happens in live television. So I don't think it's -- I think if we start going around as the word police in this business, it will be...

HUFFINGTON: It's not about the word police. It's about something deeper. It's about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there. I mean, with...

AILES: I agree with you. I read something on your blog that said I looked like J. Edgar Hoover, I had a face like a fist, and I was essentially a malignant tumor...

HUFFINGTON: Well, that's...

AILES: And I thought -- and then it got nasty after that...

HUFFINGTON: ... that was never by anybody that we had...

I suppose, to be fair, we should apologize to malignant tumors, the slanderous analogy to looking like Roger Ailes.

It would be closer to say, he looks more, proverbially speaking, like Joseph Goebbels.



And Krugman's call of Faux News hawking PartyofNoican talking points is on-the-money, as, earlier this month, Newsweek cited ""Roger Ailes is the real head of the GOP";

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum—which is why God created Roger Ailes. The president of Fox News is, by default, the closest thing there is to a kingmaker in Anti-Obama America. And that, in turn, makes him the de facto leader of the GOP. In a relentless (and spectacularly successful) hunt for cable ratings, Ailes has given invaluable publicity to the tea partiers, furnished tryout platforms to GOP candidates, and trained a fire hose of populist anger at the president and his allies in Congress. While Beltway Republicans wring their hands or write their tracts, Ailes has worked the countryside, using his feel for Main Street resentment to attract and give voice to this year's angriest—and most powerful—voter-viewers: those who hate the Feds, the Fed, and the Ivy League. It was Ailes who put the "party" in the tea parties by giving them a round-the-clock national stage. Next month Fox will have priority access to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

That prompted John Amato, over on Crooks and Liars, to highlight;

Fox News has almost every Republican presidential candidate for 2012 on its payroll. Are they the Kingmakers?;


Ailes already has been leading the charge to tear down President Obama and has been very successful at that so far. In a year they have changed the political narrative when conservatism and the GOP were in shambles and the country was in meltdown. They were aided by a horrendous economy created by Bush and his conservative cronies of course that Obama inherited. The president has also left his base in the dark too, but FOX News is a real threat to the democratic process in America. PERIOD. I'm not just talking about having a conservative point of view. They created an entire political movement called the tea party movement and not a word from the media about this. Even on TV today, pundits and pols call them a wild card in politics, but that's silly, They make Newt Gingrich look like a moderate republican. When has a media outlet ever turned into an activist organization for one political party and recruited members by sending their hosts on location to do so?

I haven't heard the media complain either that FOX is the only network that has access to the teabagger convention. Once again the Aile's machine chugs along and our country suffers for it as the MSM remains mute.

It's happening, and we have history on this, that we shouldn't ignore.

They're Already Here! You're Next!





Bonus Roger "Mothernest" Ailes Riffs

The Most Biased Name in News

The Lies of Roger Ailes

Fox News Agrees With Letterman; O'Reilly Factor Now Only 40% Fair and Balanced ... New Spots To Reflect Correct Spin; Corporate Orders Review of Hannity & Colmes; Other Programming

Top Ten Cloves: Ways Roger Ailes and Fox News Plans On Ending Its’ Ratings Slump

Roger Ailes Is Slipping ... Blows Wildfire Scoop For New Biz Network




(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Michael Steele says he won't run for president in 2012, sending GOP and Beltway media into a frenzy of uncertainty


I know I'm not the most connected person in the world, but I'm a little baffled here. Who exactly is talking seriously about a Steele presidential run? He's been an embarrassment as RNC chair, usually to himself but also to his party generally, and is basically a gaffe-prone buffoon who doesn't seem to have much of a clue about anything.

"In all honest-to-good seriousness, that is such silly Washington talk," he said. "It's just not even on my mind." Well, we'll see. Denials can't always be taken seriously, especially in Washington. And he does think rather highly of himself. So is the talk just in his own head, or are people really talking? And if the latter, what the hell are they thinking?

Now, I realize he's that rarest of rareties, a black Republican, and I realize some Republicans probably think they can win a few votes by pretending their party is more diverse than it really is -- and, more all-white country club than multicultural melting pot, it isn't diverse at all -- but it would take an astonishing amount of desperation and delusion to think that Steele is the right man to lead the GOP in 2012. ("Hey, let's try to beat that black guy with a black guy of our own! We can't lose!"

Unless, of course, what they're looking for is a sacrificial lamb, in which case Steele could play the part really well. After all, he plays the victim card just about as well as any Republican, and he'd likely spin a loss in "woe is me," and perhaps even in racial/racist, terms. (Even losing to Obama, he'd find a way to bring race into it.)

**********

Just how crazy is Michael Steele? Here are some of our posts on him:

-- MJWS: Craziest Republican of the Day: Michael Steele [suggesting the economy's fine because the malls are "packed" on Saturdays]

Come to think of it, he'd be the perfect opponent for Obama in '12. Go for it, Republicans!

The French confection

By Capt. Fogg 

Bob Greene made me laugh this morning, writing about the magazine ad for a Hermès suitcase priced at $27,100. He thought at first it was a joke until the Hermès store in Naples, Florida told him that it wasn't even their most expensive bag, which of course is diamond-encrusted. This one isn't. It's trimmed in "Evercalf" leather which I suspect to be much like the "rich Corinthian" leather of Chrysler Cordoba fame, which means most of the cost -- at least $27,000 of it -- is in the trademarked name for a perfectly ordinary material. Otherwise it's just a canvas bag, or "officer canvas" as they call it, which means you may have to salute it if you're wearing a Hermès hat.

Why? Greene keeps asking, although I know and you know exactly why anyone would actually buy one at a time when more Americans are cramming their things into shopping carts and Hefty bags and wandering the streets. It's precisely because it cost $27,100 and you can't afford to toss that kind of money away on nonsense, hand stitched or not.

It's not the sort of bag most people would really notice, except that it doesn't have the silly handle and wheels that make our airports seem like farmyards full of goat carts, but then it's designed for another purpose, it's designed both to remind you and to help you forget that there are people -- millions of people trying to support families on one Hermès suitcase a year.

Hey, don't get angry. It's your money and you're taxed enough already. Under Reagan's tax structure you'd have had to make do with Louis Vuitton or, perish the thought, Hartmann, so the country owes it to you and you needed to buy it now, before that Marxist in the White House restores the tax rates of that prince of Capitalism -- right?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Truth in Comics

By Creature


 

If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Azure Ray


Here's the very lovely Azure Ray -- Maria Taylor and Orenda Fink -- with "New Resolution," off their 2003 album Hold on Love. (See their MySpace page for more info.)

It's an odd video, but they're not exactly hard to look it, and I certainly recommend checking them out if you're into dream pop (or into good music generally, as they're a very talented duo).

Close to a deal


If Tom Harkin is right, and the White House, Senate, and House reached a deal just days before Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts, giving the Republicans 41 seats instead of just 40, enough to block legislation with a filibuster, what the hell's the problem now?

Yes, the Democrats came "agonizingly close" to passing final reform legislation, but one extra Republican vote shouldn't prevent that from happening, not with other options on the table.

Democrats could seek to win over a Republican, like Maine moderates Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, to put them over 60 votes in the Senate, including independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, but Snowe, who voted for the Finance Committee bill that is a lot like the one she ended up rejecting, has shown no signs she's prepared to break ranks and vote against her party, which is stressing lock-step obstructionist unanimity.

And, again, there's a better option, as we keep saying over and over: The House could pass the Senate bill as is and improvements to the bill could then be made through reconciliation. Improvements could include adding a public option component, as in the House's bill, and/or expanding Medicare and Medicaid coverage. While doing so would lose the Democrats some votes in the Senate -- Even Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Lieberman, etc. -- they have a large enough majority to sustain a few defections. Brown's victory in Massachusetts did change the landscape somewhat, but it didn't change the reality that Congress remains in the hands of relatively huge Democratic majorities. And that should count for something -- enough for them to pass meaningful legislation without having to suck up to the obstructionist minority.

U.S. to move 9/11 terrorism trial out of NYC



The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.

*****

The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.

But behind the brave face that many New Yorkers had put on for weeks, resistance had been gathering steam.

I understand the security and logistical concerns involved with trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 plotters in Manhattan, as well as the strong resistance to it, but, as I just said on Jazz Shaw's Mid Stream Radio show, on which I was a guest from 1:30 to 2:00, I think the symbolism of doing it New York, America's primary terrorist target, as well as perhaps the most important city in the world, would have been immense, an expression of American strength, authority, confidence, and determination, a statement that the U.S. isn't backing down in the face of terrorism, and isn't solely relying on military might, that those who are charged with such horrendous acts will be treated fairly, under the law, according to America's values and principles -- in short, that America isn't like its enemies.

Given the significant hit America's credibility and moral standing took both at home and abroad as a result of how it handled the war on terror -- a disastrous war in Iraq, torture and "enhanced interrogation," Gitmo and military tribunals, etc. -- a civilian trial in New York would have done a great deal, it seems to me, to show that America has recovered from the abuses and excesses of the Bush years.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Is Rahm Emanuel trying to kill health-care reform?


Sure looks that way, what with the proposal he's floating that Democrats should focus on job creation, deficit reduction, and banking regulation before turning back to health-care reform.

Aside from the fact that this won't work, because Republicans aren't about to play along on anything, delaying health-care reform is tantamount to killing it. Ezra Klein explains:

It is very, very, very important to be clear on what the death of health-care reform looks like. It is not a vote that goes against the Democrats. It is not an admission that the White House has moved on from the subject. It is continued statements of commitment from the key players paired with a continued stretching of the timetable. Like everything else in life, policy initiatives grow old and die, even if people still love them.

The timetable Emanuel is laying out makes little sense. The jobs bill will take some time. Financial regulation will take much longer. Let's be conservative and give all this four months. Is Emanuel really suggesting that he expects Congress to return to health-care reform in the summer before the election? Forgetting whether there's political will at that point, there's no personnel: Everyone is home campaigning.

Moreover, there's a time limit on health-care reform. The open reconciliation instructions the Senate could use to modify the bill expire when the next budget is (there's disagreement over the precise rule on this) considered or passed. That is to say, the open reconciliation instructions expire soon. Democrats could build new reconciliation instructions into the next budget, but that's going to be a heavy lift. The longer this takes, the less likely it is to happen.

In other words, the longer the delay, the less likely there's reform. The Republicans know this, which is why they've tried to obstruct it at every turn, and the "put it off for now" strategy, such as it is one, has become a preferred option for those, like Emanuel, who don't see it as priority (or who oppose it altogether or want to water it down to the point of utter pointlessness).

So what's Emanuel up to? Jonathan Chait speculates:

I see two potential explanations. Either Obama doesn't know what he wants to do, and his deputies are spreading conflicting stories in order to see what takes, in which case he needs to make up his mind pronto. Or else he wants to do what he says he wants to do, but his chief of staff is out there subverting his agenda and making Congress doubt his seriousness, in which case Obama needs to shut up Emanuel or fire him.

I'm hoping it's the latter, and that Emanuel gets what he deserves. (No, he shouldn't be fired, not if Obama thinks he can still help twist some arms up on the Hill, or if he's so invaluable in the West Wing, but it might work if he just told him to keep his mouth shut. And yet, I worry that Obama actually approves of what he said and is similarly hoping to delay reform despite his supposed support for it.)

Obama takes on the GOP

By Creature

It's everything they say it is. This kind of push back should have been happening all year.


Smells Like Buddah

Smells Like Buddah from Niles Lesh on Vimeo.



- All Rights Reserved 2010 - The Niles Lesh Project
Follow NILES LESH / MIENFOKS on TWITTER !

Headlines matter

By Creature

Economists may be hedging, but today's blaring headlines about surging growth should buy Obama, and Democrats generally, some goodwill with a souring public. Headlines matter. Yes, actual jobs and a real recovery matter more, but in a soundbite society today is a good day.

An Afghan strategy progressives could love

Guest post by Peter Henne 

Peter S. Henne is a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University.

This is his fifth guest post at The Reaction. He has previously blogged about Sri Lanka, the Afghan War, the Left and religion., and Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.

**********

In his State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated his support for the increasingly contentious U.S. presence in Afghanistan, even in the face of simmering domestic issues like health-care reform and the economy. Beneath this official show of support, though, recent news articles indicate a potential behind-the-scenes debate concerning the nature of U.S. activities in that country. At the risk of being overdramatic, the fate of U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan may rest on the outcome of this bureaucratic dispute. One of the options being presented, however -- a decentralized strategy of tribal engagement -- has the potential to be both effective and politically viable, and deserves further attention.

A week or so ago, The Washington Post ran an article on U.S. outreach to tribal leaders in Afghanistan. The story discussed the work of Maj. Jim Gant, a Green Beret, and his efforts to assist tribal networks with both "local disputes" and resistance against Taliban and al Qaeda elements. Maj. Gant's work has generated a great amount of attention among military officials, who see in it a means of mobilizing the Afghan people to contribute to their own defense. Interestingly, a large Pashtun tribe recently agreed to fight the Taliban in return for U.S. aid.

A more recent story, however -- also in the Post -- discussed resistance to such efforts among civilian U.S. policymakers. According to the story, Karl Eikenberry -- the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan -- was hesitant to expand U.S. military cooperation with tribal networks, due to a preference to work with a central Afghan government. It was unclear if this is the same program discussed in the earlier article, although there are significant parallels between the two stories. Moreover, U.S. officials are also debating negotiation with Taliban leaders, as well as engagement with lower level Taliban fighters, to reintegrate them into Afghan society.

The debate involves two drastically different approaches to situations like Afghanistan. The State Department's approach involves building up central governmental institutions, focusing U.S. efforts on establishing a (hopefully democratic) state. The approach that seems to be favored by the military is a decentralized strategy of enhancing local capabilities, even if it is at the expense of the central government. The issue of outreach to the Taliban, in turn, rests uncomfortably between the two.

The State Department's strategy is admittedly appealing at first glance. The existence of a strong centralized government would allow Afghanistan to function normally in the international arena and better provide for the security and welfare of its citizens. It would also indicate the beneficial effects of international intervention into conflict-ridden areas.

Likewise, there is much to be wary of with the tribal engagement plan. The first is the cost; the plan may lead to higher casualties, since more troops will be in harm's way. Also, the loyalty of tribal militias may be suspect, and they could use defect to the Taliban or advance their own agendas. Finally, U.S. policymakers must guard themselves against inadvertently taking sides in Afghan politics.

That being said, waiting for a central Afghan government to form may be even more problematic. As Eikenberry himself has warned, Afghan President Hamid Karzai may not be an "adequate strategic partner." Similar concerns have been expressed in regard to the flawed elections in August, in which Karzai was been accused of fraud. The recent postponement of parliamentary elections, while wise, further indicates the troubled state of the Afghan government.

The decentralized tribal engagement strategy may not be ideal, but it is probably the most effective option available. As the strategy would make use of Special Forces teams to work with tribal leaders, it may not require the massive amount of troops an Iraq-style surge would call for. Moreover, by enhancing the capability of local actors, it could minimize the risk of creating Afghan institutions dependent on the U.S. presence. Finally, it can both tie in well with efforts to reintegrate low-level Taliban militants and obviate the need to work with Taliban leaders, as tribal engagement would establish an alternative set of actors with whom the United States could work.

Progressives would do well to pay attention to our developing Afghanistan strategy. The tribal engagement approach may be both effective in stabilizing Afghanistan and complementary to broader progressive goals. This strategy could lay the groundwork for the 2011 troop reduction the president has called for, while also satisfying the progressive desire to ensure the Afghan people live in a stable and independent society. It would also echo earlier Democratic calls for an emphasis in the use of Special Forces, demonstrating Democrats' understanding of national security issues. Like everything in international politics, there is no option in Afghanistan that is simultaneously easy, morally sound, and politically viable. This strategy, however, may be the closest thing to such an option.

Quote of the Day: Nancy Pelosi on health-care reform


This is encouraging.

Here's Pelosi (via Sargent and Cohn):

You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

The Republicans are manning the ramparts, guarding the unjust, unfair, corrupt, expensive, and disease-ridden status quo with all their obstructionist might.

But there are far more Democrats than Republicans, and there's a Democrat in the White House, and, while I hope that Pelosi's words reflect a newfound confidence and courage among Democrats, it's pretty clear -- and pretty easy, if Democrats just stick together for once -- what needs to be done.

Pass the damn bill, the (flawed) Senate bill, then use reconciliation to make it better.

Seriously. Do it.

Alito mouthing off


I agree with Glenn Greenwald that "the behavior of Justice Alito at [Wednesday] night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words 'not true' when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function."

And this is why Supreme Court justices, if they can't control themselves, probably shouldn't attend these events.

More Greenwald -- essential reading:

There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court's credibility in this regard has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more "liberal" Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example).  Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about "judicial restraint" and "activism" -- all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those "principles" over and over -- exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John "balls and strikes" Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived -- and to act -- as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.

Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline.

I'm not terribly enraged by what Alito did, I must admit, but of course his inappropriate mouthing off is part of a much larger problem:

What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity.

*****

It was clear from Sam Alito's confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.

Now, it's not that we're all too "squeamish," as Jonathan Chait suggests. It's one thing for overt partisans like Joe Wilson to mouth off, quite another for a Supreme Court justice to do so (if inaudibly). We don't expect politicians to be neutral and objective, but we do expect the men and women who sit on the highest court in the land not to be outwardly partisan, that is, to express their partisanship in public. We may know that they are partisans, or at least that they have political views, but we want them to put their professional objectives first.

It hardly matters that Alito was right. Sort of. (Linda Greenhouse notes that while Obama's statement that the Court "reversed a century of law" in "open[ing] the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections" was incorrect, strictly speaking, "the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well -- although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.") The point is that Alito both should have known better and represents a disturbing trend in the conservative judiciary, the emergence, and dominance, of partisan right-wing activism in support of the Republican Party.

Inappropriate though it was, are we really at all surprised that Alito, or someone like him, mouthed off?

Thursday, January 28, 2010

You're part of the problem, Mary Landrieu


So Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana thinks that health-care reform "is on life support, unfortunately," and she blames Obama:

He should have been more clear, and I am hoping that in the next week or two he will because that is what it is going to take if it is at all possible to get it done. Mailing in general suggestions, sending them over the transom, is not necessarily going to work.

Yes, much of the blame falls to Obama for not providing enough leadership throughout the process, and I and many others have directed a good deal of criticism at him, but Landrieu should look straight in the mirror if she wants to point the blame at anyone. After all, it's not like Landrieu and her fellow Democratic centrists (Bayh, Nelson, etc.) have been champions of reform. She was firmly against the public option, which the majority of her party supported (in fact, which almost all Senate Democrats supported), and, while she ended up voting to send the reform bill to the floor, she only did so at the last minute.

Democrats, with Lieberman and Sanders, have 59 votes in the Senate. Prior to last week's special election in Massachusetts, they had 60. Compromises were made, concessions to the centrists, and the bill was passed. But if it's on "life support" now, it's only because Democrats succumbed to panic in the past week despite the fact that they retain relatively huge majorities in Congress -- and because centrists like Landrieu have backed away from reform.

Does Obama need to do more "to move this through Congress"? Yes, absolutely.

Does the Republican-lite Landrieu need to stop being an obstructionist and get with the vast majority of her party? Ditto. Because there would already have been reform, meaningful reform, if not for her and her ilk.

**********

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas is also part of the problem. There is "a real possibility that health care is at a stalemate and you can't solve it this year," he said.

Wrong.

It isn't on life support and it isn't (necessarily) at a stalemate.

Because the solution is simple: Pass the damn bill -- that is, have the House pass the Senate bill as is -- and pursue additional reform, negotiated by both houses, through reconciliation.

If it doesn't move forward -- that is, if there's no reform this year -- it'll be because of Democratic cowardice and ineptitude, and because of the objections of internal obstructionists like Landrieu and Pryor.

**********

My friend Steve Benen has provided some of the best commentary anywhere on health-care reform -- more politics than policy (for that, turn to Jon Cohn and Ezra Klein) -- and he's right again here:

If this is going to succeed, the way to make it happen is to get it done very soon. As a practical matter, that means working out a plan, literally, over the next week or two. The longer it takes, the more likely failure becomes. And if it fails, the consequences -- for the country, the economy, the Democratic Party, the Obama presidency -- would surely be severe.

Also, I've been pushing the line pretty hard that congressional Democrats can/should realize what needs to be done, and not rely excessively on the White House to deliver marching orders. I still believe that, but it's also becoming clearer to me that expecting Congress to make these realizations is probably unrealistic -- the House and Senate are at odds, they don't seem to be getting anywhere, and without some presidential hand-holding, a way forward will likely never materialize.

The fate of reform, in other words, shouldn't necessarily fall on the president's shoulders, but it may anyway.

Democrats, seriously, stop with the excuses and get this done.

All things in moderation

By Carl

I confess I did not watch the State of the Union address last night, primarily because I could have written it myself.

SOTU speeches are usually full of
vigorous promises and hopeful solutions which later get bogged down in the idiocy of groupthink. As someone famous once said, "A person is smart. People. Are. Dumb." That character when on to point out that people are terrified when in large groups.

It's true. It's something both sides of the political spectrum exploit, too, although the Republicans seem to be past masters of it, while Democrats tend to be more obvious in their bloviating.

How we perceive something initially on our own becomes a very different story when we've shared that experience with a group of people. Alone, most of us get the facts straight right away, and keep them fairly straight in our heads because we haven't discussed them (this is why jurors are instructed not to discuss the facts of a case until they are in deliberations, by the way). Perception is an individual thing, and how I see something will be very different than how you see it.

We compare notes, and what usually ends up happening is, absent a convincing argument by the smarter party (usually involving his or her authority or experience), both sides end up tailoring the story to fit the lower common denominator.

Now multiply that by hundreds, thousands, millions.

Or Congress.

The general perception of last night's speech, while scanning the opinions of people on the Internet, is the left feels Obama has sold them out,
throwing a crumb here or there, while the right is touting Obama as some wild-eyed angry savage (Yup. Subtle racism is still rampant on the right!)

It doesn't matter. What does matter is whether the follow through on the promises made is effective or not. You see, Americans are not opposed to left wing OR right wing solutions... that work. The only way they will work is if they are enacted which requirtes Congress to put aside the rancor, drub the minority as deep in the shit as possible, and start passing bills (or as with Bill Clinton, they can be enacted by fiat, but after eight years of George Bush, I can't imagine the American people will sit still for yet another childish cowboy throwing tantrums).

Read the promises. Read the speech. Then pick one topic, one promise, and get your Congresscritters attention on it.

It couldn't hurt, and activism may actually help save our democracy.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"This is the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore. That decision by the activist conservative bloc on the Supreme Court intervened in a presidential election. This decision is broader and more damaging in that they have now decided to intervene in all elections." -- Senator Patrick Leahy, on the Senate floor, slamming last week's dreadful Supreme Court decision.

SOTU

By Creature

So the president generally played to the right last night, I'm not going to bitch about that. Politically speaking, he's putting Republicans in a box and that's a good thing. Otherwise, I liked that he called out the Supreme Court directly (and Alito should be ashamed of his response), that he took the Republicans to task over their obstructionism and that he defended his policies without sounding defensive. He was feisty, yet personable at the same time.

Will the speech help get things done? Probably not. But with the striking optics of a petulant GOP sitting on their hands, it should help remind the American people who the bad guys are.

Marc Dorcel - 30th Anniversary (1979-2009) [10CDs]


Reparto (INCREIBLE CANTIDAD DE ESTRELLAS): Angel Dark, Anita Black, Anita Blond, Bambi,
Cindy, Claudia Adams, Draghixa, Ellen Saint, Elodie Cherie, Erika Bella, Illona, Jane Darling, Karen Lancaume,
Kate More, Katsuni, Laura Angel, Laure Sainclair, Lydia St Martin, Maeva, Melanie Coste, Melissa Lauren,
Monica Sweetheart, Nikki Anderson, Oceane, Oksana, Priscila Sol, Regina Ice, Roxy Panther, Sarah Twain,
Silvia Saint, Suzie Carina, Suzie Diamond, Tarra White, Tracey Adams, Valentyna Valli, Yasmine.

CD 7- CD 8 Uploading

Marc Dorcel - 7 Filles Faciles [2010]



Info

Acteurs : Caty Cambel, Crystal Crown,
Jasmine Rouge, Lulu, Sera Passion et Sofia
Studio : Marc Dorcel
Durée : 120 mn
Langue(s) :French
Année de production : 2010
Genre: Pornochic

Tamaño= 700mb

Marc Dorcel - L'Affaire Faltoyano

Info


Année : 2005
Acteur : Bruno SX - Franco Trentalance - Gabriel Montoya - Greg Liborsky - Julie Silver - Mandy Bright - Miro Da Mola - Rita Faltoyano - Veronica Carso - Vivienne La Roche
Langues : French
Features : Menu interactif, Accès web, Accès direct aux chapitres, Compatible DVD-Rom
Durée : 105 minutes
Année : 2005

Tamaño= 700mb

Marc Dorcel - Pornochic 16 Yasmine & Regina


Info

Category Feature, Foreign, Vignettes, Marc Dorcel's Pornochic Series
Director Marc Dorcel
Starring Eve Angel, Cherry Jul, Yasmine, Tony Carrera, Regina Ice, Christina Bella, J.P.X., Sunny Green, David Forman, James Brossman

Tamaño= 700mb

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

SOTU Night in America: Live-blogging the 2010 State of the Union address


(Updated frequently -- in real time. Scroll down.)

Alright, let's do this. We're about 20 minutes out, American Idol is in Dallas, and... well, I'm going to go make myself a drink.

But first...

Allow me to quote the editors of The New Republic:

How does this president handle a crisis? Thus far, the answer is not at all encouraging... Barack Obama faces a moment where his presidency just might collapse or, rather, risks heading into a wilderness where it would accomplish next to none of its ambitious goals.

And now, we have arrived at a point where we can take the ultimate measure of Barack Obama. For much of the health care debate, he has been a relative bystander. This stance may have been the right approach for various stretches of the legislative grind. But now, we must see his mettle. Is he capable of asserting his will? Can he use his vaunted powers of communication to explain the virtues of reform? He must take ownership of the process and strong-arm the House, so that it comes to its senses and passes the Senate's version of the bill; and he must strong-arm the Senate, so that it promises to improve the bill through the budget reconciliation process. If Democrats are worth anything as a party, they will rally around their president. As much as any other issue, health care reform is their raison d'etre. This is hardly an irremediable situation for Barack Obama. But, for the first time, we are nervous that he isn't up to the task.

I'm nervous, too, and I haven't been nervous about Obama since, well, since the lead-up to the Pennsylvania primary in April 2008, when Rev. Wright was all over the news, Hillary was hitting hard, and Obama seemed to be wilting a bit despite being well ahead in terms of delegates.

And now? Honestly, I'm not sure. And I'm not sure what to expect from him tonight. He's a great orator, no one denies that, but the question is whether he can put his rhetorical skills to proper use tonight. And what he needs to do is to take control, to the extent any president can, of the political situation in Washington, to set a new course and a new narrative that will allow him, and his party, to forge ahead with their policy objectives. In other words, what we need from Obama is genuine leadership, and he can show that tonight, in speech, in words that lay out a definitive course of action.

Health care reform must not be allowed to die -- for the sake of the president and his party, and, more importantly, for the sake of the many millions of uninsured and everyone else who suffers under this terrible system. Yet, as we write, Obama has not yet risen to meet this existential threat to his presidency. The response of his White House has been slow-footed, at best, and thoroughly confused by any objective measure. With so much anxiety pouring over the Democratic Party, only strong presidential leadership can salvage things. We haven't yet seen anything like that.

Obama is expected to focus a great deal of attention on the economy, and specifically on the job situation, tonight, and he ought to, given that elections are won and lost on pocketbook issues, and there are many other issues he'll need to address, including the war on terror, given the heightened threat, or perception of threat, after the failed Christmas underwear attack and the sense that Islamic jihadism will strike again soon, as well as climate change and renewable energy, but what I'll be listening for specifically is a commitment to pass meaningful health-care reform, a push to get done what is already well underway, with both houses of Congress already having passed a reform bill.

It's that "strong presidential leadership" on the politically most defining issue of the day that we need to see from Obama. Is he up to it? Yes. But I'm still nervous.

I suspect it will be a strong speech, but good rhetoric alone won't be enough.

More soon...

**********

CNN has a preview here: "Citing a 'deficit of trust,' President Obama's first State of the Union address will urge Congress to erode the influence of special interests and work together to confront the nation's most pressing problems."

Oh yes, hopefully Obama will issue a strong response to that awful Supreme Court decision last week, the one that will turn American democracy into American corporatocracy.

**********

And a call to repeal the military's bigoted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy against gays? Yes, yes, yes. That would be fantastic. I just hope that's not the scrap (not that it's a scrap, but you know what I mean) he throws to progressives and liberals while the rest of the speech comes straight from the Evan Bayh centrist playbook, with all that crap about bipartisanship, which essentially means caving in to the Republicans, with a failure to push for any other major progressive or liberal objectives. (You know, he gives us an end to DADT, while on everything else -- health-care reform, the economy, the Afghan War, climate change -- he embraces the right or otherwise waters everything else down with endless compromise.)

**********

Alright, it's 8:57. My drink of choice? Vodka. Canadian. From a distillery in Oakville, Ontario, just outside Toronto. (It's pretty good.) With raspberries. I was going to do scotch, but I feel like something really cold, straight out of the freezer.

Cheers.

**********

9:00 pm -- Hey, look, it's Wolf Blitzer! Yes, I've chosen CNN, in HD, for tonight's spectacular.

And there's Rahm Emanuel, looking like he could break anyone's neck like a puny little twig. Shouldn't Obama get him to twist the necessary arms on Capitol Hill over health-care reform? Um, yeah.

9:02 pm -- And now it's Bill Bennett. I've said it before, I'll said it again, how the hell does this jackass get to spew his stupidity on TV?

What is this, a right-wing lovefest on CNN? I'm already pissed off.

9:04 pm -- Obama has apparently left "the holding area." And there he is... followed by Reid and Hoyer, and then... I see McConnell and Boner, er, Boehner, looking typically over-tanned. (No, the U.S. Congress is not characterized by an abundance of human excellence.)

9:09 pm -- That was a rather enthusiastic (and manly) handshake with Biden.

This post is already too long, and the address hasn't even started yet.

The vodka's good, though.

9:11 pm -- Is the state of the union strong? Is it? Is it? I'm on the edge of my seat. Come on, don't drag this out... tell us!

Pelosi looks... odd. Sad? Contemplative?

9:14 pm -- Good move to start with "the anxieties that are out there now." Connect, Obama, connect. Reach out to the American people in a way you haven't really done yet as president.

"Change has not come fast enough." Is is coming at all?

Good move, too, to focus on Washington dysfunction. But, please, no bullshit bipartisan talk.

9:18 pm -- "We all hated the bank bailout," Democrats and Republicans alike. "I hated it, you hated it, it was about as popular as a root canal." Very true. But nice to spin it as doing what is necessary but unpopular. And he's right. Without it, the economic situation would be much worse.

And now "a fee on the biggest banks." I like where this is going. Side with the American people against Wall Street and the oligarchs who run Big Finance.

Unemployment benefits. Tax cuts. "Let me repeat: We cut taxes." -- for working families, small business, etc. No applause from Republicans, and Obama nicely jokes about it. Boner smirks stupidly. Nice.

Republicans don't like anything Obama does, no matter what it is, and that's the lesson Obama should have learned by now. Trying to work with them is like banging your head against a wall. It won't work. And they have no interest in reciprocating, in negotiating in good faith, in seeking compromise. Look at them. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

9:24 pm -- There are success stories, signs of recovery, but... "Jobs must be out #1 priority in 2010."

Oh capitalism... a favourable mention of "America's businesses" gets a standing ovation. Come on, really? But I thought Obama was a socialist or something. Of course he isn't. Just listen to the speech. Elimination of capital gains tax on small business investment? So socialist! Again, Boner and Cantor and the rest of them just look stupid. This is centrist, mainstream stuff, an effort to strengthen American capitalism, not undermine it.

9:28 pm -- Clean energy... good.

So the Republicans won't applaud protecting American businesses and penalizing those that move overseas? Huh.

9:30 pm -- "A new foundation for long-term economic growth." I'm listening...

"Washington has been telling us to wait for decades... Meanwhile, China isn't waiting..." Obama's on fire. He's got the room. Totally. Even if Republicans sit on their hands and look like jerks.

9:34 pm -- Alternative energy: good for the economy, good for the environment. Oh, so Republicans get up off their feel for nuclear energy. And for domestic oil and gas development. Hilarious.

And a comprehensive energy and climate bill. There is it. One of the most important issues of our time.

Obama notes that there are some who disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming. He and Biden both smile. Rightly, he dismisses those deniers as morons -- not saying that, of course, but it's pretty clear. But he appeals to them by saying that leading on green energy will mean leading the global economy. Honestly, Republicans have no chance against this. Which is why they lie and lie and hide behind their propaganda and personal attacks.

9:41 pm -- I'm off to get more vodka.

I don't have much to say about Obama's comments on education. He's right. "In America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

9:43 pm -- Here it is: health-care reform. (Wait, the Republicans stood up?)

Obama really is awesome tonight. Not lofty rhetoric, but he's more personable than ever -- smiling, joking. A great way to begin discussing such a divisive issue.

And he begins to make the case for reform... reduce costs, reduce premiums, do away with the worst abuses of the insurance industry, bring down the deficit...

Leadership, Mr. President, leadership.

And he takes some of the blame for not explaining it well enough.

"I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber," speaking of those who don't have coverage or who will lose their coverage.

9:48 pm -- You know, I think the Republicans know he's got them. He just reached out to them by asking for other perspectives, other solutions. (Of course, they don't actually have anything substantive to offer.)

9:49 pm -- Now we're on to government spending? Okay, but what about health-care reform? No more on that?

And now he proposes "specific steps" to pay for the economic stimulus package. Ugh. The stimulus package wasn't big enough, and what America needs now is certainly not a spending freeze. I suppose it makes him look fiscally responsible, and so I suppose it's good politics, but it's not like the crisis is over yet.

9:54 pm -- Hey, Lieberman and Nelson are sitting next to each other. Hmmm.

Oh, just a thought. Shouldn't Obama at least mention the new iPad? I mean, that's the biggest news of the day, isn't it? (Kidding. Sort of.)

9:55 pm -- Obama doesn't even have to mention Bush. He's like an elephant in the room. He just has to talk about what he faced when he entered office, and to talk about those "eight years."

9:56 pm -- Here's the "deficit of trust" narrative. (Here in Canada, we call it "the democratic deficit" -- that's small-d "democratic.")

9:58 pm -- Good. He's going after last week's Supreme Court decision.

Okay, but this whole section seems like disparate elements strung together. Not enough on the "deficit of trust," not enough on special interests. I realize he doesn't have time to get into much detail, but he's not quite persuasive enough here.

(Oh, here's CNN's real-time piece on the speech.)

10:00 pm -- Okay, more on Washington dysfunction, "where every day is election day." And he points to a few senators with grudges who hold everything hostage -- a fully justifiable swipe at Lieberman?

"I'm trying to change the tone of our politics." Thankfully, he's realistic about what he can do. He isn't talking up some post-partisan utopia.

"Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it isn't leadership." Addressing Republicans, he's calling them out for pushing the filibuster, and the need for a supermajority, to get anything done, even as they refuse to help govern. Well done. Subtle, but pointed.

10:04 pm -- A bit on national security here, but no details yet. Still, good to go after Republicans, if not directly, for "schoolyard taunts."

There's Al Franken, behind the Joint Chiefs, nodding... It's still weird seeing him there in the Senate, though he seems to be doing a very good job.

A quick review of his record on national security -- war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, torture. On Iraq: "Make no mistake, this war is ending, and all our troops are coming home."

10:08 pm -- Support for veterans and military families. No one opposes that, right?

Man, I'm tired. It's a good speech, but these things do drag out, and they turn into laundry lists. (Although I do admire Obama's commitment to deal with nuclear proliferation.)

And I've finished my second vodka.

10:12 pm -- Human rights, standing on the side of human dignity. Well, what can I say?

He really needs to end with a flourish.

Ah... here it is... the repeal of DADT. "It's the right thing to do." Yes it is. And women getting equal pay for an equal day's work? Also the right thing.

10:15 pm -- Here's the flourish, Obama at his rhetorical best. Talking about American values, the loss of faith in America's "biggest institutions," doubt. "No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment." The room is silent, still.

"I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone." Controversy and passion have been stirred, but of course they have. And he connects "doing what is hard" to "the dream of keeping this nation alive." Brilliant.

I need to quote this part in full once I have the transcript.

I'm amazed at how mesmerized the room seems to be. This is why so many of us love the man, why we fell in love with him back on the campaign trail in '08.

"We don't quit. I don't quit!"

That was an awesome finish to a speech that started strong, stayed strong, went flat a bit, and then recovered. Very, very impressive.

Not nearly enough on health-care reform, but maybe he said enough to send the right message to Congress, and specifically to his fellow Democrats, to work it out and get it done.

I'm going to avoid the pundits for the time being, I think. The reactions will no doubt be exactly what you'd expect them to be.

Again, what struck me was how Obama held his audience in the palm of his hand throughout much of the address. And Republicans, who were no doubt told when to applaud and when to stand up, didn't seem to know quote how to respond. He said much that appealed to them, and he reached out to them, but, as I said above, they seemed to know that they were beaten, that they have no chance against Obama when he's this effective. (Dana Bash reports no booing. And yet she's focusing on how Obama put Democrats in their place on the spending freeze. Please. Yes, he was addressing them, too, but for the most part he neutralized the other side, not his own.)

10:28 pm -- And here's Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, about to give the Republican response. Whatever.

I'll be back later with more. I need to go lie down for a bit.

11:51 pm -- You know what makes me happy? The Dallas Stars beat the Calgary Flames in a shootout. And why? Because I recently added Stars goalie Alex Auld to my fantasy hockey team, and he got the win.

Oh, that third vodka hit me hard.

11:52 pm -- Okay, here the transcript of Obama's address. Here's a bit from towards the end:

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

Like I said... brilliant.

11:57 pm -- Oh, I found McConnell's response, delivered to a largely Republican audience, predictably banal, typical Republican pabulum. Like what he said about health-care reform:

All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality.

But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.

Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.

First, no one's talking about turning the system over to the government. This is fearmongering. The reform currently in Congress and backed by the president are market-oriented and limited in terms of how much government involvement there would be.

Second, Republicans haven't offered anything like a substantive alternative. Like the rest of the speech, it's a misleading, and indeed erroneous, talking point.

12:03 am -- Okay, that's it for me. Obama's address certainly could have been more aggressive in response to Republican opposition and obstructionism, as well as more supportive of health-care reform, but, on the whole, I thought it was extremely effective. Whether it shifts anything in Washington, or in public opinion, is another matter, but I do hope it encourages Democrats to forge ahead with health-care reform, to address jobs, and to move on with the rest of the key elements of the president's agenda, specifically with respect to energy and climate change.

I'll get to the reaction from the punditocracy and blogosphere tomorrow... er, later today.

Stay tuned for that, as well as for reactions from the co-bloggers.

Good night.

Where no man has gone before

By Carl

...
at least in the last thirty years:

Reports say when the White House releases their budget proposal, there will be no money for the program that was supposed to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

Reports say NASA will instead look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit.

One year ago President Obama had backed a Moon return mission in the NASA budget.


There's an abounding irony in the fact that a Republican president, desperat to reverse his sagging polls numbers amidst the long-standing accusation of intellectual uninterest in the world around him, propsed not only a return to the moon, but an eventual manned landing on Mars, while the Democratic president whose intellectual curiousity teems across his life has proposed stifling that ambition.

The budget, you see, affects more than just our paychecks. It affects our humanity.

I grew up in the Space Age. The world had a future. Space had a future. Mankind had a future.

Forget colonizing other planets in our solar system! Yea, we'd establish outposts and such and do experiments. Maybe hippie communes might spring up, but space had a wealth of resources that we could use to improve the human condition.

Offshoring manufacturing would take on a whole new meaning as we'd head out to the asteroid belt, pick an appropriate rock and as we dragged it back to high earth orbit, begin to refine out metals and chemicals, processes that pollute our environment horribly. The dollar cost of the mission would be more than offset by the real savings to the environment, to the air, earth, and water, to Gaia.

We would beam back energy from solar panels floating at Lagrange points around the earth in stable orbits. No more war for oil. Sure, there'd be money to be made, but if someone tried to corner the market, someone else would fire up a rocket and deploy his or her own satellite.

And that's just the beginning. The technologies that grew out of the space program, everything from Tang to hazmat equipment to the modern computer, have served us well and one can only imagine what new technoloies could come from the needs of the astronauts.

A country is suffering a drought? It might be cheaper to drag a comet to low earth orbit and make it rain into that country's reservoirs than to bring it by the bottle or boatload across a sea. A nation needs a tourist attraction, a way to bring people to it? Well, if it has a nice climate and a lot of flat open space, it could offer to build a spaceport.

The cultural impact of space exploration cannot be ignored. Neither can it be put off. Eventually, someone is going to realize that we don't have a lot of time or space left on this planet, and if we start now, it will be cheaper in the long run. While I can appreciate the budgetary needs of the Federal government in this time of belt-tightening and counting pennies, this is something that needs to be kept on the table year after year, as a reminder of what it means to be human.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

That is why you're overweight

By J. Thomas Duffy

In the event, you're sitting in front of your computer, reading this, while stuffing your face with a donut, or piece of pizza, you, very likely, won't recall reading this, or remember very little of it.



Don't worry, it's not you, it's your brain, and you're in company with an overwhelming amount of people on the planet.

H/T to Juan Cole for posting this:

Willpower And The 'Slacker' Brain

According to British psychologist Richard Wiseman, 88 percent of all resolutions end in failure. Those are his findings from a 2007 University of Hertfordshire study of more than 3,000 people.

How come so many attempts at willpower lose both their will and their power?

[snip]

It turns out, Jonah explains, that the part of our brain that is most reasonable, rational and do-the-right-thing is easily toppled by the pull of raw sensual appetite, the lure of sweet. Knowing something is the right thing to do takes work — brain work — and our brains aren't always up to that. The experiment, after all, tells us brains can't even hold more than seven numbers at a time. Add five extra digits, and good sense tiptoes out of your head, and in comes the cake. "This helps explain why, after a long day at the office, we're more likely to indulge in a pint of ice cream, or eat one too many slices of leftover pizza," Lehrer writes.

Click the link and go to the piece, as we didn't snip the fascinating part, the experiment.

And we have the perfect soundtrack for this, an old gem from Eddie Harris:

Eddie Harris - That Is Why You're Overweight [1975] [HDTV]




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)