I was watching C-Span this morning, not ten minutes ago, getting ready to do a number on a peppermint pie leftover from Christmas.  I love peppermint pie with something approaching unnatural strength.  Some boring Senate thing was on the screen, but as I read the ticker I was shocked and appalled to read

Iran apparently stopped their nuclear weapons program as of 2003, a new report says.  This is the same nuclear program we have been a touch concerned about ever since Moudy Ahmahdinejad started talking about wiping Israel from the face of the earth. 
What this means for U.S. foreign policy remains to be seen.  Iran is still a troublesome factor in Middle Eastern politics.  And, let us be frank, the report does not say, "Iran has no potential to develop the bomb, and has no intentions of the same."  It merely says that they did in fact halt their program in 2003.  They are still enriching uranium, so much so that they may have enough to build a bomb within two years should their program resume now. 
The report concludes with an estimate that Iran has the potential to develop a nuclear weapon by the middle of next decade.  That is, if they do not begin building one sooner. 

At least the news is good in Iraq.  I heard Matt Lauer (of all people) challenging John Edwards this morning on Edwards' refusal to see anything good in Iraq. 

Scio's Comments in red.

Bush Death Watch: Countdown!

It's official: Less than one year until history slaps Dubya to the curb. Can you feel the tingle?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, November 16, 2007

It's just that kind of feeling, that sense of hesitant, embryonic optimism, the sense that says, oh my God, we as a culture and a smash-mouthed, war-hammered society really are fast approaching something possibly, potentially, heart-achingly new and different and — because it cannot get any worse — just a little bit better.

Here is my suggestion: Mark your calendars, set your watch, program a celebratory ringtone well in advance, because the countdown has officially begun.

It is now less than one calendar year until the next presidential election. It is less than one year until the country finally takes a deep breath and flexes its atrophied muscles and opens its bloody, Cheney-punched (so that's what we're talking about?) mouth and lets it be known to the world, to the universe, to its own numb and dejected soul just exactly how unwell it has felt, how much pain has raked its heart (slightly overblown, I think), lo, these past seven (eight, by then) years, by ushering in an entirely new political era, as we all exhale a massive sigh of long overdue relief that — praise Jesus, Allah, Buddha and the devil all at once — the long national nightmare of George W. Bush is finally over (One man responsible for all the nation's ills...check).

It is now safe to imagine. It is now becoming increasingly easy to actually dare to think that, in less than one year's time, Dubya will begin packing his bags, jamming into his Spongebob duffel (cheap) his map of the world coloring book (tired), English-to-English translation dictionaries (so 1999), mangled pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution (trite), Bibleman action figure set and a "Mission Accomplished!" sweatshirt, and heading off to face his destiny as one of the bleakest, most morally repellent chapters (from a radical Muslim perspective, perhaps) in all of American history.

You think maybe it's too soon? Too early to let the tingle of positivism and hope take hold? Far from it. After all, the signs of decay and utter GOP desperation keep pouring in. For example, it has now been officially recorded in history what everyone already knows: Bush is nearly exactly as unpopular as Richard Nixon was at his lowest point, and no president in history has had as long a streak at the bottom of the job-approval rankings as Dubya (polls are nearly as reliable as a liberal's commitment to strict constructivism). Heckuva job, Bushie!

What's more, the glorious collapse of the evangelical Christian right marches on apace, as Pat Robertson, now a dejected, lonely widower after the death of secret boy-toy husband Jerry Falwell (see what I mean by compassionate?  Where's the respect for an opponent that is necessary to political discourse in this country?), has officially endorsed pro-choice, pro-gay, thrice-married, massively unbalanced moral pit bull Rudy Giuliani for president, which is a bit like a militant vegan endorsing Hot Dog on a Stick for the title of Lord of the Food Court (have to say that I think Pat did make a mistake on this one.  Better to endorse your values and then admit you have to compromise rather than compromise from the get go...plausible deniability?). Desperate times indeed.

But wait, it gets better. While it's easy to focus on Shrub and Cheney and to gleefully, achingly imagine their dreary march out of office on that happy day (stop it!  grossly overwrought.), it is also vital and heartwarming to note that this time next year will also mark the demise of an entire army of toxic leaders, federal department heads, gay-bashing (ah ha.) appointees and misogynist directors of every stripe and scandal and spittle, a simply huge array of right-wing Bushies who are still entrenched in all manner of powerful federal bureaus and organizations and policy-making bodies.

It's true. Despite how a huge hunk of hideous GOP policymakers lost their seats (not quite 1994) during the last congressional election, plenty more appointees are still around to poison the well. From Kevin Martin, the lackey who oversees the FCC, to noxious Idahoan and rabid anti-environmentalist (so this is a hate crime too I guess) Dick Kempthorne of the Department of the Interior, to anti-choice Republican Mormon knucklehead charity scammer and Department of Health and Human Services overseer Mike Leavitt, and on and on — in a year, all on their way out.

Oh, and one more deserves special attention. Because one year from now will also be the glorious political end of one Dr. David W. Hager, the rabid evangelical Christian gynecologist (I know, so wrong) who currently advises the FDA on women's health issues and who was largely responsible for delaying the approval of Plan B (yay), opposed RU-486 (good), is in fact against all contraception (me too), stem-cell research (probably only embryonic, jerk.  You know, the kind that doesn't work?  Adult stem cell research is fine, and has shown results.), premarital sex (bad for you, really it is.), and (quite naturally) women's choice (Like the choice to sleep around and deal with the "natural" consequences), and whose own ex-wife claims he anally raped her, over and over again, in her sleep (the obvious question is, if she was asleep at the time how does she know it wasn't just hemorrhoids?.

Intelligent women nationwide still shudder that this man is allowed anywhere near a living vagina, much less permitted to touch and probe and offer advice. But there is one noteworthy aspect to Hager; he is the perfect incarnation of the Christian right's view of women (sure, just like Hillary Clinton is the right's view of the Antichrist...not so) as subordinate, lesser-intelligent sluts who cannot control their own bodies and therefore need men (husbands), God (yes), and the government (not if you're a conservative...then you want the government to protect the right to worship and nothing else) to do it for them. Hager is a deep shame to the male gender, and his return to the private practice of ruining the sex lives of unfortunate women in Kentucky cannot come soon enough.

But why write this column now, so far in advance of Bush's limp-tailed departure? Simple enough: Because it will take a full year to get ready.

It will take every month and every week and every single day from the moment you read this until November 2008 to compile, to gather, to list all the names and all the horrors and all the deeply entrenched policies that are still clawing at the face of America (evocative.) as a result of Bush's reign (Oh, yeah, I forgot he was an Imperial President), to fully get your mind around just how deep is the disease and how widely it has spread, so we may begin to excise the policies one by one like the malignant tumors they so very much are.

What, too strong? Not even close. Go read up on Hager, and get back to me.

Ah, but perhaps you are one of the jaded ones, the non-believers, that certain type of political bitterball who says, oh please, what does it matter, they're all criminals and cretins and powermongers anyway, no matter which party or president they work for? Get rid of BushCo and a new slew of cronies and cretins take their place, and who can tell the difference? (What if you're one of the political bitterballs who don't live in San Francisco?)

To which I say, well, yes. But also, no. Sure, the system is corrupt and lopsided and full of backstabbing and backslapping and backroom deal-making. So what? Has been since the first cavemen voted to see who gets to run the mammoth hunt (at least he's right about this).

Truth is, it's just far too easy to let the ennui wash over and not give a damn, to lump all politics into a phlegmball of nasty negativity and be done with it, thus entirely disregarding the efficacious issues, the things that truly effect change and affect lives and improve or degrade the health of the planet. Outrage fatigue is simply unacceptable. Intellectual apathy is the refuge of the lazy and the spiritually malnourished. Do not let it happen to you (by all means, please let it happen to this man's readers.).

Now is the time. The coming year will slide by rather quickly and the feeling of urgent change and upheaval will only build and it doesn't really matter if it's Hillary or Obama or Edwards leading the shift (it does, but do we expect him to make sense at this point?), because no matter who gets the nod, they will require — from me, from you, from anyone who professes to care — a roiling tidal wave of progressive momentum behind them to help them cleanse and haul away the overwhelming mountain of moral fecal matter (let's not talk about morals, San Francisco.) Bush has left behind.

Mark your calendar. Set your ringtone. Take a deep breath, feel the wave build, and then dive the hell in. Right now, it's the only option that really matters.

Golly day.  I can not fathom how much these people hate George Bush.  One of the great things about the Republic is that if you don't like who is in power you just have to wait them out.  These people act like Bush has voted himself Dictator for Life.  For six years it's been nothing but criticism, insults and gloomy forecasts for his place in history.  Truth be told, he hasn't done that bad a job.  Look at men like Buchanan and Pierce, who were unable or unwilling to do anything to avert the coming Civil War.  Bush can't be faulted for doing something in the face of the first great conflict of our century: that of radical Islam.  Better to try, make mistakes rather than sit back and do nothing, and be remembered for that.

It will be nice to finally stop hearing about how awful President Bush is, though.  Of course, I expect them to miss nary a beat and move on to blaming all the next administrations problems on the previous.  Kind of like Republicans do with Clinton.

While some think ol' Fred got in late
I think twas a reas'nable date.
He's surely a shoo-in
And knows what he's doin'.
What brains 'neath that shiny bald pate!

The Clinton who reps the New Yorkuhs
Has a laugh I imagine a stork does.
It sounds a bit forced
But consider the source;
She isn't relaxed like her Dork was.

John Edwards, that big ball of gas,
Appeals to the stupid and crass.
A liberal whiner
With sand in his 'giner;
I sure hate that country-fried ass.

There once was a guy named Obama,
Who courted the populist drama.
An Illinois boob
Who'll capture the rubes
If he wins I will go join Osama.

With Thompson in need of a Vice,
I think Giuliani'd be nice.
Play second-fiddle?
There is a riddle!
I think he would rather have lice.

************************************

There once was a young man named Dennis
Who dated a girl name of Jenness.
What he didn't know
Was Jen was a bro
Then Jen wore some shorts to play tennis.

Ms. Edwards Asks Coulter to Stop Attacks

By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

(06-26) 16:33 PDT Raleigh, N.C. (AP) --

Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to "stop the personal attacks," a day after the conservative commentator said she wished Edwards' husband, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, had been killed by terrorists.

"The things she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers the political dialogue at precisely the time we need to raise it," Edwards said by phone on MSNBC's "Hardball" program, where Coulter was a guest.

Elizabeth Edwards said she did not consult her husband before confronting Coulter on the air, adding that she felt the pundit's remarks were "a dialogue on hatefulness and ugliness."

"It debases political dialogue," Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language."

Coulter responded with a laugh and charged that Edwards was calling on her to stop speaking altogether. She questioned why Elizabeth Edwards was making a phone call on behalf of her husband, and she criticized John Edwards for "stealing doctors' money" during his successful career as a trial lawyer.

"I don't think I need to be told to stop writing by Elizabeth Edwards, thank you," Coulter said.

On ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday, Coulter was asked about a March speech in which she used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said Monday, picking up on remarks made by HBO's Bill Maher. Maher suggested in March that "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.

John Edwards may suspend his campaign.  Right now it's all rumor, but his wife may once again be stricken with cancer.  Reports from his staff indicate that no decision has been reached, but if the rumors are true then Edwards will most assuredly be out of the race...

...unless I'm completely wrong.

So it seems Edwards will stay in it and his wife will get treatment.  I would hope that they caught it early enough and her life isn't in much danger.  Not because I want Edwards to win or even to stay in the race, but because I'm not a total moral degenerate. 

Now, how is he going to avoid playing the sympathy card?  If he plays that card then he is toast.  His opponents will question his ability to focus on the office, and he will look callous for continuing to run while acknowledging the difficulties of his wife's cancer.

This leads me to believe that Mrs. Edwards has probably got a decent prognosis...I know if I were in the same position, that's all that would keep me in the running. 

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.

By David Ehrenstein, L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN writes about Hollywood and politics.
March 19, 2007

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?

And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")

But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

I found this article to be an interesting take on the Obamenon among liberals today.  The man has enjoyed an unprecedented level of goodwill and support in the past two years.  Since his election to the Senate over Alan Keyes, his name has been one of the most whispered about presidential contenders for 2008.  While at first the whispering was merely idiotic, it has now become slightly less so.  At the time of his election, the man was coming from a background in state politics and community organization before that.  Hardly a presidential resume these days, but that didn't seem to shake the conviction of his supporters that B.O. would make a stellar president.
Why?  What in this man's background qualifies him to even run at this stage?  He has less than a full term in the U.S. Senate, and no executive experience that can be applied to the job of President.  He has been a legislator and organizer.  These are very different animals when compared to a President or even a governor.  The mechanics are different, the job is different -- and he hasn't proven his worth in his own elected position yet.
Why indeed should he garner such wide support if not for the the overwhelming desire of some Americans to demonstrate that the time of racism has passed?  I would argue that this is a form of racism in itself.  Why should his race be a driving factor in his support?  We should be able to assess the man free of these factors.
I would not say that Obama would be a terrible president...our elected leaders can only get our country into so much trouble, without help.  Obama's inexperience is not an asset, nor is his relative newness to Washington and its corrupting influence.  I posit that Obama has jumped the gun tremendously.  His character and freshness will not see him through the meatgrinder of this election.
Regarding white guilt...what a terrible motivation to support this man.  It is not as if there is a conscious awareness of the feeling.  Every supporter of Obama needs to search their heart and eschew every ounce of patronizing guilt over this man's blackness before they throw their lot in with him.  And then they need to look at his record and make the right decision:  Vote experience, not personality. 

And did we notice that Wikipedia has been used as a reference tool in this article?  Seeing that more and more...Not that I have a problem with it.

Barely aught 7, begins the push
For who will lead us after Bush.
Early though it now might seem,
Aspirants are building steam
Sniping Bush and one another,
Opposition yet to smother
'Fore the prize can be secured-
Four the prize to be endured.

Biden's own scathing diner talk-
The elder's contempt all unblocked-
By such tone all growling came
To make profane a sacred name.
That of course was his intent
If soon he might be President.
More from him is in the cards,
More teasing hapless John Edwards.

While I may be conservative
(Cultural preservative),
To a qualm I must confess
Which my readers may address:
A reaction visceral
To a feeling general
That we have no one to run
That could beat Mrs. Clinton.

I won't vote for him, but Joe Biden seems to have his head somewhere other than buried in his heinie.  Of course, he won't get the nomination.  But this article reminded me of high school.  All the popular kids won't even respond to his criticism since he's a third-tier "nobody" on the playground.  I simplify, but that was my feeling.
And hey, I don't agree with his politics, but I like his tone.  Aside from the media hoopla over his remarks about B.O. ("I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy'..."), he really does seem like someone I'd enjoy. 
I particularly like the tone he reserves for John Edwards, that ambulance-chasing nincompoop:

Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreign policy in the Presidential election of 2004.

 

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.

 

“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”

The emphasis is mine.

I hope he loses, but I want to see more of him.