The curtain has come down on what can best be described as a brief un-American moment in our history. That moment began in the fall of 2008, with the great financial panic, and gave rise to the Barack Obama phenomenon.

The nation’s faith in institutions and time-honored ways had cracked. In a little-known senator from Illinois millions of Americans came to see a savior who would deliver the nation out of its troubles. Gone was the empiricism in political life that had marked the American temper in politics.

Right. An election fairly won, concern for Americans and preoccupation with governance are really un-American values. Not like Tea Parties, Death Panels and mindless obstructionism.

We’ve asked before on AGI. Why do they hate America?

From the New York Times Magazine:

Sometimes months would pass with no word from Hammami. When he reached out through Facebook in early September, he told Dena that he hoped his infamy would prompt people to ask, “How did this guy become that?”

“They can’t blame it on poverty or any of that stuff,” he continued. “They will have to realize that it’s an ideology and it’s a way of life that makes people change. They will also have to realize that their political agendas need to be fixed.”

It’s things like these that give more credence to Hitchens and the like who believe that this really is a fight between ideologies.

The story doesn’t have an incredible amount of details about his actual rise through the ranks of the insurgency (although it seems he has achieved a considerable amount of power within the group, the article doesn’t give many details) but what is truly fascinating is how it depicts the duality of this person.

He is by all accounts a die hard believer but still has many American tics:

[Hammami] understood how strange it might seem to “fight for beliefs,” especially as he had once been a liberal (under the influence, he wrote, of the teacher he still referred to as “Mrs. Hirsch”). But he had come to the realization that “we don’t live in a utopian society.”

“When I came here I saw that firsthand,” he wrote. “There are villages that live in a constant state of war between rival tribes. There are roads that people cannot pass except with fear of being robbed or raped.”

He and his fellow fighters, he wrote, are helping those people. “Regardless of what the media says,” he added, “we do not kill innocents.”

Throughout the exchange, Hammami seemed to slide back and forth between the boy from Daphne and the jihadi propagandist. He asked his sister for news about his grandmother in Perdido (“Maw Maw,” he called her) and signed off “later tater” and “I love you.”

Frightening and incomprehensible.

“Obama also used the term “business” or “businesses” unusually often during last night’s speech. In about half of these cases, “business” was prefaced by the term “small” as in “small businesses” — the term “small business” almost always polls well in focus groups.

Obama also used the term “tax” or “taxes” as often as any president since Reagan in 1982, mostly to point out (as I’ve argued was long overdue) that the stimulus package contained an enormous volume of tax cuts. Another obsession of the White House speechwriting department is the use of the terms “investing” and “investment”, which Obama used very heavily last night as well as in his 2009 address.”

“It is imperative for the country, the economy, the party, and the Obama presidency that Democrats resist the temptation to let this rare opportunity slip by. The most effective path forward is also the most obvious: the House should approve the legislation that has already passed the Senate, and the Senate should extend assurances to the House on pursuing improvements through the budget reconciliation process.

…

The reasons that made health care reform an absolute necessity two weeks ago were not changed by a narrow majority of special-election voters in Massachusetts — many of whose Republican and independent voters support their own state’s version of what congressional Democrats seek to do.

For all the media interest in political strategies, polls, and attack ads, the health care system remains badly broken. The reform package approved in December by the Senate would not only be the most important domestic policy breakthrough in decades, it would quite literally save American lives.

The silly caricature — “death panels” and the threat of a “government takeover” — is obviously wrong to those who are fully engaged in the details, but has nevertheless gained a foothold among much of the public. What’s important to remember, though, is that there’s ample evidence that public perceptions can change fairly quickly.”

The memo focuses a lot on the positive effect this will have on the public public perception of Democrats. The memo again makes the obvious point (not so to some, apparently) that the elections results will be worse for Democrats if the bill is defeated rather than if it’s successful.

“With the loss of Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, Democrats no longer enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority, though they still enjoy the largest Senate majority any party has achieved in the past generation. The loss of this one vote does not require Congress or the President to abandon Senator Kennedy’s life work of health care reform. A year of political infighting, misleading debates about death panels and socialized medicine, and sheer inaction has left Americans exhausted, confused, and disgruntled. Americans are also bearing the severe consequences of deep recession and unemployment. Still, a majority of Americans support the elements of the Senate bill.

…

Alternatively, Congress can abandon this effort at this critical moment, leaving millions more Americans to become uninsured in the coming years as health care becomes ever less affordable. Abandoning health care reform—the signature political issue of this administration—would send a message that Democrats are incapable of governing and lead to massive losses in the 2010 election, possibly even in 2012. Such a retreat would also abandon the chance to achieve reforms that millions of Americans across the political spectrum desperately need in these difficult times. Now is the moment for calm and resolute leadership, pressing on toward the goal now within sight.”

Krugman, who I don’t often agree with said this another way. Democrats in both houses already voted for this. It’s too late to avoid the ignominy of voting for supposed socialist health care. If you scrap this project now you look impotent, your constituents get none of the benefits they would if the bill passes and Republicans can still say you support a “government takeover of health-care” or some other such nonsense, which they will do either way. House Democrats, vote for the senate version.

Pass the damn thing!

“They snatched my seventeen-year-old son for a bounty payment … They took him to Guantánamo and held him prisoner for five years. They tortured him. Then they killed him and returned him to me in a box, cut up.”

Read the full story at Harper’s.

“WASHINGTON (AP) — Three Guantanamo Bay detainees whose deaths were ruled a suicide in 2006 apparently had been transported from their cells hours before their deaths to a secret site on the island, an article in Harper’s magazine asserts.

The account released Monday raises serious questions about whether the three detainees actually died by hanging themselves in their cells and suggests the U.S. government is covering up details of what precisely happened in the hours before the deaths on the night of June 9, 2006.

In response to the magazine article, the Justice Department said Monday that it had thoroughly reviewed the allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Harper’s reported that the deaths of the three detainees, or the events that led directly to their deaths, most likely occurred at a previously undisclosed facility a mile or so from the main Guantanamo Bay prison complex.

…

After the terror attacks on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA set up a number of so-called ”black” sites around the world, where harsh interrogations of terrorism-era suspects took place. The Harper’s article suggested such a site at Guantanamo Bay may have belonged to the CIA or to the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command.”

Two things to note: 1. The silence in most of the mainstream press (New York Times used an AP feed which I dare you to find on their website without the search feature) 2. The press still wants to call it harsh interrogations. If “harsh” interrogations can lead to three deaths than we should start calling lethal injections anti-eupnea vaccines.

It must be all that efficiency created by private enterprise…

This post on Haiti drew me back:

“Tengo una deuda vieja con Haití. Todos la tenemos. Haití es la matriz primera, el lugar desde el cual nos nació el Caribe, es el Africa de adentro, el dolor innombrable, la cicatriz.
Fue el primer pais de América en donde un negro se atrevió a pensarse libre, a pensarse lider de pueblos (Toussaint L’ouverture). Ese descaro, Haití lo ha pagado caro. Todavía se lo cobran. No se lo perdona el Antiguo Imperio que crió una revolución (Liberté, Fraternité, Eglité) para todo Occidente, menos para ellos. No se lo perdona su propia estirpe, que convirtió en micos y parodias (Henry Christophe, Duvalier, Aristide) aquel sueño inicial de libertad, fraternidad e igualdad.
Y ahora esto; Haití es este montón de piedras que se derrumban. ¿Qué crimen ancestral no terminamos de pagar? ¿Por qué la tierra nos odia tanto (Le Damnées de la Terre, siempre, les damnées de la terre)? ¿Cómo nos levantamos ahora? Porque el Caribe entero no puede caminar sin Haití. Tropieza , trastabilla, muerde polvo. No puede seguir soñando el sueño que lo originó. No puede seguir intentando (egalité, fraternité, liberté) convertirlo en realidad.
Haití se derrumba, otra vez.
Y nosotros caemos. No podemos avanzar.
Sin Haití no se puede. Sin Haití caemos todos.”

It’s from a Puerto Rican blogger. You can go here to read it in English on Global Voices Online, which is also a good source for eye witness information from local Haitian bloggers.

“I have spent ten exhausting days on the road with more than 100 hours of driving and now I have to leave for Tehran. Looking at my mother’s tearful eyes and father’s anxious glances and despite all the difficulties only the true wish for freedom can maintain my drive and steadfastness. And so once again I welcome and accept all the dangers, standing next to my friends with whom I am honoured and proud to be on 16 Azar shoulder to shoulder we will shout against tyranny. For Freedom.”

This is good stuff that he has touched upon earlier. More people should be speaking out against the CNN-ization of journalism in general; give a platform to the right, give a platform to the left and then say nothing. No real information given, no news work done.

Also at the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder rips apart the laughable Sarah palin op-ed.

“Santorum also may be viewed as the nation’s superego, reminding us of our moral charge at a time of swift cultural change.”

Well yes. Undoubtedly this is true but doesn’t it go a little bit deeper than this Kathleen? Flesh it out more:

“It is human nature to resist those perceived as morally superior”.

Ah there it is. Now that we’ve accepted that he is morally superior we also have to realize that a lot of people don’t like others who are better than them.

Any opposition to him has nothing to do with the fact that he actually wants to build a fence along the US-Mexico border or that he blames the Catholic sex scandal not on the Catholic church but on the “liberal” culture in Boston.

If you read it then you’re going to have to sit through sentences like these:

“This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen.”

Obviously.

The rest of it is mostly about how she saved the planet during her governorship of Alaska (I think a pronoun count might be in order George) and how she does not deny “the reality of some changes in climate” which she saw firsthand as Governor except that these are naturally occurring “cyclical environmental trends”. I guess this means that she accepts the science on the seasons changing.

Hey, it’s a start.

“There are no candlelight vigils, no Facebook groups, and no Fareed Zakaria specials for Pakistani victims of militant violence. To some extent, this is the result of image problems. Pakistan is a “bad actor” in the international system, and as such, deserves little sympathy. After all, wasn’t it Pakistan itself that gave rise to these groups in the first place? Indeed it was. But it is a strange moral and strategic compass that blames women and children shopping at Moon Market for the sins of GHQ and the ISI.”

McChrystal:

“My confidence derives first from the Afghan’s resolve, since it is their actions that will ultimately matter most in ending this conflict, with their interests – and by extension our own ‐‐ secured.

Second, we do not confront a popular insurgency. The Taliban have no wide‐spread
constituency, have a history of failure in power, and lack an appealing vision.

Third, where our strategy is applied we’ve begun to show that we can help the Afghans
establish more effective security and more credible governance.

Finally, Afghans do not regard us as occupiers. They do not wish for us to remain forever, yet they see our support as a necessary bridge to future security and stability.”

This is all very heartening though it doesn’t seem to answer the criticism that the surge is essentially a face saving political maneuver. The article makes the point that the Taliban is not well loved in Afghanistan because they’ve showed their incompetence when they’re in power. That the population is more motivated by a weariness of the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan than by anti-invader nationalism. If that’s the case it still seems implausible that by 2011 the Afghan government will be strong enough to push back the Taliban when U.S. forces begin to draw down.

“Evidently it was too much law that got us into the war on terror, and yet there’s too little law to get us out of it. Apparently, one cannot operate within a legal framework in wartime because the laws are too constraining and vague. Yet using an unambiguous criminal justice system to try the 9/11 terrorists in peacetime is dangerous because the system is untested and untrustworthy. Any way you slice it, the conclusion is inescapable: The real danger facing America is the law. It’s always going to be either too outdated or too untested; it’s inevitably characterized as too ambiguous or too rigid; too forward-facing or too past-focused. The legal system is too hard on good patriotic Americans and too soft on our sworn enemies.”

“Anti-Washington except that she thirsts for it, and close enough (and also far enough away to be “deniable”) to the paranoid fringe element who darkly suggest that our president is a Kenyan communist.”

For the rest of the article you can click here.

To read why Hitchens considers her populism to be somewhat of a sham, and to see Hitch warn her not to “cock-tease the rabble”, click here.

“Having vowed to “finish the job,” Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy”.

Not serious like, you know, counting pronouns.

Jon Stewart’s anger is palpable but it makes sense. The reasonable people who believe that man influences climate change were never able to put it into a context that made sense.

I wanted scientists to tell me: “The greenhouse effect is real. It affects climate. In a lot of places this climate change causes natural disasters that wouldn’t normally happen. It creates situations that negatively affect the health of the populace. It also kills off many species that would have otherwise survived. This is reason enough to try and curb it”.

Instead we got: “Holy shit we’re all going to die”!

Now to conform to this Day After Tomorrow scenario these pricks go and do this.

And now these other pricks feel justified (they also did so before this scandal though) in gleefully proclaiming this is proof that man does not influence the climate.

Sigh. What a bunch of assholes.

It also looks like this is now fully Obama’s war. Now the success and failure in Afghanistan will be laid at his feet which I’m fine with. Of course, the right will try and spin it negatively regardless of the outcome but there is no way this administration will bungle this war as bad as the last and I hope smart people will see that.

Where I disagree with Andrew Sullivan is his complete faith in Obama’s tactical cunning:

“As always with Obama, look a little deeper. He has made the very best of a very bad situation. And he is playing a long game for a win or a necessary withdrawal or both. I retain all my doubts; but I give him and Gates and McChrystal and Clinton and the troops all my support for the two years ahead. This much he and they deserve”.

I don’t share this faith, not because I don’t think Obama is smart but because the GOP seemed for so long to be so adept at controlling the narrative in their advantage even when the odds seemed against them (see Max Cleland). Granted, the GOP is looking wounded now but I find it hard to believe that they forgot all that in the 9 months of Obama’s presidency.

I’d like to think that come 2012 unemployment will be lower, the health care bill is passed and beginning to be put in place and that some sort of success in Afghanistan is achieved but I still have a bad feeling this is too much to wish for. I’m not even sure what the latter would look like.

Oh well. I guess I just have to keep the faith.

“Kendry sólo tenía 15 años. Ya era uno de los grandes talentos del béisbol en la isla. Cuando estuvo en las categorías juveniles, también brilló. Era el cuarto bate del equipo Cuba y su primer pitcher. En un Panamericano Juvenil, efectuado en la provincia de Camagüey, a casi 600 kilómetros de La Habana, fue nominado el jugador más valioso.

…

Pero llegó 2009, el año mágico de Kendry Morales. Desde el inicio de la campaña, fue un pelotero clave para su equipo. Mi pronóstico: Morales se convertirá en el mejor jugador cubano de todos los tiempos en las Grandes Ligas”.

Kendry was only 15 years old. He was already one of the great Baseball talents on the island. When he was at youth level, he also shone bright. He was the fourth batter in the line up of the Cuban team and its starting pitcher. In a Panamericano Juvenil that took place in Camagüey, almost 600 kilometers from Havana, he was nominated most valuable player.

…

Then 2009 arrived, the magic year for Kendry Morales. From the start of the season he was a key player for his team. My prediction: Morales will become the best Cuban player of all time in the Major Leagues. [My translation]

“In 1997, Brooks wrote an influential article called “A Return to National Greatness,” for The Weekly Standard, the in-house newsletter for neo-con dicks. “National Greatness” is what results when unacknowledged feelings of sexual inadequacy manifest themselves as a theory of foreign policy. The ostensible theory is that the United States, at the time, no longer had the sense of large, unifying national purpose that it had during the days of the western expansion, the Cold War, and the space program. The remedy was for the government to create “a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation.”

Those behind this movement, including Weekly Standard editor and founder William Kristol, himself a second-generation dick, were the primary intellectual force behind the Iraq War, which has proven the theory to be a smashing success”.

A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed’s nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would — a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden’s driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

…

Holder’s critics do not help their case by understating the criminal justice system’s capacities, overstating the military system’s virtues and bumper-stickering a reasonable decision.

We were one cheating cop away from winning the Hunt. But you wouldn’t find a cooler team.

La política estadounidense, sin quererlo, ha brindado durante decenios al absolutismo cubano la coartada para cultivar el nacionalismo, el miedo al “enemigo externo”, y la excusa para reprimir y justificar el desastre interno provocado por el propio sistema.

[...]

Estados Unidos el levantamiento de las prohibiciones a sus ciudadanos para visitar Cuba, algunos legisladores siguen sin comprender la importancia política del encuentro masivo de norteamericanos y cubanos, como un elemento sumamente valioso para demostrar las ventajas de la libertad para el pueblo cautivo de la Isla.

Ellos sólo perciben el hecho real del fomento de los ingresos por concepto de turismo, sin tener en consideración el factor político y humano, cuando en Cuba se desarrolla una gran toma de conciencia sobre la necesidad del cambio radical de un sistema que ha llevado la nación al desastre.

[...]

Algunos insisten en que el gobierno cubano emprenda cambios sustanciales antes de que Washington tome medidas liberalizadoras. No parecen comprender que en el gobierno cubano se mantienen fuertes personalidades sin el más mínimo interés por el mejoramiento de las relaciones con Estados Unidos, sino todo lo contrario. Necesitan que se mantenga el clima de hostilidad y, por las actuales condiciones críticas del país, que se acreciente, lo que promueven mediante provocaciones y actos hostiles.

We know hardliners won’t listen, but the rest of the world does.

While class struggle and common ownership of property may have motivated the revolution, Mao’s heirs are more interested in outcomes than process. At least a dozen times, officials and businesspeople have quoted Deng Xiaoping’s line about not caring whether a cat is black and white, as long as it catches the mouse. Chinese structures—whether socioeconomic theories or apartment buildings—don’t have to be elegant; they just have to stand up. And so far, 30 years into the great China experiment, the elites are confident that the grafting of capitalism onto a state-controlled economy, overseen by a government controlled by a Communist Party, is standing up.

Puerile, laughable and ineffectual (it doesn’t even work on every browser), but that’s hardliners for you. Not secure enough in their convictions to test them in a real battlefield of ideas. Instead they insult, bully, belittle, censor and ban anybody who doesn’t join their little Greek chorus. Just take a look at the comments in any of their posts. The last time I saw so many people toeing the party line it was in communist Cuba.

In contrast, Val Prieto and his friends have always been welcomed here and have taken advantage of that privilege extensively. That is exactly the purpose of a blog in my opinion, to foment the free debate of ideas no matter how antagonistic. Obviously they don’t think the same way, and it is obvious to any outside observer which one of these attitudes is really congruent with the ideals of a democratic society.

No matter. I’ll continue to take them to task, because I decided a while ago that Babalu’s hardliner views weren’t going to be the only English-language representative of Cubans and Cuban Americans in the blogosphere, and I’m joined by my co-bloggers in this effort. They aren’t even the majority anymore, and they won’t go unchallenged.

And from now on, I’ll just copy and paste the pertinent link in the text of the post, in case you want to see what I’m reacting to. They can close the door of their little house, but they can’t keep the world from peeking inside.

It’s enough to make hardliners bang their heads against walls trying to figure out how to counteract this arriviste from Havana, and their responses range from the bilious (See here, but especially here) to the Cuban Liberty Council, which trying to scoop some Yoani magic for themselves, came out of irrelevance to give her their pompously-named award. And now, via the usual suspects, this plainly manipulative open letter to Yoani Sanchez, from Capitol Hill Cubans (aka Mauricio Claver-Carone, the hardliner du jour).

You are undoubtedly a heroine, not to mention the future of Cuba.

Regardless of any disagreement that we may have regarding U.S. policy towards Cuba, we certainly respect your right to voice that disagreement, as we’re confident you respect our right to disagree.

That is the diversity of our views (and the roots of a future democracy).

Well, putting aside the brown nosing, that’s certainly refreshing. A hardliner admitting not only that the future of Cuba will be in the hands of the Cubans in the island, but also praising diversity of views. Beats accusing opposing views of being naive, colaborationists, dialogueros or infatuated with Castro, like Ros-Lehtinen just did to Gen. McCaffrey.

When you were abducted and assaulted by the Castro regime’s thugs on November 6th, not one of the current 178 Members of Congress that have co-sponsored legislation to unconditionally lift tourism sanctions towards Cuba — nor its advocates — raised their voice in concern or condemnation.

Similarly, Friday’s physical attack by the regime’s thugs against your husband, Reinaldo, did not seem to disturb the conscience of those Members of Congress, nor their advocates. It was, once again, met with disturbing silence.

Yet, the same people that urged you to weigh-in on behalf of their views during last week’s Congressional hearing on US policy towards Cuba, have left no stone unturned, exerting all of their energy and efforts, to exploit your views for their political gain.

This is just laughable. Claver-Carone’s PAC spends tons of money in contributions to legislators trying to defeat the very initiatives Yoani supports -and he’s the one innocently on her side, with no political goal in mind? Following his logic, he’s even more guilty of contributing to the beatings suffered by Yoani and her husband. Their assailants were chanting against the embargo, and they cite it as the main reason why they have to repress free expression in the island.

Simply put, they seek to take advantage of our family’s diversity, in the hopes of hindering our united purpose.

What united purpose can Claver-Carone claim, when he is the one frantically spending all his efforts to continue a failed policy of isolation that’s been proven to benefit solely the Castro regime? Since when has unity of purpose mattered when it has come to tarnish and accuse any voice that’s not for isolationism, to belittle any effort other than stubborn confrontation, to defend policies that pit people against people, taking their cues from the same regime they profess to detest so much?

What this letter proves is that hardliners are deadly scared of the moderate alternatives and engagement. If it’s as ineffective as they profess it to be, then let us try it; the lack of results will be all the proof they need to continue arguing for isolation and they have certainly had their opportunity and blew it. But they don’t really care for Cuba, you see, their allegiance is to the Republican party and the plight of Cubans only matters to them as a vote collecting device. If there were to be a change in Cuba while Obama is president, they are liable to ask for it to be rolled back, just out of spite.

One more thing (and Claver-Carone knows this because he’s no dummy): the reason Yoani has achieved the credibility in the international stage is precisely because she doesn’t act like a hardliner.

—————————————————————-

Update: Babalublog censors incoming links from AGI. The linked posts are:

http://babalublog.com/2009/11/cuban-regime-dissidents-vs-cuban-regime-opponents-on-the-embargo/

http://babalublog.com/2009/11/a-message-for-yoani-sanchez/

Obama has responded and that is the link above. So far the Castros have not responded and never will.

This is what America really is: we open lines of communications, we tear down walls not build them up and we do not terrorize and torture our citizens (or anyone else).

Is there any question as to how to move forward? You empower the Cubans on the island to speak out against their inneffective and morally bankrupt government. You do not cut out the legs underneath them by making their situation worse so you can pinch your fat little cheeks in Miami and bask in your own moral superiority.

Yet some people still call her naive and question her sincerity while still pretending to work on behalf of the Cuban people even though their policies are at odds with each other.

The questions (click the link for Obama’s answers):

Questions for Raúl Castro, president of Cuba:

1. What negative influences on the ideological structure of the Cuban revolution might there be from an eventual improvement in relations with the United States?
2. You have demonstrated on several occasions your willingness to talk with the American government. Are you alone in this proposition? Have you discussed it with the other members of the Politburo to convince them of the need to talk? Does your brother Fidel Castro agree with regards to ending the conflict between the two governments?
3. You are seated at a table opposite Obama. What are the three major achievements you would wish to get from that conversation? What do you think would be the three major achievements that the American side would wish to get?
4. Can you list the concrete advantages the Cuban people would have in the present and in the future, if this long dispute between the two governments ended?
5. If the American side wanted to include a round of negotiations with the Cuban community in exile, members of opposition parties within the Island, and representatives of civil society, would you accept that proposal?
6. Do you think there is a real possibility that the current United States government would opt to use military force against Cuba?

Questions for Barack Obama, president of the United States:

1. For years Cuba has been a U.S. foreign policy issue as well as a domestic one, in particular because of the large Cuban American community. From your perspective, in which of the two categories should the Cuban issue fit?
2. Should your administration be willing to put an end to this dispute, would it recognize the legitimacy of the Raul Castro government as the only valid interlocutor in the eventual talks?
3. Has the U.S. government renounced the use of military force as a way to end the dispute?
4. Raúl Castro has said publicly that he is open to discuss any topic with the U.S. provided there is mutual respect and a level playing field. Is Raúl asking too much?
5. In a hypothetical U.S.- Cuba dialog, would you entertain participation from the Cuban exile community, the Cuba-based opposition groups and nascent Cuban civil society groups?
6. You strongly support the development of new communication and information technologies. But, Cubans continue to have limited access to the internet. How much of this is due to the U.S. embargo and how much of it is the responsibility of the Cuban government?
7. Would you be willing to travel to our country?

You can almost hear nutwingers heads’ blowing up.

Watch Brit Hume at the end who hasn’t found a single good argument supporting the trials in New York except for the Constitution which he isn’t that sure about.

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

On the recent wave of populism:

From Glenn Beck to the Tea Parties, much of the energy in the post-Bush G.O.P. is with people who have grasped, albeit sometimes in inchoate ways, that big government and big business are increasingly on one team, and the champions of free markets and limited government are on the other. But they don’t know what to do about it, and what they do seem to know — cutting taxes, and letting the rest take care of itself — is often non-responsive, not only to the problems the country faces, but to the problems they themselves have diagnosed.

The same issue was brought up in this New Yorker article (Subscription Required). Basically big companies who complain about regulation have no problem supporting those regulations that hurt their competitors.

Although you’d think that small government idealists and big businesses would be on the same side their goals are actually different. The former wants a reduced role for the government, less regulation, lower taxes etc but the prerogative of the latter is really only to maximize profits. Of course, people who favor small government argue that their proposals, by enabling the invisible (magic) hand of the market, would, in all situations, increase profits and maximize innovation. That subtle difference of opinion where one group believes in a specific method which they say would achieve the goal of maximizing profits (but really what’s important is the method) and the other that just wants to maximize profits (they don’t really care how) sometimes put the two groups at odds with each other.

Where I would disagree with Douthat is the claim that Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers “have grasped” that sometimes they and big businesses do not share the same goals. The frustrating thing is how often big businesses whip up the anger of near- sighted populists to meet their own ends when their goals happen to match and how often Tea Baggers and their ilk seem to sympathize with businesses that care only about making money and not any mythology of American entrepreneurship or innovation.

“It also shows how money rules policy toward Cuba, not principles, ethics, justice and morality.”

You think?

“Despite the Iran hawks’ over-the-top expressions of solidarity with the Green Movement, in actuality nothing would have been more disastrous for them than for Moussavi and the opposition to have triumphed. If Moussavi had taken power and announced that Iran would continue uranium enrichment – which seems extremely likely, given his record of repeated public pronouncements in support of the Iranian nuclear program – this would have put the hawks in the politically untenable position of calling for military action against the same people they had been hailing as saintly voices of freedom and democracy all summer. The same logic that made neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes support Ahmadinejad prior to the election suggested that few were genuinely hoping for a Moussavi victory.”

How dismaying that a loud subset of the right so consistently demands that President Obama privilege their childish desire for self-righteous rhetoric above the actual demands of statesmanship. What good would it possibly do to tell the Japanese, “Yes, I think it was right to incinerate your cities”? It wouldn’t do any good. On the other side of the ledger, it would antagonize an allied nation, put its leadership in a difficult spot that might impede its ability to help the United States. President Obama is also endeavoring to slow nuclear proliferation, so it would hardly due to have headlines in Iranian newspapers pointing out that even as he demands that other nations give up nuclear weapons, he is saying that their only actual use in history was justified.

They are bankrupt and Friedersdorf is right that they have become all about rhetoric. This was brewing even before Obama won the presidency (remember the flag pin scandal?). Then there’s Cuba: our policies are not only not working but hurting Cubans? Oh well, fuck it. We can’t be seen as soft on communism.

Some good news among the bad though:

“When it comes to public sentiment toward the U.S.’s relationship with Cuba, the Public Campaign report insists that the hard-liners, in their opposition to repealing such things as the travel ban for Americans, are out of step with where the majority of the country is heading. A poll by Bendixen and Associates conducted in September 2009, which is cited in the report, found that 59 percent of Cuban-Americans favored lifting the travel ban for all Americans. Similarly, a national survey conducted by World Public Opinion in April claimed that 70 percent of Americans were in favor of being allowed to travel to Cuba. A congressional hearing is due to be held on November 19 by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the topic of lifting the travel ban to Cuba.”

The bravery of these people never cease to amaze me.

“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first — verdict afterward.”

“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”

“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.

“I won’t!” said Alice.

“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

Best quote:

“First, whether we can try terrorists here is not the issue; the issue is whether we should try terrorists here. Before he became attorney general, Michael Mukasey was a noted federal trial judge who presided over civilian trials of terrorists, like the trial of the so-called “Blind Sheik,” Omar Abdel Rahman, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He has noted that there are very good reasons why we shouldn’t try terrorists in civilian court, including the risk of compromising sensitive information, the logistical and security nightmares for American cities and the additional legal rights terrorists will receive if they are brought here.” [Emphasis mine]

At this point, he’s not even arguing here that the complexities of wars might make prosecuting terrorists harder. He’s framing the argument as if the rights themselves are the risk.

He goes on to say:

“Specifically, the D.C. Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals who are not present in the United States have fewer legal rights than those who are. It also noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the sovereign has a right to control its borders, which means it has a right to bar from being released into its territory foreign nationals whom it has not admitted onto its soil. In this case, because these detainees remain at Guantánamo, outside our borders, they have fewer legal rights than they would have if they were brought within our borders, including any right to be released into our civilian population.”

Basically he is saying is that if we detain foreign nationals we should not even hold them within the borders of the United States because then there’s a chance that we might have to release them into the United States. Mcconnell completely sidesteps any talk of guilt or innocence. In his mind the fact that they are detained already proves guilt, otherwise why should we be worried about an innocent man being released in the United States? By the way Mcconnell, illegal immigrants are found innocent of crimes and then deported anyways all the time.

Mcconnell is shamelessly playing on people’s fears. The argument against Gitmo and military tribunals is not “Let’s let terrorists into the United States”, but rather that the system of laws that we have set up in place is good enough to prosecute these people. And if it isn’t then we should change that through the appropriate means and not set up ad-hoc courts that will simply justify us detaining people for how long as we want.

For people who say they love America, they have very little faith in the American way.

Terrorism suspects being tried in civilian courts–what a kooky concept.

“Cigna spokesman Chris Curran declined to discuss the specifics of the RNC’s plan, saying it’s against company policy to reveal even the identities of its insured. But he said that Cigna’s products ‘are designed to meet the requirements of our individual employer clients. Employer clients are informed of the services covered and it is their choice to decide which benefits meet their needs.’”

Yet still won’t respond to the accusations.

“I think the evidence is quite strong that the torture program began almost immediately after 9-11,” said [Michael] Ratner of the CCR [Center for Constitutional Rights]. “So the memos don’t help them there.”

In fact, if lawyers wrote the memos approving torture techniques at the request of officials who had already used them, the lawyers themselves could be guilty of conspiring to commit war crimes. “If the lawyer’s opinion is seriously wrong,” said Horton, “then the lawyer risks being tied into the criminal conduct.”

…

Legal experts say that authorizing torture rises to a whole other level of criminality. “The prohibition on torture is not just one rule among others, but a legal archetype – a provision which is emblematic of our larger commitment to non-brutality in the legal system,” Jeremy Waldron, professor of law and philosophy at New York University Law School, wrote in the Columbia Law Review.

That’s certainly how it was viewed in the Nuremberg era. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1944: “There have been, and are now, certain foreign nations with governments … which convict individuals with testimony obtained by police organizations possessed of an unrestrained power to seize persons suspected of crimes against the state, hold them in secret custody, and wring from them confessions by physical or mental torture. So long as the Constitution remains the basic law of our Republic, America will not have that kind of government.”

Pictured: Science Photo Library picks an intriguing image from their collection each week. Here are some of the pictures they’ve recently selected. Proving that science can be fun, here’s a thermogram of human flatulence. Intestinal gas (red, lower left) being expelled from the body. The gas shows up as red because it has recently been at body temperature, which is warmer than the surroundings.

That is all. Good night.

Fear, plain and simple. Desperate fear of what a few brave people have done with blogs and twitter accounts and the example of their courage in the face of repression and threats. And they are right to be afraid because this is the generation that will change Cuba.

Now more than ever we have to show solidarity with Yoani and the other dissidents being repressed inside Cuba. Let them know they are not alone and let the regime know that their every action is being watched b.

(and anybody who is using this act of repression to take shots at moderates, dialogue, Juanes, Europe… shame on you. You know who you are.)

On the other hand, all the insurance industry wants is there. State regulation would become moot, pre-existing conditions stay, ability to sell high deductible, bare-bones plans full of small print and arbitrary malpractice caps.

It’s an outrage that these politicians claim to represent the American people. By now we are used to seeing them wrap themselves on the flag and talk about principles and values and plumber Joes, while in reality they push for the interests of the industry instead of the people who they are supposed to be working for.

It is an abdication of their responsibility not only as elected officials but also as participants in the political process, being the counter-balance the opposition is supposed to provide. There are good things missing in the Dem proposal, and you would expect the Reps to introduce those in the debate if they were being honest. For example, if they believe so much in the free market, why aren’t they proposing measures to end price opacity and encourage consumer shopping for medical services, beyond augmenting ineffective HSAs that the majority of the population wouldn’t have access to anyway.

Any honest Republican that believes this is reform is either ideologically blind or too lost in the fight for political power to care for anything other than scoring a “hey look, we have a plan and saves money!” propaganda blow.

Brandishing this “bill” as the common sense approach, they cite to a story on the analysis of the CBO–which they inform us, since they are in the know, it stands for Congressional Budget Office–saying that it’ll reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion in the next 10 years.

I have to admit, the Republicans got us. They put together a healthcare proposal which reduces the federal deficit and lowers healthcare premiums. Kudos to them.

But before we let them get away with all the credit, let’s take a look at what the CBO–Congressional Budget Office, remember–had to say about the Democratic proposal H.R. 3962:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010– 2019 period (see Table 1).

If I remember correctly, the last time I checked a $104-billion deficit reduction was better than a $68-billion deficit reduction, by close to $40 billion. That is a lot of filthy lucre.

Is there any other way in which the Democratic bill is better? Yes, it provides a public option and universal coverage.

I found this story through Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

It’s incredible how similar the neocon position is between Cuba and Iran in three ways:

1) The correct way to deal with dictators is to act exactly like they do.

“Whenever they [U.S. diplomats]  smile at the officials of the Islamic revolution, when we carefully look at the situation, we notice that they are hiding a dagger behind their back,” Khamanei said, deriding diplomacy with the U.S. as “naive and perverted.”

2) Sanctions are the way to go even if there is no evidence that it actually hurts the regime and anyone who suggests otherwise is an effeminate socialist/marxist/communist/fascist/stalinist/cloonyist liberal.

‘Retired Amb. John Limbert, one of the U.S. diplomats held hostage at the embassy in 1979 and 1980, pronounced himself “very skeptical” of sanctioning Iran. “It’s easy to talk about smart sanctions,” he said, “but I don’t know if I’ve ever seen one.” Instead, Limbert contended, sanctions would most likely “create shortages and artificial, wonderful opportunities for hoarding” that benefit “those with the best connections to the regime” at the expense of the population. Thielmann agreed, saying sanctions risked “strengthening the regime, when it’s meant to do the opposite.’”

3) And, of course, the whopper: even though our policy has not achieved any real results in decades we are going to continue doing it because pragmatism is weakness and politics is the art of screaming as loud as possible until you get what you want.

‘Limbert, the former U.S. diplomat held hostage by Iranian revolutionaries, said that the Obama administration had no choice but to negotiate with Iran and should not be too distracted by Ahmadinejad’s character. “I don’t buy the argument that you legitimize Ahmadinejad [through negotiation, since] Iran is more than Ahmadinejad, and he will not be there forever,” Limbert said. “What’s the alternative? To continue what we’ve done for 30 years? That has not had any results.”’

What is infuriating about these positions is that the right says they support dissident movements within the regime but they’re stance naturally alienates those movements. In the case of Iran the right claims they support the green revolution (and naturally that Obama isn’t doing enough to support them) yet they’re always gearing up for a fight with that country.

The truth is the members of the green revolution want a nuclear armed Iran. The second you start any military confrontation you kill the green revolution because they will turn against you and the ones who don’t will be rounded up by Ahmadinejad without any repercussions. Despite the reformist aims of the green revolution they do not want what we want.

It’s just that simple. So we either work to get what we can or we go in full force and we fight the entire country, even the citizens, even the green revolution. The second option is ludicrous but if your stance necessitates it, at least stop saying you support the green revolution.

“I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

What a Marxist.

This is what he said, according to Naked Politics:

“I don’t know we if can really tell exactly what that race meant,” said Crist, himself the party-annointed candidate for the Senate. “I mean that was kind of a funky situation to put it mildly. And i think it’ll take a little time to analyze what happened there.

Funky situation? Huh? Yeah, not much there, but then he brought his point home.

“But what did happen there, is unfortunately a Democrat won in a district that’s been represented by a Republican for over 150 years. The good news is from last night, these two gubernatorial candidates ran grat campaigns, articulated what the people want, what is important to them and it’s jobs, jobs, jobs. Making sure that that we’re fighting for a better economy and lower taxes.”

He’s being very subtle but there is no mistaking what his message to the GOP is: You go with the teabaggers and you’re going to lose safe Republican seats; you stick with me and we have a chance to win big states like Virginia, New Jersey, and Florida.

As Reid Report notes, the conservatives who ran on the issues and not just on ideological opposition to Obama won. The one race where the wingnuts got everything they wanted:

Running as an unabashed conservative, even to the point of pledging eternal fealty to Glenn Beck and the 9/12 movement;

Bringing in not just Sarah Palin, but also a literal army of right wing stallwarts, from teabagger king Dick Armey to Fred Thompson, and even Rick Santorum, to show just how authentically right wing he is;

Pledging to do what the Club for Growthers want — drown government in a bathtub by slashing spending and refusing to take earmarks, despite the fact that the district he wanted to represent (but which he doesn’t live in) depends on federal money for its very survival;

Engaging the right wing blogosphere. Hoffman had RedState, Michelle Malkin and all the rest working hard for him, not to mention the full weight of Fox News;

.., and most importantly, handing the teabaggers the ultimate victory by knocking off a supposed RINO

…that race they lost. As Andy says “thanks for the seat!” Marco Rubio is taking notes and wondering how can he craft a message appealing to the independents that were instrumental in VA and NJ. Noooo Marco, you are doing great! Stay on message. You don’t want NRO and Limbaugh turning on you.

No spin on NJ or VA. NJ is a defeat for the Dems, even if it’s not the referendum on Obama that conservatives wanted it to be. Bottom line is that the Democrats are also in an ideological fight between the ones who wanted Obama to be more daring and the ones who believe he has to govern center-left. We’ll see what approach works better in the 2010 elections.

Or as Brad Woodhouse, who I worked with several years ago put it (yes, I just linked to a tweet ’cause I’m down with the youth):

The only competitive race that was really about the Obama agenda we won.

Keep it up, teabaggers. And thanks for one more vote for healthcare reform.

Get it?

But this thought experiment is even more surprising: imagine you were sitting on the jury of trial of a man accused of rape. This person was not picked out out of a lineup, and his girlfriend has provided an alibi. The only evidence against him is a 1 in 3 million match DNA test. That’s pretty damning right? After all witnesses can make mistakes and girlfriends can lie, but DNA doesn’t, right?. But what does that actually mean?

Well a 1 in 3 million match doesn’t mean that there’s a 1 in 3 million chance that anyone other than the man committed the crime, what it means is that there’s a 1 in 3 million chance that any innocent person in the general population had a DNA profile matching that extracted from semen at the crime scene. If the crime had been committed in the United States (with a population of around 300 million) then about 100 people in the general population could have come out as a match.

Now, if you had 100 people in front of you and they all matched a DNA test you would certainly want more evidence. You wouldn’t go straight after the guy with an alibi who wasn’t picked out by the witness.

Damn you math! Always making me question my gut instincts.

1) A friend sends an article  saying Scalia said he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education.

2) I start thinking about posting something on this blog because that’s outrageous.

3) I look where they got it from.

4) I see the video they’re talking about where he did not say that so I don’t post about that.

Huffington Post got everything after step 2 wrong. They have now updated the link.

Look people get misquoted all the time but this is so sloppy that I couldn’t let it go. It sounded so over the top that it was natural for me to look into it and then it took me about 10 minutes to confirm my suspicions.

Opening November 3rd. Trailer here.

“We are now ready to break ground on a building that is poised to be one of the greenest art museums ever built in the Americas. As such, this is the right moment for me to pursue other interests and for MAM to smoothly transition to a new leader who will see this project to its fruition,”

Uh, no, this is exactly the wrong moment. What gives?

Coincidentally enough, in Sunday’s NYT article about the end of the era of grandiose civic construction with show architecture, Miami and the planned Museum Park are prominently featured. I wonder if Riley’s resignation is indicative of major trouble for a project that has been hard to get off the ground and if the new MAM will ever be built.

Link.

Ichaso has claimed he didn’t mean to generalize, but after seeing the movie and listening to his comments it’s hard to imagine he made much of an effort. There’s no redemption for newly arrived Cubans, no good characters other than the big-hearted exiles who open their fancy waterfront homes to them -because, you know, we are all very successful- regale them with feasts at Versailles and gift them with clothes and motorcycles. I have a few friends who would dispute this mythical generosity, but never mind. In Ichaso’s world the nice Cubans exist solely on this side of the Straits and the only balsero with an ounce of decency is murdered at sea. Apparently Yemayá saves only jineteros, thiefs and crack addicts from the waves and sharks, so that they can terrorize Miami later.

Prompted by the shaken viejitos in the audience who loudly wondered from what country those amoral marijuana growers and Medicare monsters come from, so different than their own pure and perfect generations -I guess they have never heard of Jose Miguel Battle, Humberto Hernandez or the De Cespedes brothers just to mention a few- Ichaso referred to newly arrived Cubans as Frankenstein monsters, men and women made of mismatched moral parts who grew in a Petri dish of a country without traditions or a patria. These circumstances would make them the real victims but this somehow escapes him, just as much as it escapes him the fact that the immense majority of new arrivals do not dedicate their lives to crime but to honest work, doing the same menial jobs that those who came in the 60s had to do in order to come ahead. This despite his admitting that the actors and crew were those same new arrivals!

The real Frankenstein monster is Ichaso’s movie, a patchwork of barely elaborated scenarios (what disruption is El Flaco causing at the hotel?) and a half-witted script (any of the radio monologues by Remigio), shot with a meandering and shaky camera prone to fast zooms and atrociously edited with dizzying intercuts and slow motion sequences trying to cloak the soap-opera level storytelling with an indie mantle. (Take your pick of any of these preposterous scenes: Ivan and Tamara arguing in a parking lot next to a gleaming Harley, Ivan being discovered as a model photo shoot where he was working as an assistant and wanders in front of the camera, Ivan confronting his old friend El Flaco, Ivan’s hysterical breakdown with Alina, etc.) Two redeeming qualities: it does screen much larger than its $30,000 budget, mostly because of the beautiful cinematography, and Miguel Gutierrez shows why he is possibly the best Cuban actor. The rest is all on-the-nose pretentiousness and ludicrous treacle.

It’s a pity, because the haunting, nuanced theme of the dissonance between the exiles that have lived most of their lives in a foreign country, admirably clinging to their traditions but also fantasizing nostalgically about the country they lost and doesn’t exist anymore, and their compatriots who have grown in communist Cuba, which is a great source of conflict and will be even more in the future, deserves a much more honest treatment than what Ichaso has delivered. It was particularly disappointing for me, because I thought the equally melodramatic and flawed “Bitter Sugar” had nonetheless managed to capture the stark reality of life in the island and the psyche of a desperate people. A realistic look could have made “Paraíso” our “The Lives of Others”, but instead becomes another piece of the paranoid tableau of exile which is currently obsessed with the new arrivals who travel to Cuba as soon as they can, shun Radio Mambí and cheered Juanes. (For more, see this political pamphlet disguised as academic research). Fear of the Other has affected each consecutive wave of migrants from Cuba. The Marielitos were scum and criminals, the balseros from 94 were apathetic cowards who didn’t stay and fight and if you want to know what to think about those aliens sullying Miami nowadays, well, just watch “Paraíso”.

“En mi opinión es una campaña que se ha hecho al estilo de Miami, es decir, muy tradicional”, comentó Alejandro Barrera, un experto en política local y activista comunitario del sur de la Florida.

Alejandro Barrera? That name sounds familiar to me.

Translation: “In my opinion, this is a Miami-style mayoral race, in other words, one that is very traditional,” said Alejandro Barrera–sometimes known as Alex Barreras–an expert in local politics and South Florida community activist.

-Omar Khayyam

With random cries of “Enough is enough,” “Do something now,” and “Huh?” thousands of the nation’s biggest morons descended on Washington State this week, some 3,000 miles from their intended destination of the nation’s capital.

Throughout the day, the number of protesters grew to include not just morons, but more than 6,000 nimrods, 3,500 dunderheads, and approximately 12,000 of the biggest fucking dipshits known to man.

At press time the morons had been walking for 10 minutes into a concrete wall in Kennewick, WA, where they eventually stopped to pay their respects to those who lost their lives during the Vietnam War.

Click here for the full story.

Leave me a comment if you’re on it so I can add you.

“Let us consider that we are all partially insane.”

“That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters. When a thoughtful and unblessed Mohammedan examines the Westminster Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually insane. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic—for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it. He cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has the same defect that afflicts his.”

“The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. When I look around me, I am often troubled to see how many people are mad.”

You can’t read enough Twain on religion.

The poll asked Cuban Americans how they felt about unrestricted travel to the island by all Americans. Here is what they found:

That’s surprising enough, but that has to be the recent Cuban refugees skewing the results, right? The historic exiles would never support travel to Cuba.

Well, yes they do.

Those Cuban Americans are such Communists.

Research indicates that the homosexuality has a variety of negative consequences including higher incidences of violence, sexually transmitted diseases, and use of drugs. The higher incidence of separation and break-up in homosexual relationships also creates a highly unstable environment for children raised by homosexuals through adoption or otherwise, and can have profound psychological consequences on those children. In addition, the promotion of homosexual behavior undermines our traditional family values.

Given Uganda’s historical, legal, cultural and religious values which maintain that the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman is the basic unit of society. This Bill aims at strengthening the nation’s capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family. These threats include: redefining human rights to elevate homosexual and transgender behavior as legally protected categories of people.
There is also need to protect our children and youths who are made vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviation as a result of cultural changes, uncensored information technologies, parentless child developmental settings and increasing attempts by homosexuals to raise children in homosexual relationships through adoption, foster care, or otherwise.

It’s good to know the GOP and the Ugandan parliament are on the same page.

Click here for reactions from Ugandan bloggers.

As Democratic congressional leaders and White House officials work to shape health care bills that will go to the House and Senate floors, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and now wins clear majority support from the public.

Here’s the breadown.

A couple of important results: 57 percent of respondents support a government-run health insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it (37 percent strongly support it while 31 percent strongly oppose it); and, “How much confidence do you have in [Obama, Republicans in Congress, or Democrats in Congress] to make the right decisions for the country’s future – a great deal of confidence, a good amount, just some or none at all?” Net results are Obama: 49 percent, Republicans in Congress: 19 percent, Democrats in Congress: 34 percent.

Two words: Ha and Ha.

“When [pseudo-conservatism] argues that we are governed largely by means of near-hypnotic manipulation (brainwashing), wholesale corruption, and betrayal, it is indulging in something more significant than the fantasies of indignant patriots: it is questioning the legitimacy of the political order itself.

The two-party system as it has developed … hangs on the common recognition of loyal opposition: each side accepts the ultimate good intentions of the other. The opponent’s judgment may be held to be consistently execrable, but the legitimacy of his intent is not … his Americanism is not questioned. One of the unspoken assumptions of presidential campaigns is that the leaders of both parties are patriots who, however serious their mistakes, must be accorded the right to govern. But an essential point in the pseudo-conservative world view is that our recent Presidents, being men of wholly evil intent, have conspired against the public good. This does more than discredit them: it calls into question the validity of the political system …”

“Goldwater’s zealots were moved more by the desire to dominate the party than to win the country, concerned more to express resentments and punish ‘traitors,’ to justify a set of values and assert grandiose, militant visions, than to solve actual problems of state.”

Those are some of the excerpts Andrew has on his blog (click the link above for more).

Sound like anyone we know?

Threats of lawsuits have been exchanged, blogwars, much heated words, etc. Today the Herald ombudsman gets in the game, basically finding that the charges aren’t credible, so much so that it borders on paranoia and slander. This of course gets the expected response from Babalu’s resident genius Alberto De La Cruz: the Herald is biased against Cuban Americans.

De La Cova also answers in Babalu, basically taking the Herald to task for dismissing his claim and for calling him “bordering on paranoia and slander”. He asks that the Herald, among other things:

1. File a FOIA request for the Jesús Pérez Méndez FBI debriefing of 1983, as I suggested nearly three years ago to Sallah and García.

2. File a FOIA request for the Orlando Brito Pestana CIA and FBI debriefing of 2002

So let’s recap: his whole affair is mainly centered on a hand-written copy  of a document that De La Cova claims exists. He is requesting of the Herald to investigate further using a FOIA request.

Which leads me to the simple solution: why doesn’t De La Cova himself file the FOIA request? Anybody can file one, not just a newspaper. That way the document is out and nobody would question his veracity.

Here’s the link.

This accompanying blog post has all the citations for the claims made in the video.

“They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ’secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism,” the analysis said.” While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.”

The analysis argues that Obama’s unpopularity among conservative Republicans is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from liberal Democratic ire against George W. Bush — that the GOP is more heavily conservative than the Democrats are heavily liberal, and that the hatred of Obama is more intense than Dem hatred of Bush was.

The ire against Bush at least had a basis in the reality of his economic failures and pointless wars. These people have no real basis to hate Obama this intensely, just irrational conspiracy theories and paranoid fears mixed with a victim complex.

Last weekend I was arguing why an ultraconservative candidate like Rubio may win a primary where the most committed partisan vote, but can’t win a general election once the moderates and independents are in. The ultraconservative base won’t stand for their candidate tacking to the center, not even as a wink wink. This is not a calculated and rational movement to gain political relevance again. This is desperation and fanaticism.

The YouTube videos are in available in HD, so, if you’re processor/internet connection can handle it, watch these babies in full screen.

“Filming the bouncing toad was very challenging; the remote mountain plateau is one mile high and 26 square miles in area, whilst the toad is one inch long and very elusive. The tarantulas which prey on them are also very hard to find. To give the crew the best chance of finding and filming them, the expert on these creatures came on the shoot. He searched for a week before the crew’s arrival to find both species and a location where they could come together and where the toad would demonstrate its bouncing-ball method of escape. This allowed the cameraman to set up his slow-motion camera in the right place. The scientist was able to ensure that the toad was never in danger of being harmed by the tarantula as a result of us filming them. The technique was a total success – the toad tucked its legs in, rolled and bounced, allowing the crew to film its method of escape in slow-motion detail.”

“A Jesus Christ lizard running on water is so fast that a human would have to run at 65 miles per hour to achieve the same trick. The speed makes it an enormous challenge to film. After consulting with a scientist at Harvard University who has made a ground-breaking study of the lizard’s water sprint, the crew decided that as well as filming the behaviour at normal frame rates they would attempt to capture the close up details of the lizard’s run with a slow-motion camera filming at 2000 frames per second (i.e. slowed down by 80 times).

It’s very hard to predict exactly where and when a lizard will run, what’s more it’s all so quick that once the lizard is spotted it’s gone in a blur! Learning from the scientist’s observation methods was essential and as a result it was decided to film the details of the sprint would need some degree of control to ensure that the crew had some idea of where and when the lizard would run. They travelled to Belize, home of the lizard, to work with local animal experts who had some lizards in natural forest enclosures. If, and when, these lizards decided to run, they always ran along the same stretch of water, where the cameraman could station his camera.

The key to success was using the latest digital slow-motion camera that continuously records into a memory buffer, so that when the cameraman hits the trigger button he downloads the action that took place a second or so before that moment. Whenever a lizard sprinted past the cameraman over the water the cameraman hit the trigger, desperately trying to keep the lizard in the frame and in focus. The final end result of this was stunning, slow motion shots of the lizards, with every drop of water visible as they sprinted through the surface.”

The clips are from Episode 2: Reptiles and Amphibians. The series is playing now on BBC One. I cannot wait till they show them over here. Preferably on a channel available in HD.

Via Gizmodo.

Does what Yoani Sanchez say strike you as something a lobotomized mental patient would say? ‘Cause if it does, then lobotomized mental patients got a lot more balls than backwater, inbred, swamp nitwits who write their saber-rattling screeds from the comfort of the United States.

The editorial board starts by reaffirming its belief in the embargo on Cuba. The board says it supports the embargo because of Cuba’s “dismal human rights record.” Fair enough. I don’t necessarily agree, but reasonable people can disagree about these things.

The board then goes on to mull over the issue of travel to Cuba.

Even if American tourists stay in gussied-up areas and few get to see the desperate situation that most Cubans are forced to live, these same tourists can leave a mark on Cubans. Americans, by their interactions with Cuban workers in hotels, restaurants and on the street, could help to erase the propaganda the Cuban regime has fed its people for five decades about the “evil imperialist monster to the North.”

So, yes, more travel to the island makes sense, though President Obama’s loosening of travel rules for Cuban Americans and others on academic or cultural trips is already helping on that front.

Now they’re speaking my language. Without a doubt the more interaction Cubans have with people from outside the more the dictatorship is weakened. Oppressive regimes, like Cuba’s, thrive on control of information. If we forbid Americans from traveling to the island we play right into the regime’s hands.

So the editorial board’s next logical move is to call for lifting of all travel restriction, right? Wrong. Why not? They just argued that every American having the opportunity to travel to Cuba, and taking advantage of that opportunity helps bring about an eventual transition to democracy on the island. What could be more important than bringing democracy to Cuba?

Editorial board?

The question members of Congress should ask now is whether this is the right time to be opening up all travel to Cuba — in the midst of a recession where tourist meccas from Miami to Las Vegas are hurting with empty hotel rooms.

Oh, I see. They’re making the self interest argument. Cuban democracy is desirable, but our economic well being takes precedent. That is also reasonable. After all, international relations are all about self interest.

However, these are the same people who in the same editorial just argued FOR the economic embargo which, if done away with, opens a new market for American business. In other words, within several paragraphs the Miami Herald editorial board argued for and against American self interest when it comes to Cuba policy.

(This is where embargo proponents mention the risks of doing business with Cuba. And this is where I say that every market has risks. In certain parts of Colombia and Mexico the risk is kidnapping; in Cuba the risk is of nationalization and insolvency by the state.)

So, let’s boil down their arguments. On the embargo, the United States should be altruistic and put the interest of a transition to democracy–assuming for a second that’ll be one of the effects of the embargo–over our own economic interests. But on travel, the United States should be solipsistic and consider the hotels on Miami Beach over the oppression suffered by the Cuban people.

Why? The editorial board doesn’t tells us, and I suspect they don’t know.

And then as proof he gives us a quote from some Rush supporter. Why should we listen to this dude. Well Moneo tells us that this particular supporter “just happens to be black”. Oh well if that’s the case…

Play him off George.

I used to like Barbara Ehrenreich. Her NYT guest pieces were great and “Nickel and Dimed” is a great eye opener for those who don’t know what is like to live on minimum wage. But she has become a nihilistic crank, Michael Moore in book form, all rant and no serious analysis. Both Bait and Switch and This Land is Their Land are exasperating reads, the latter a liberal mirror image of the conservative fantasy of 50’s idealization.

Last night on Jon Stewart it was transparent to see Jon guiding her to say the right things, and gently chiding her overreaching. The monologues get a lot of attention, but the man’s great gift is interviewing.

The whole bit on the bicycle is priceless.

“What?” -you may wonder- “I’ve seen the pictures of the tea parties and there is nary a brown or black face in them. And the GOP side during the State of the Union looks like they could all be related”. You see, these heroes belong to a different era, one in which the GOP was organized in opposition to slavery and a progressive agenda of modernization, not the entrenched conservatives and the Party of No we know today. As the timeline nears closer in time, they run out of notable African Americans. In fact, the most current of these figures is Edward Brooke, an accomplished man but hardly a hero of the stature of Abraham Lincoln or Frederick Douglass.

Your typical republican nowadays would be more prone to excoriate Mary Terrell, founder of the NAACP or accuse Douglass or Hiram Revels of playing the race card when both denounced the continuing inequality of blacks during Reconstruction. I also found interesting that in the bio of John Langston his great-nephew Langston Hughes is rightly described as a literary giant. No mention of McCarthy hauling him in front of his communist witch hunt commission. (And BTW guys, please spell the name of José Celso Barrosa correctly. Yes, Spanish uses accent marks. Annoying, I know, but just pretend to care.) And there isn’t enough space in this blog to list all the racial insults directed at Obama by republicans.

The GOP should be ashamed of claiming these historical figures on ideological grounds and using crass demonizing speech such as describing the assassin of Octavius Catto as a “a crony of the city’s Democratic Party boss”. The mere fact that the GOP sees the need to publish this page shows how aware they are of the low esteem minorities have for the party.

The reality is that these people aren’t republican or democrat heroes. They are American heroes and no amount of partisan whitewashing can change this.

But the reason for this post is political. Are people buying the Republican talking point? Do most Americans actually believe that we have the best healthcare system in the world. The short answer is no; in fact, only a small minority of Americans say that.

According to Pew,

According to Americans the United States does not have the best health care in the world. Most see our health care as average (32%) or below average (27%) when compared with health care in other industrialized countries. Only 15% support the often-used political talking point that America has the best health care in the world; 23% say it is above average. Republicans (28%) are far more likely than Democrats (9%) or independents (12%) to say American health care is the best in the world, and conservative Republicans are even more pro American health care (66% say it is the best in the world or above average).

What I find most interesting about these results is not that most Americans disagree with the Republican leadership, but that most Republicans disagree with the Republican leadership. Well, as is the case with everything else, this issue within the Republican party is controlled by the most extreme factions in the party. Notice that according to the poll 66 percent of conservative Republicans believe we have the best healthcare system in the world.

The website includes a “Heroes” page, a listing of famous Republicans they want to highlight. Half of the people on the page are black, a ratio that’s slightly unrepresentative of the modern makeup of the Republican Party. (The “Heroes” page lists Ronald Reagan on the front page, and Lincon on the last page which should tell you something about these people’s priorities.) One of the Republican “heroes” listed is Jackie Robinson.

Jackie Robinson was not only a phenomenal ballplayer, he was also a very bright guy. So, was he a Republican? Well, he did campaign for Richard Nixon in 1960, and for Nelson Rockefeller in 1964. But the best part about dead people is that they can’t contradict you. This is how Robinson described the 1964 Republican convention in his autobiography:

That convention was one of the most unforgettable and frightening experiences of my life. The hatred I saw was unique to me because it was hatred directed against a white man. It embodied a revulsion for all he stood for, including his enlightened attitude towards black people.

A new breed of Republicans had taken over the GOP. As I watched this steamroller operation in San Francisco, I had a better understanding of how it must have felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.

If Robinson was a Republican, he was a very perceptive one.