alternative hippopotamus

Greetings, shrill, America-hating youngsters. It is I, Pavlov Chien.

Know as you may, assist the Hippo does Pavlov. When Pavlov sees the Hippo miss the weekend rant, Pavlov grows concerned. What is the weekend without the Hippo throwing the awkward anathema spastically in the vague direction of the America-loving Bush regime? While the shrill youngsters of the left may await their Doonesburgh cartoons en couleur, Pavlov awaits the latest rantings of mon hippopotame.

My surprise you can imagine as the Hippo returns, not as usual from the usual Samedi walk about your Smithsonian de Museum, apres midi. The Hippo returns, as the shrill youngsters say, “in the wee hours.”

And what means this? Pavlov demands. The Hippo says: “I had a date.”

While, I Pavlov Chien, am not courrente in tout les idioms, perhaps the Hippo may have been in the company of une Hippoette nouvelle. Pavlov’s interest is piqued.

Plus tôt, says Pavlov to you, my shrill amis.

My file extension:

Which File Extension are You?

This timewaster courtesty of The Sideshow.

One of my favorite stage roles was playing Koko from Gilbert&Sullivan’s Mikado. I was in 9th grade.

Koko’s opening number, “I’ve Got Them On My List,” is a fast-paced ditty about people he’s slated for execution. One tradition in performances is to add a few lines from current events. In this case, the Watergate hearings were going on at the same time, so I suggested a few lines Like:

“And Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Gordon Liddy, too.
I’ve got them on my list.
They never would be missed.”

Unfortunately, the music teacher vetoed that. I’m not sure if it was her political leanings so much as she didn’t want to rock the boat. But the key result was that the leading figures of Watergate didn’t make it into our 9th production of Mikado.

If I ever do Koko again, there’s a couple of groups that I’d have to insist would be on the list:

1. Christian Exodus. Apparently, there’s a group down in South Carolina that’s recruiting Christian Fundamentalists to tip South Carolina ever further to the right. From USA Today:
   

   With a decisive majority, Burnell says, his group would be able to pass laws that line up with their biblical principles and their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution — laws that include outlawing abortion and homosexual relations, allowing governmental displays of Christian symbols and ending state-funded education.

   If you read the article, you’ll notice that Burnell would consider seceding from the Union, but only as a last option.

   I say, go for it, Mr. Burnell.

2. South Dakota. In case you haven’t heard, lawmakers in South Dakota passed a universal ban on abortion (except when the life of the mother is at risk) by a vote of 23-12. (Washington Post)

   If you read the article, you’ll note that no abortion provider lives in South Dakota. They fly one in once a week from Minnesota.

   Here’s a thought: how ’bout you South Dakota folks getting together with your brothers and sisters in Dominionism from South Carolina. You form a new state, South Dakolina. And let the party begin.

3. Whoever invented “trickle-down economics”. Bush eliminates capital gains, inheritance taxes, taxes generally for the wealthiest Americans. Here’s the result (from Reuters):
   

   Average real family incomes before tax slipped 2.3 percent between 2001 and 2004 to $70,700, the Federal Reserve said on Thursday in a survey of family finances it releases every three years.

   Median household incomes, in contrast, rose 1.6 percent to $43,200, the central bank said. Households saw their median net worth climb 1.5 percent over the three-year period to $93,100 — a much smaller gain than the 10.3 percent increase logged in the 1998-2001 period.

Hate-Mongering Cartoonists, “Little Eichmanns”, and Holocaust Deniers.

Why? Probably for the same reason I don’t talk about Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, and wouldn’t talk about Ann Coulter if I hadn’t gone to school with her.

Some folks are beyond the line that describes reasonable behavior, and I don’t really know what to say, except stop behaving unreasonably.

Will Bunch at Tapped has been looking into Santorum’s charity, Operation Good Neighbor Foundation: (emphasis mine)

A review of federal tax returns filed by the foundation for 2001, 2002, and 2003 shows that the charity spent just 35.9 percent of the nearly $1 million raised on its charitable grants, while spending 56.5 percent on expenses like salaries, fund-raising commissions, travel, conference costs, and rent. Charity experts say that charitable groups should spend at least 75 percent of their money on program grants, and that donors should beware of organizations that spend as little as Santorum’s has.

“The majority of organizations are able to meet that 75 percent figure,” says Saundra Miniutti of Charity Navigator, a watchdog group. Without addressing Santorum’s charity specifically, she noted that nonprofits spending in the range of just one-third on programs are “extremely inefficient.”

Or “reasonably efficient” if their primary goal was to give kickbacks.

We don’t know where this is going yet, but it’s interesting to note that the list of donors includes Santorum campaign donors and a bank Santorum got a loan from.

(original heads up from Suburban Guerilla)

Peter Daou and I seem to have some kind of a mind meld going on. About the same time we both noticed that Tom Maguire had done an excerpt and excise (aka hack) job on this Glenn Greenwald post.

I commented at Glenn’s place, and he wrote back: (my remarks italicized)

I find this omission significant, as it really goes towards the heart of your argument. The point is that the cult of Bush is based in personality rather than principles. For instance, that we need to be skeptical towards a government who insists on new powers, or insists that they’ve had those powers all along.

Exactly - and what I find most disturbing about Tom’s behavior - and most reflective of its intellectual dishonesty - is that in reply to an e-mail he sent me notifying me of his first post, I told him I thought he had “replied” only to a stripped-down, caricatured version of my argument - where he was able to mock it as empty only by ignoring all of its substance.

I even listed five arguments supporting my position which he ignored (including the paragraph you just cited about the disappearance among “conservatives” of distrust of governmental power), and told him that if he wanted to address the argument, he should at least characterize it honestly and respond to the substance.

After I wrote that e-mail (which he didn’t reply to), he wrote two more posts childishly mocking my argument (oh-so-cleverly calling it “flatulence” and “a brain fart”) but continuing to ignore the arguments I told him he overlooked.

And he wasn’t alone. None of them responded to the claim in that paragraph you cite, or the FISA reversal, or any of the other arguments demonstrating that loyalty to the Leader has obliterated allegiance to conservative political principles. That’s why I hadn’t bothered responding further since that first reply I wrote. Despite the large number of posts written by Bush followers about my original post, there was really nothing to reply to.

Tom?

As you may know, perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical used in the manufacture of teflon has been designated a likely carcinogen.

I’ve been aware of this story for a few weeks (though, the link provided is dated today). What’s instensifying my reaction to the story is the Dada exhibit at the National Gallery of Art, which I saw last Sunday. I’d been under the pronception that the Dadaist movement was kind of a sham, but my impression now is that the Dadaists were expressing something fairly clearly: that the world had become synthetic, and the result of the derivative form was the extinction of conscience.

What then is the hope of the individual in a time where the synthetic reigns? The hope is that the individual belligerently, and with a sense of humor, eradicates the mundane. Better if he does it in a smashing motion. Take for instance this poster for a Dada exhibition:

I saw that and imagined an artist commissioned to create a fashionable event poster with the understanding that he shouldn’t color outside of the box. Having finished the poster, the artist took an enormous blotter and stamped “DADA” all over it, muttering to himself, color outside this. I have no idea, of course, what was actually going throught he artist’s mind, but that’s what the image evokes.

Back to teflon. What substance better symbolizes the lifestyle of the synthetic better than teflon? And how perfect it is that the manufacture of teflon uses a carcinogen.

So, I hope it’s in the best spirit of the Dadaists that I present the first in a series of recipes. (With assistance from the History of Plastics)

Tuna a la Perfluorooctanoic Acid Stuffed with Oleo

1.) Lightly harpoon medium-sized tuna, removing dolphin as necessary.
2.) While out hunting tuna, use the time to heat toaster oven. Heat to 11 degrees Kelvin plus one degree for every pound over atan(1/3).
3.) Pump freon into toaster overn, and cook tuna until dead.
4.) Stuff with oleo.
5.) Wrap with saran as a garnish.

Bon appetit!

A very silly post by Jonathan Singer at MyDD, where for a site that’s named for Direct Democracy, there’s an awful lot of deference paid to the centralized authority of the party. A brief quote:

Some of us in the progressive wing of the blogosphere have contemplated staying home on election day rather than supporting the eventual Democratic nominee in the state. Why, if my candidate did not gain the party nomination — for whatever reason — should I go to the polls on election day, let alone try to organize or work to get out the vote in the coming months?

I haven’t heard anyone suggesting we should stay home on election night The only thing I’ve heard is that the Democratic party shouldn’t be choosing candidates. Instead, the voters of that state should. That’s umh… watchamacallit… democracy.

What I would support, though, is a donation boycott of groups that are supporting this practise.

The candidate Singer doesn’t want to talk about (or for that matter, name) is Pennacchio, who, unlike Casey, isn’t a DINO.

What’s weird is that Singer uses a possible Supreme Court vacancy to scare the grassroots into supporting Casey. But Casey said he would have voted for Alito. How much scarier could he be?

Update: Toned down the snark. Something was eating me from the weekend, and instead of whiping my metaphorical shoes at the door, I brought it into the blogosphere with me. Hopefully no one picks up anything.

Second Update: KCinDC writes: “To be fair, Singer addresses your point about the Supreme Court nomination in his next-to-last paragraph.”

Yes, I saw that in the original post, and this one of the reasons I call this a silly post. Here’s what Singer said: (emphasis mine)

Will a Bob Casey vote to stop the nomination of an extreme conservative to the Court? It’s not entirely clear, though his track record of voicing support for Bush’s nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito does not provide much hope that he will vote to uphold a woman’s right to choose, for instance. But with Bob Casey in the United States Senate, along with Democrats in red states like Missouri, Ohio, Montana, and maybe even Arizona, Virginia and Nevada, Patrick Leahy could chair the next hearing on the nomination to the Supreme Court. Without Bob Casey and other moderate or conservative red state Dems, Arlen Specter could have yet another opportunity to prove that he can cave to the Bush administration when push comes to shove.

This is a very good example of twisted logic in persuassive speech.

Consider instead the following sentence: It’s not clear how Achilles feels about the Trojans, but his role in the sacking of Troy suggests that he may vote against funding the Trojan Arts Council, for instance. It’s just too silly to comment on.

And I don’t buy the as long as it’s a Dem argument. If Santorum said he’d run as a Democrat, would Singer consider that a viable option?

There’s a couple of reasons why I think this post by eRobin is important.

First, I think we need to shed the notion that the blogosphere is about commenting on what real journalists say. In this case, eRobin called up the Pennacchio campaign, and got a direct line to the candidate. Here’s the exchange:

eR: I saw the story today onine about the Senate’s refusal to investigate the illegal and unconstitutional NSA wiretapping program running out of the White House. If you were a Senator today, in the minority, what would you be able to do to fight this decision?

Chuck Pennacchio: I wouldn’t get any floor time, but I’d be able to do a lot. I’d put out a press release. I’d hold a press conference. I’d build coaliton of progressive folks in Congress to fight this. I’d go back to constitutents to rally people around the cause. I’d remind them that this war is illegal and that the war resolution is unconstitituional.

I’d shame my leadership for not standing up to defend the Constituion, the right to privacy and due process.

eR: “Shame your leadership”? You’re on the record. Do you stand by that phrase?

Chuck Pennacchio: Yes. Absolutely. The Democrats are running scared, running away from this issue because they’re running away from National Security and ceding it to the Republicans. And the Republicans are beating them up on the very issue the Democrats fear losing the most. Dems are looking to protect their shrinking island of political power, which every day gets further and further from the prospect of regaining control. They’re playing into the hands of Republicans, who, and I’ve said this before, are not content with all power; they want absolute power. And the Democrats are letting it happen. I don’t hesitate to use the word “appeasement.”

The second reason why this is important goes to something further down in her post:

… I called the Casey campaign too. The woman who answered the phone suggested that I use the website to send in the question. I’ve been down that road.

This kind of response has become pro forma. And you know what? It’s not okay. When we’ve reached the point where we acknowledge that a politician is too important to get back to his or her constituency, that’s the point where democracy ends, and the feudal system begins.

What’s irritating in this case is that Casey is still a Senator to be. And he’s not even trying to make it look like he’s a servant of the people instead of a made man.

When I first read this Washington Post article on killing the Senate investigation into illegal wiretapping, my first reaction was Pat Robertson (Bushie - KA) is such a hack. I should point out that Robertson has been one of the principle defenders of improbable cause. I wasn’t just throwing out Pat Robertson is such a hack as a non-sequitor.

Then I noticed that Glenn Greenwald starts off his latest post with: (emphasis mine)

There are lots of people who appear to be morbidly depressed — to the point of conceding defeat — as a result of yesterday’s unilateral obstruction by the incomparable White House shill Sen. Pat Roberts of the long-planned and long-promised investigation into the operational aspects of the NSA program by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I see the word “shill” being used loosely, and wanted to clarify its proper use. A shill is one of the actors in a carnival scam, or street con. Per prior arrangement he gets the ring on the hook that wins him the life-sized stuffed bear. Or pops the balloon, or gets the football through the tire.

I’m just suggesting that there are more precise words for Pat Roberts than “shill.” I’ve done some digging. Here’s what I’ve come up with:

abettor, biddy, boy, broker, cleaning lady, delegate, deputy, domestic, drudge, factotum, flunky, functionary, go-between, handler, hireling, houseboy, lackey, menial, minion, minister, operative, operator, peon, proctor, promoter, proxy, retainer, salesman, serf, servant, servitor, slave, steward, substitute, surrogate, valet.

I believe these are more accurate words to use when describing Senator Roberts’ relationship to W.

Update: I have to confess I’m a little embarassed. I thought this might be a new premise, but as KCinDC points out, coming up with an epithet for Pat Roberts was well covered on TPMCafe. I probably even read the original thread from July, so I’ll just offer my apologies to Josh Marshall, and leave it at that.