WTF?

Today I went to Target to stock on some essentials and to replace Supadiscotoddler's sippy cups, which are, apparently, poisonous. Strolling past the toy section, I noticed a display of inexpensive little toys, and I grabbed a package of three small bouncy balls--mini-soccer ball, mini-baseball, mini-basketball--because Supadiscotoddler loves him some balls (save your comments, dirty minds). Upon arriving home, Supadiscotoddler set to work bouncing the balls all over the house. Almost simultaneously, Supadiscodaddy and I noticed the smell of gasoline in the house. The source of the smell, it seemed, were the bouncy balls. Obviously, toys reeking of gasoline are not ideal. I checked the package for more info: "Made in China" was all it said. We distracted Supadiscobaby and were able to throw the balls away. So, I ask you, what the fuck? Why is it that, all of a sudden, we're discovering that everything our kids play with or drink out of or eat off of may be toxic?

In Support of the Reverend

Alright a little art lesson for you today: now to support the Reverend who finds P-duck's image disgusting, which one of you brainy-acts can tell me why I posted this image by David, "The Death of Marat" in relationship to P's image and to M's van der Weyden???? Trust me, the answer relates to the tenets of the TRS.

Sorry for the extended absence folks but been job hunting--think I got one but more to follow about the ordeals of academic job searches!

A Follow-up on Motherhood vs. Career

Apparently the citizens of Alaska do not ask the same questions of their governor that the citizens of Spain ask their Defense Minister.

Military Analysis and the development of Public Opinion

In tomorrow's New York Times, there is a very long article discussing the way in which the Pentagon employs "analysis" in an attempt to sell specific policies.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

The dangerous aspects of this is the way in which certain ideological perspectives establish certain cultures and policies. And all of this depends on the manipulation of information.

In theory, the Times study is not anything new. Noam Chomsky is most likely laughing at this article. Or cringing.

Motherhood vs. Career

MSNBC.com has an interesting article on Spain's (pregnant) defense minister.

I apologize for all of the lame link-only posts, but that's all I've got to give these days :)

Obama: Pro-Choice?

See this post at Bitch, Ph.D.

To follow the trend set by Harrogate, here is one of my favorite pieces...

Debate 21: Round Two: You mean there are some policy questions involved?

Round Two focused on Iran & Iraq, The Economy, The Second Amendment (because of Virginia Tech & the D.C. Case), Affirmative Action, Gas Prices, The Use of Ex Presidents, & Making Your Case to Super Delegates.

Iran and Iraq: Senator Obama did well on Iraq and Iran. As to when to withdraw, Senator Clinton attempted invoked the “Civilian Control” of the military but has little knowledge in this area (as most civilians do), meaning how can she ask the generals to leave when then present her with conflicting information. Senator Obama’s message was more direct (for the first time in this debate) “The Commander in Chief sets the mission,” which allows for input from the Generals. Senator Clinton comes across as the tougher, hawkish candidate, who will exceed constitutional authority; Senator Obama, better judgment. The question remains, who do you trust to get us in and out of war?

The Economy: Tax cuts for you, not for the rich. Obama ups the ante with a payroll tax cut. Capital Gain Taxes will increase. Can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China (good metaphor.) The right will attack Obama endlessly on the Capital Gains Tax though Hillary will raise them as well but only to a certain point. Do the middle class voters of Pennsylvania actually care about the Capital Gains Tax?

The Second Amendment: They have the same position: Clinton wants “sensible” legislation; Obama, “Common sense,” though, because of word choice, Obama basis his argument on traditional standards. Overall, draw, though I hear, from my apartment, Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy laughing to themselves. The GOP wins this question.

Affirmative-Action: Both candidates need to make this a class issue and then end it. Say “Even the poor deserves an education.” Clinton wins this question.

Gas Prices: Not much can be done on this issue. Sorry, $4.00/ gallon sucks. However, $5.00 is worse. Any alternatives? Nope.

How would you use ex-President? On a SNL skit…. End of story. No points awarded.

Final Question: how will you make your case to the Super Delegates? Disregard their answers as they will make their case however they choose, right Bill Richardson? No points awarded.

Their answers: Senator Clinton is a fighter and, if you believe that the Democrats need a fighter, Senator Clinton is you choice. If you desire the red/ blue game, choose her. Senator Obama argued that politics is about empowerment and building from the ground up; if desire a post-partisan country, even for a few years, Senator Obama is your candidate.

Score:
GOP: 5 (2nd Amendment, No Super Delegates, Iran)
Senator Clinton: 7 (Minus 1 for Iraq)
Senator Obama: 6 (Minus 1 for AA, Economy)

The GOP wins, as even though they tied Senator Clinton in points, they did not debate. Anytime you win while sitting on the sidelines, you win. Senator Clinton takes second place.

As for Senator Obama, good luck in North Carolina. Unless you hope for a Clinton/ New Hampshire backlash, you'll fare better in another venue. Also, I would avoid ABC in the future.

One A Side Note:
There were no questions on Global Warming/ Environment, Torture, Interrogation Techniques, Supreme Court Justices, Health Care, Education, Executive Authority, Israel/ Palestine, Spreading Democracy, Darfur, Alternative Energy, Michigan and Florida… etc. Oh well, Flag Pins are important.

Debate 21: Round One- Hey, Anyone Have a Life Vest?

When I first looked at the candidates, I swore I saw Fred Armisen and Amy Poehler. But, I digress…

Welcome to out 23,432 installment of better know a candidate. In this segment, we will focus on who holds the anchor. Who ever holds it for the longest, loses. Senator Obama, you held the anchor for much too long in the debate and, you lost.

The questions in debate number #21 were much tougher than recent debates, as were the follow ups. But this does not mean that they were better or address important topics, especially to the voters of Pennsylvania.

The first section focused on the Dream Ticket, Bitter-Gate, Jeremiah Wright, Bosnia, William Ayers (a member of The Weather Underground), and a Flag-Pin, which as you can imagine, these topics favor Senator Clinton. ABC attempted to use snippets of the Constitution throughout. However, the first question showed the futility of this approach and the debate. Moderator Charlie Gibson asked the two candidates about a Dream Ticket, invoking the idea that the Original Constitution stated that the person that received the most votes would be president, the second most, VP. Of Course, this question was predicated on a portion of the Constitution that was amended via the 12^th Amendment. If you don't know the Constitution, don't ask questions based on it.

Here is a recap: The Unity question, at the beginning, flopped and left the candidates with an uncomfortable silence. The moderators hit Obama hard on “Bittergate,” Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers from the Weather Underground, and Flag Pins. Senator Clinton hit Obama hard on these topics, throwing him an anchor every chance she could get. Obama responded, as best as he could, by trying to focus on the issues, which is surprising that a candidate would want to address the issues. When the media asks a question about the patriotism of a candidate, no one wins.

Senator Clinton got hit hard on losing a voter over Bosnia, though she admitted she made a mistake and moved forward. On the downside, she admitted she had baggage and acknowledged that President Clinton pardoned two members of The Weather Underground. On the plus side, she sat back and watched Obama drown, making her case to the Super Delegates through silence. When necessary, she provided good answers. Smart Move.

Obama attempted to argue these questions were just politics as usual and we needed to move forward and out of these petty issues to solve our issues (Iraq, Health Care, Economy). Senator Clinton argued that the Democrats needs a fighter and attacked Obama, showing the Super Delegates that his is unelectable because of Guilt by Association. If this were true, neither can win in November.

End of Round One: The Score (Two points for each question, 12 max)
GOP: 12
Clinton: 8 (Minus for Dream Ticket, Bosnia, and Baggage.)
Obama: 3 (Plus for feistiness, going easy on Bosnia, & surviving; otherwise, it would be a 0)

It will be interesting to see what degree Bitter, Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, & the Flag-Pin continue after this debate. Also, can Hillary use the "Obama can't win argument" any longer as she has denounced it? What about Obama standing up to criticism?

And for the umpteenth time, there will be no Unity Ticket.

Another of my favorites

It comes to no surprise to my fellow Situationers that I love art, but few paintings have elicited a physical reaction from me. Roger van der Weyden's The Deposition is so beautiful that I cried when I saw it in person. van der Weyden, a Northern Renaissance painter, puts the viewer on the same plan as Christ being deposed from the cross. The viewer is the same size as all of the figures in the painting, and from where it is hung in the Prado, I was at eye level with the Virgin Mary. I could easily read the painting as a commentary on grief and mourning, but I'd rather just share the beauty with my friends.

Bringing in a little "low" art; because I can

James Gillray; The Fashionable Mamma; or the Convenience of Modern Dress (1796)

Because I Don't Want to Be Left Out

Because Harrogate did it

Just 'cause

Pennsylvania, the New Texas

On April 22nd, Senator Clinton will most likely win the Democratic Primary in the Keystone State. Polls vary, but Real Clear Politics shows that in Quinnipiac she is up by 6% and, in Survey USA, she leads by 16%.

Yet, there is another angle to this story. Because this is a Democratic primary and, we know that Democrats adhere to fairness above equality, CQ Politics examines the congressional districts and argues that Clinton will take 53 pledged delegates to Senator Obama's 50. Like Texas, some areas receive more delegates than others.

The 103 district-level delegates are not distributed evenly. Democratic-leaning congressional districts are awarded more delegates than Republican-leaning districts. The state’s 2nd District, a Democratic bastion centered in Philadelphia, has nine district delegates to divvy up among Clinton and Obama. The heavily Republican 9th District, in the south-central part of the state, has just three.

Pennsylvania has 84 other delegates, divided between Super Delegates (29), at-large pledged delegates (35), and PLEOs (20) [a PLEO is a Pledged (Party) Leader or Elected Official]. It is this last category that Senator Clinton did not fill out a full ballot for before the deadline. According to a diary on MYDD, the at-large would split 20 - 15 Clinton and the PLEOs 12 - 8.

While I do not know how the Supers will split-- CNN reports the current Super split is, Clinton 14, Obama 5-- her pledged delegate pickup will be +11.

Combined, she will pick up 25 delegates, with 14 Supers undecided.

If she were to win the nomination, a 25 delegate pickup will not help as she is down by over 140 according to MSNBC, and this is her best chance to pick up delegates. She should do well in Puerto Rico (63) and Kentucky (60). However, Of course, Senator Obama will win North Carolina (134) and should win Oregon (65).

In the other states, Clinton will win the majority in West Virginia (39 total), Kentucky (60), while Senator Obama will win the majority in Guam (9), Montana (25), and South Dakota (23).

Indiana is the wild-card with 85 delegates and polls show this is close, meaning they will most likely split most of the delegates, leaving the winner only to pick up a few.

Senator Clinton will need to make her case to the Super Delegates through the popular vote, If that were the case, she would need at least to net 300,000 from Pennsylvania. Of course, you could make the "electibility," [who has a better shot of beating Senator McCain] if you dehistoricize the polls and ask the Super Delegates to choose within discerning what will happen or choose the nominee as late as possible, i.e. The Convention. Yet, this means you lose at least four months (May - August) to begin the fall campaign, which will hurt either candidate's ability to win in November. Is that irony?

I am starting to have other thoughts about the Democratic Primary: it is just a clever game based on Inoculation theory. I've had a feeling about this since March but I will have more on this later. However, if this were the case, then the Democrats would be serious about winning the election and would be smart about it. And, for some reason, I cannot believe this it is the case that they could play people like this as it may require a sophisticated level of coordination and organization not known to the Democratic Party.

Typo in Time

Time has listed the five best blogs and, somehow, the Situation was left off the list. In case you'd like to check out numbers two through six, here they are:

• The Huffington Post
• Lifehacker
• Metafilter
• Treehugger
• Postsecret

Enjoy.

Shallow But Frightening Thoughts

Is there a class of men among us in America who, were they to ever perceive the presence of a choice between a world Dominated by the United States and no world at all, would choose no world at all?

And if this class is among us, who are they? Does this class of men have any stroke in either major political Party? Does their likeness appear in any of the three Presidential candidates? etc.

For what it is worth Harrogate feels it is a cop-out to invoke the caricature of the "Endtimes" driven Social Conservative/Evangelical at this juncture. That is a separate issue, and for Harrogate's money, more founded in illusion than in fact.

Indeed. The most striking thing about Social/Religious Conservatives is that they draw off all the most precious imaginative energy of liberal Americans. We are so busy warning against this "element" that we don't seem to notice that the far more dangerous eco-cons have by now almost totally closed the circuit on our republic. Witness the fact that so many people, even after all that has happened with the country, conceive of George W. Bush in primnarily in terms of social conservatism.

But anywho. Perhaps even the eco-cons ought to be mildly freaked by the questions Harrogate poses above.

Yes. Some might argue that the questions are hysterical ones in the first place. And, perhaps they are.

(Although, the Wars keep mounting, the shit-talking keeps escalating, and even those few among us who cared enough to do anything about it, wouldn't know where to begin. Blogging from one's study, for example, probably aint making much headway).

Where does your money go?

From The New Republic, a look at where your tax money goes. As the brief article states, it is always helpful to known how the government uses our tax money, especially when politicians call for cutting spending and cutting taxes.

And, of course, the song of the day, "Taxman" by The Beatles.

Response by Clinton Supporter

Sunday, I posted The Case Against Senator Clinton. If you are interested, here is the response.

It seems the article by Carl Bernstein did not sit well with the Clinton camp. Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, fundraiser, or former Clinton lawyer, provided a response on CNN.

Davis attempts to minimize Berstein's argument by characterizing all of them as personal attacks without any facts and to suggest that Berstein uses the same methods he accuses of the Clintons without applying the standards to Senator Obama.

Visual Irony...

I decided to take a break from grading and visited The New York Times website. When I arrived, I saw this photo for the headline, "McCain Calls Obama Remarks Elitist."



While the photo looks straight out of Bat-Man, either the 1960s TV show or the lame, non-Tim Burton movies, because of the angles. I could not help to notice the irony of McCain, who appears as if he is pounding his fists on the podium while standing next to a very large projection of himself to his right. And since all Americans possess this ability and technology, the elitism label escapes him.

But, more importantly, if McCain were on Bat-Man, what would his villain name be? The other candidates?