Some Twitter Stuff Yesterday

As I'm wont to do on occasion, I went on a Twitter tear yesterday. It started with this:

I had seen this quoted on a couple of my liberal politics blogs, rolled my eyes, and moved on. But Imani ABL caught it and responded:

Then Dr. Skyskull, bless him, posted the trigger:

Okay, so when a potential hashtag like #ConservativePillowTalk is dangled in front of me, I'll take it, hook, line, and sinker.

Then a couple more, in rapid succession:

And for the remainder (all mine), I'll just copy the text.

•  "Who needs Viagra? I have an AR-15."
• "Not tonight, honey. I want to work on the tax deductions."
• "I hate how gay marriage causes premature ejaculation. It's ruining my marriage."
•  "Ladies, just lean back, think about the Gadsden Flag, and do it for 'Murca."
• "Here's a thought to get your motor running: Dozens of hacked nude photos from phones of male GOP politicians."
• "Maybe we could just hire a couple of illegals to do this for us, so we don't have to pay minimum wage."
• "Sorry... what? I dozed off."
• "Say WHAT!? I thought "oral sex" was *talking* about it."
• "Lights out, night only, because those *parts* are so icky, can't bear to see them.
• Sad news for Russia's zero-G sex study: The geckos are stone-cold dead. [A tidbit of actual news that seemed humorously appropriate for this hashtag.]
• "What do you mean, 'toys,' dear? Like Hot Wheels and cap guns?"

[Followup, 5:17 PM, 9/2- I'm essentially done with this hashtag, but another just occurred to me and I can't let it disappear; it's too good. One female Republican to another: "Just between you and me, I'm into anal. I have sex with assholes all the time."]

Also, a couple of us tried to figure out how we should be responding to ISIS. This is because John McCain knows Obama should be doing *something.* (Again, for time's sake, just copying texts.)

• Me: We should do some undefined *something* about ISIS. I suggest scattering a million tons of individually wrapped chocolates on the area.
• That would distract them for a while.
• Unfortunately, I guess that would only empower the dreaded military-confectionery complex.
• MGHydro: The Pentagon counters with a million tons of individually wrapped bombs. Compromise? Chocolate coated bomblets?
• Me: Chocolate-coated peanut cluster bombs!
• MGHydro: Giant (and I mean GIANT) caramel popcorn balls.
• MGHydro: Peanut Bunker-Buster® Parfait (co-sponsored by Dairy Queen)
• Me: A Cracker Jack (TM) aerial campaign.
• Me: Seriously, if we could pull this off, ISIS would be so bloated and obese, they wouldn't want to make any further efforts.
• Me: STAHP! USA, enough already! STAAAAHP!
• MGHydro: Gotta play the long game: an entire generation w type-2 diabetes. Coca Cola was just our first salvo…

So there you have it. domestic and foreign policy both taken care of in an afternoon.

A Black Mark on Someone's Record

Michael Tomasky:

A certain former vice-presidential candidate wearing a visor featuring the name of a certain former presidential candidate (i.e., the one with whom she ran). And the presidential candidate's name is blacked out with magic marker.

Photogallery here, but the above right is the best. Actually, the best part is the title of Tomasky's piece: "Let's Change the Subject."

Nobel Dissonance

Part of the reason I have found this story so engaging is that to a large degree, the responses of various commentators has been unpredictable. Well sure, there's Rush...

But barring any late entries, Rush Limbaugh's Quote of the Day will be tough to forget. "I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a world-wide joke," the radio host said. "Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

...as quoted in Washington Monthly. Golly, I seem to remember a time not all that long ago when being on the same side as the Taliban and Iran was supposed to be a bad thing. Speaking of "Golly," Dr. Zaius provided some video of Rush reacting to the news:

It turns out, oddly enough, that the clearest explanation comes from the Nobel Prize Committee itself.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

And EB Misfit points out that the prize has, in the past, been given to strengthen a position of moral authority, rather than great accomplishments.

Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for winning an election to be prime minister of Burma and then being denied the office. The Nobel Peace Prize is often awarded to give people moral authority, not for a long record.

Even given all that, I share the discomfort of many, in that it just seems too much too soon. Der Spiegel had a very good commentary piece yesterday. I would suggest that if you're fed up with this story this opinion piece is still worth the time:

Awarding him the Nobel Prize now is like giving a medal to a marathon runner who has just managed the first few kilometers. The situation in Iraq is still fragile; in Afghanistan, it has even got worse. Despite the massive efforts by the US administration, there seems little immediate prospect of reaching a compromise between the Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. The Iranian regime is still playing its nuclear games with the West at the diplomatic level, while at home one dissident after another is put on the scaffold. A nuclear-armed Pakistan looks close to collapse, while in North Korea, Dr. Strangelove is stroking his bomb.

The most surprise at Oslo's decision will be felt in the US itself.

The general theme of the above article is that the prize will be more of a burden than an honor or mark of authority. Yet I was still pleasantly surprised that some I might have expected to go all wing-nut were in fact quite gracious. For example, Elizabeth Hovde, one of OregonLive's in-house conservative commentators had this to say:

The committee clearly has -- both now and in the past -- taken a broad interpretation of Nobel's vision for the prize. Instead of going to recipients for their peace mediation efforts, the prize has been given to people for other worthy deeds, such as fighting poverty or bringing progress to environmental issues.

(...)

At the same time, Obama's detractors can take comfort in the fact that Americans are really the winners in Obama's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Without a doubt, people around the world are, by and large, happier with America and more hopeful about its relationships with their own countries as a result of last year's presidential election. He has had a positive impact and that is good for Americans.

And Obama opponents should give the president a break. After all, he didn't force this prize upon himself. And even if people disagree with the committee's wisdom in sending the Nobel Peace Prize his way, most would have to agree that he reacted to the surprising news in a way worthy of admiration and respect.

And many more-or-less liberal writers seem more strongly convinced than I that this prize is undeserved for the time being:

President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of a Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.

The BBC seems to be saying that, in fact, simply being "not Bush" is strong enough qualification for the award.

As so often, the mystery clears up if you bother to read the text, in this case the citation. The committee praises him for intentions that were key to his whole campaign. It singles out working through the United Nations, for putting the emphasis on negotiations, international diplomacy and co-operation, for creating a new climate in international politics. In other words, because he's not President George W Bush and has steered American foreign policy, or at least its strategy if not its aims, in an opposite direction.

I did find it interesting that in an online poll at The Guardian, the numbers were not supportive of Obama's win. Fair disclosure: I voted "no" to see the results, but was pretty conflicted about it.
By the time I got to some of the NYT articles, they didn't add much to my understanding or thinking about the issue, but I do think they raise a fair point here:

Several prominent Nobel observers in Oslo said the Nobel committee had put the integrity of the award at stake. But Mr. Jagland seemed to savor the risk. He said no one could deny that “the international climate” had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason.

But of course, the meaningfulness of the Peace Prize has been questioned many times, even in my memory (think Henry Kissinger). And the right certainly condemned Jimmy Carter's win seven years ago.

One of the most interesting takes was from an astronomy and physics blog, Cosmic Variance, arguing that Obama deserved the prize for his commitment to rationality and science.

From the scientific perspective, Obama has had tremendous impact (the Peace Prize singles out his “constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”). His appointees are first-rate, and there is a feeling that we are finally starting to move in the right direction. It is hard, of course, to point to tangible scientific results that have arisen because of Obama. There simply hasn’t been time enough. But this does not negate his impact; the momentum is apparent and encouraging. It is a similar story in international diplomacy. Obama also benefits from eight preceding years of Bush. Within the scientific community, the Bush administration represented a dark age. Any subsequent reasonable policy would seem to be enlightened. Thus to have a truly exceptional policy, informed by actual science and scientists (instead of cynical political aims), has a profound effect on the state of affairs. It is a similar story in international diplomacy.

(...)

In this context, giving the Peace Prize to Obama is an inspired choice. They are hoping to give him more stature and leverage to help him achieve his goals; they want to help make the world a better place. It affirms the importance of American leadership on the world stage, and endorses our President’s vision of a world at peace. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should celebrate this.

And the State Department's take was pretty inspired:

"Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes."

That's the take of Hillary Clinton's State Department on President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, according to her spokesman, Assistant Secretary PJ Crowley.

So in the end, I still don't really have a strong stance. I feel it's early, and that there's plenty of time for him to show the world what he's got. Though it dawned on me yesterday that the Noble is never given posthumously, and seeing the rabid right, the committee members may in fact be worried. Grim, yes, but realistic. On the other hand, what is being held up for attention is an entirely different approach to wielding American power: negotiation and discussion, cooperation and multi-lateralism rather than bluster and threats, ultimatums and exceptionalism. And while it may simply amount to being "not Bush," it's a relief to me, and apparently much of the world. Further, as pointed out by Brian in a comment to the Nobel post yesterday, this could be seen as a peace prize for the American Voter who chose not to elect "not 'not Bush'" in the form of McCain and Palin. If that's the case, let me offer my sincere congratulations to Obama, and with grace and humility, accept my tiny nubbin of credit.

Dems Need to "Reach Out"

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's rival for the Oval Office last year, said passing health care reform would be "good for America," but cautioned that the president needs to reach out more to Republicans in order to reach such a compromise.

Note that the key phrase is not in quotation marks, but is a paraphrase. Nevertheless, insistence that the left needs to "reach out" more to the right has been a consistent theme of this year's political theater, and one that has become more and more grating to me.

This has been the only real constant of the debate all year. President Obama showed his willingness to compromise by dropping single-payer as a possibility at the outset. He proceeded to signal possible concessions on a public option, a co-op plan, triggers, medical malpractice, reimbursement rates, eligibility rates. Last night, the president literally borrowed from the McCain/Palin platform in presenting new ideas.

And then there's the other side -- the one whining incessantly for weeks about killing reform and replacing it with a "bipartisan" approach. After six months of debate, can anyone name a single concession Republicans have been willing to make on reform? Literally, one?

Once they understand how it would work, most Americans say they want single payer... but that was off the table from the start. Now, the most sensible republican out there is "disappointed" Obama didn't take the public option off the table too. And McCain thinks the dems need to "reach out." Sure.

I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

World-Wide Vote

The British magazine, The Economist, is running a mock election using an electoral college model like ours here in the U.S. Each country gets a number of electoral college votes based on its population. Right now, the results read 8002 Obama to 12 McCain. El Salvador is the culprit in giving McCain anything. The results are updated every three hours, but I have the sense it will take some real work on the Republican side to change this thing around.

If only it counted...

Another similar site I found a while back is called IfTheWorldCouldVote.com. This one simply tallies the total votes, though the results are broken down by country. The results there are surprisingly similar to The Economist's:
Barack Obama 86.2% (64720 votes)
John McCain 13.8% (10348 votes)
Total number of votes: 75069 Countries voted from: 162

When I first saw these results, I assumed there was a heavy self-selection bias. The Economist's results may also be the result of self-selection, but their site is limited to subscribers and those who have registered. While the Economist is fairly centrist overall, I know that both liberal and conservative bloggers in the US consider it owned and operated by the other side- as they do the New York Times.

So what do these results mean? I suspect we're seeing a very real revulsion toward Bush-style internationalism: "Just do what we say, and no one gets hurt." Along with a growing recognition that McCain's ignorance and bellicosity indicates similar behavior if he was to become president. On the other hand, both of these polls show the US results in the range of 80%-20% Obama, a very poor match to the reality.

Don't be Distracted.

I don't think this could be stated more clearly or compellingly:

As ridiculous a choice as Palin is for national office, let's not lose
sight of the real scandal here -- John McCain has the judgment of a small child.
Tasked with the most important decision of his presidential campaign, McCain has
managed to demonstrate incompetence, cynicism, and recklessness, all at the same
time.

"[W]e are reminded," Eugene Robinson writes today, "if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation's interests above his own."

Washington Monthly

Let me be clear: as much fun as I've had snarking on Palin, I would rather trust her with the presidency than McCain. I disagree with her fundamentalism, her social stances, I distrust her in terms of her honesty, I think her hypocrisy in "supporting" her daughter's "choice" in bringing the baby to term when Palin's position is that women shouldn't have a choice, is repugnant. But I think she's mostly sane. McCain has the temperament of a spoiled four-year-old. And that scares the living hell out of me.

Facts

A number of interesting facts on McCain and Palin:

• The number of homes owned by John McCain is larger than the number of months that have elapsed since he first met his new choice to be Vice President of the United States of America. (From The Jed Report- I'm not able to get a link to the post right now; I'll try again later)
• When John McCain started his 2008 presidential campaign Sarah Palin was not yet governor of Alaska. (From Matthew Yglesias, here)
• John McCain is 23 years older than the state of Alaska.(From Matthew Yglesias, here)
• How many days per year is the Alaska State Legislature in session? 90 days. (From Matthew Yglesias, here)
• My addition: The three points that have made the most traction for McCain are that Obama is 1) Young and inexperienced; 2) A pretty celebrity, and 3) unknowledgable about foreign affairs. He then makes his first important decision as a prospective president, and chooses as his potential replacement someone who is 1) younger and more inexperienced; 2) more of a pretty celebrity, and 3) less knowledgeable with respect to foreign affairs than Obama. He Shoots! He Scores! No points whatsoever!

Conventional Reduction

GOP spokesman Rick Davis just had a press conference on CNN; they are abbreviating their convention. I can't find the article, but I had heard a rumor Friday from another coffee drinker that this was being discussed, and I quickly found a news article confirming it.

Basically, they will gavel the convention to order, and establish a quorum. Smirky and Snarly will not speak- That's being adressed right now on the tube: "The question was, would the president speaking be a positive or a negative. That question is no longer relevant."

How convenient.

I think this a lose/lose for the GOP. If they went on with the full schedule, they would be perceived as callous and uncaring; if they postponed or reduced the convention, the news would be all about the changes, which would simply draw attention to the Katrina disaster and the pathetic response and recovery. So now we know: they have chosen the second option. This will give McCain all the bounce of a lump of clay.

Quote of the Day: The Emperor's Sith Apprentice

"[Sarah Palin is] going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he'll be around at least that long," said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain's top advisers. From The Washington Monthly.

More Palin

Count the metaphors regarding the McCain/Palin ticket in this clip. Another of my favorite Monty Python sketches.

Palin

Say Who?

OK, I didn't think this was actually permissible under the constitution, but McCain, in a move that has stunned everyone, has tagged British Citizen and ex-Python Michael Palin for his VP spot. AND convinced him to wear women's clothing and campaign around in bars!

(Thanks to American Street for the picture and gag)

I think this says a great deal about McCain's diplomatic skills and his ability to convince others to act against their own interests- the core of Republican campaign strategy.

(psssst...)

Say What?

(sra plin)

Oh. Never mind. As I was saying, McCain has chosen to tag 1 1/2 year veteran Alaska governor and former beauty queen Sarah Palin as his running mate. (Sorry, Michael, that's the breaks. You're probably a terrist synthesizer anyway.)

(Thanks to Sadly No! for the picture and the gag)

Wow! You know, I'll bet if I promise to vote for her and that lumpy guy, she'd sleep with me. Woo Hoo! I'm gonna take the VP POW! Just think about that! Two POW's on the same ticket!

(pssst....)

Go Away! I gotta good fantasy going here.

(ss frtyfr)

SAY WHAT???!! Forty four???!!! Oh man, she's way too young! I thought we were talking about hot sex! You mean she's really going to hold the office? Well, poop. Heck, I'd do her anyway. If she asked nice. But no way am I gonna vote for her.

(oops, forgot to note the source... um, thanks)

Okay, to get serious (if only for a bit), this choice says nothing good about McCain and and his decision-making processes, and it has little to do with Palin.

• McCain wants to show he's a "maverick." Sorry, buddy: to those of us for whom that might have mattered, you blew it in '04 when you stumped for Shrub. It's the last thing you want to demonstrate to your base. Verdict: Fail.
• McCain wants to balance his ticket in terms of positions. Sorry, she's pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-gay... the only issue she may differ on is that she participates in fundamentalist Christian rituals and beliefs instead of just courting and fawning all over them. Verdict: Fail.
• McCain wants a veep who's strengths balance his weaknesses. Sorry, Palin's bachelor's degree was in journalism (I admit that voters, especially those on the right, consistently express great admiration, respect and trust for journalists) She has no experience running a business- unless you count running a fishing boat with her husband. Her political career consists primarily of being mayor for a town of 8000-9000, and a year and a half as governor of a state that's one of the most federally subsidized in the union, awash in oil money (no income tax- imagine all the simplification to her job on that issue alone), with fewer constituents than any of a dozen US mayors (2005 estimates, from here): New York, N.Y., Los Angeles, Calif., Chicago, Ill., Houston,Tex, Philadelphia, Pa., Phoenix, Ariz., San Antonio, Tex., San Diego, Calif., Dallas, Tex., San Jose, Calif., Detroit, Mich., Indianapolis, Ind., Jacksonville, Fla.). Verdict: Fail.
• McCain recognizes that the right is eager to move on from the traditional GOP choices of wealthy, powerful white males. pfft. Phbbbbbtttt! HAHA! AHAHHAHAHHAHHAH-HAHHAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa..... *snk* (gasp) snk-snk-snk.... AAAAAHHAHHAHAHAH- haaaaaa. oh man that hurts.... **sniff** hmph nononno, just move on now..... Really who do you think the Republicans are? That's right: wealthy, powerful white males, their chattel, and those they've managed to convince to act against their own interests. Verdict: Fail.
• McCain recognizes the importance of Alaska as a key battleground state; with this decision he has a lock on those 3 electoral college votes. Heh. Verdict: Fail.
• I could keep going in this vein for quite a while, but here is my realistic best attempt to understand the thinking represented here: McCain doesn't care a whit about what Sarah Palin can do for this country, or to help him perform well in governing it, but he's gambling there are enough women who will vote their gender and enough guys who will vote their testicles that he might pull out a squeeker. Verdict: the jury is still in recess, but likely, Fail.

The fact is, I don't know that much about Palin. What I do know is a mixed bag. A blogger I disagree with pretty fundamentally, but have a great deal of respect for, cued me in on Palin nearly two months ago, so I was probably less surprised than many; I was also not too displeased until I started seeing some of the other reports today on her stands on social issues. Those stands are very much at odds with her Libertarian politics. I honestly think she'd make a better president than McCain (certainly better than Shrub), but as I said to another coffee drinker a few hours ago, given the choice between rabies and dysentery, I'll take dysentery every time. Fortunately, we actually have a choice between rabies and Obama.

But for those guys who are tempted to think with their nuts rather than with their gray matter, I'll leave you with one last image to ponder.

Thanks to Just an Earth-Bound Misfit for the picture, in turn from Rising Hegemon

McCain Bingo

OK, I've seen this transcript more times than I can count now, but I have a good tie-in as an excuse now, and in case you haven't seen it, you should:

Even if you didn't see John McCain's interview this week with Jay Leno, you may
have read about this exchange:

LENO: For a million dollars, how many houses do you
have?

McCAIN: Could I just mention to you, Jay, that, in a moment
of seriousness, I spent five-and-a-half years in a prison cell. I didn’t
have a house. I didn’t have a kitchen table. I didn’t have a table. I didn’t
have a chair. And I spent those five-and-a-half years because, not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.

The above quote and quote-of-a-quote come from Hullaballoo in this post. The linked post provides a little game that everyone can play each time McCain gives a speech (really, anytime any Republican mouthpiece gives a speech)

BINGO! YES!! That's right: you too can reduce America's policy to a series of catch phrases and buzzwords! Part of the fun is that we are all invited to submit more words and phrases for this project, so if there's any more of McCain's (or repub generally) verbiage that is used frequently enough to get your attention, leave said phrase(s) or term(s) in the comments here or over in the original post. I'll start with "Drill Here, Drill Now," "Energy Independence," "Experience," "Determined [or] Determination," "Tax Relief," (used more than "tax cut," which is in the table above) and "Resolve." Have fun and good luck!

Update October 6, 2008: Holy cow! It took me nearly 4 months to get 1000 visitors, and I've 350 in the last few days, most of you looking at this page. Note that it was posted about a month and a half ago, simply because I thought it was amusing. If you really want to play the game though, one card won't do it. Check out this site for randomly generated cards (refresh to create a new one). And while the Biden-Palin debate has passed, who knows, the Campaign may allow Caribou Barbie an unscripted moment. You might want to be prepared with Palin Bingo cards as well. Thanks for visiting!

Popeye McCain

From the American Street Blog comes this comic:
I was going to plug the T-shirt similar to this, which is much the same drawing, but with the caption "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. That Gasoline smell reminds me of victory" But I can't save the image. So I won't. But I do like the humor of the one I could save. This cartoonist shows up regularly on this blog, and I look forward to his posts.

Welcome to Minneapolis

Over the past couple of months I've been accumlating the occasional imagery that I would like to offer to the RNC as they prepare for their big week. When you're through looking these over, I invite you to scroll down a couple of posts and look at the hurricane pictures; they may want to figure out some way to spin Gustav in their favor (heh). For example, if McCain gets his tax plan passed, everyone will earn more than 5 million dollars a year, and will own seven houses. So no one will need to evacuate; they'll just go on vacation.

So first, here's McCain's response to Obama and his audacity:
Then there's the official RNC seal for the convention. You didn't really think they'd be all critical of Barack, and not try to pirate his idea now, did you?
This one has been out there on the intertubes for a while. McCain's crew has been very savvy about courting the lumpy, wrinkly white male gazillionaire demographic, 'cause it'd be a shame if 50 percent of the potential campaign donations, from the 0.1 percent of voters who fit that profile, went uncollected due to misunderstanding the role of technology these days. There's a parallel ad series reassuring those same folks that McCain is familiar with all button conventions, and has no intention of switching America's nucyooler deterent over to a mouse. He knows how to use the button. And that was good enough when he was a POW; it's plenty good now.
The RNC is bending over forward to make the Porcelain Stall Republicans welcome. The Log Cabin Republicans, not so much.

And finally the good folks at the Daily Show (despite what I said earlier, I love this show; it's the medium that exasperates me to distraction) have all chipped in to make all the conventioneers feel right at home.
And can anyone explain to me just how they came to choose Minnesota?

This Could get Ugly

Hurricane Gustav moving away from Haiti, toward Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico.

And New Orleans? (Reuters- larger image at link)

So Fay just dumped 2-3 feet on my brother and his family. If there had been serious problems I would have heard. Then I hear there's a storm headed toward Haiti- it makes a blip on my radar. It hits Haiti, and this morning I see this:

PORT-AU-PRINCE (Reuters) - Tropical Storm Gustav drifted away from Haiti
and the Dominican Republic on Wednesday after killing 22 people and was set to
become a dangerously powerful hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico oil fields.

I had no idea it was that strong... and that bit about threatening oil fields is not good. Then as the day goes on, I start seeing more. And More.

"A powerful storm in the Gulf of Mexico could force shutdowns on the offshore
rigs that account for a quarter of U.S. crude production and much of its natural
gas."

This is really not good.

Current projections have God's Staff barreling towards the Gulf of Mexico, then
straight on towards New Orleans, Louisiana.

The fellow with the preceding quote, a meteorology blogger, explains that "Gustav" means "Staff of the Gods." If the storm passes to the west of New Orleans, he says, "You're looking at 2005, only worse."

From the NOAA National Hurricane Center- I think this link may lead to the latest update. If not, you shouldn't have trouble finding it. Full-size version of above image here.

I have come to have some respect for Reuters (note that the first story I linked, the first I saw was also from this feed:

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) "Three years after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the
Louisiana coast, New Orleans residents on Wednesday again faced the prospect of
an evacuation as Tropical Storm Gustav loomed."

I'm not a big fan of Anderson Cooper (I think most of the TV news reporters are preening egotists: "The most important news on television! Me!'), but you'd have to be a complete ding-a-ling to miss the political implications here: "On Friday, all eyes might turn to McCain and the Republican convention. OR… they might turn to Hurricane Gustav." Even science people are looking at the political aspect. "As New Orleans prepares to evacuate three years to the day that Hurricane Katrina hit, Republicans should not be happy."

And of course the political bloggers are all over it:

Lawyers Guns and Money: "2 PM Monday is when the GOP convention is scheduled to be kicking off, so this might possibly be taken as evidence that Mother Nature has a mordant sense of humor."

Just an Earth-Bound Misfit: "The Navy's forecast for Hurricane Gustav has it drawing a bead on New Orleans."

The weather services are all over it too. These are on accuweather right now:

Gustav Revs Up
Major Gulf Hurricane
Threat of a Direct Hit on the United States
Energy Futures up on Gustav Worries
Potential Storm Impact on the United States

And so on. Three years to the day after Katrina devastated the city, New Orleans will be making the final decision on whether to order another evacuation. Or an evacuation may have already started. And of course, it may miss the city completely. As you can see from the map above, the center has quite a wide projection at this point: from the Eastern Florida panhandle to the Texas-Louisiana Border. Landfall will most likely be Monday afternoon or evening. There's plenty of time for things to change.

But here's one more thing to keep in mind: we're at basically the hottest part of the summer, and more to the point, the highest water temperatures. And high water temps are what power hurricanes. The following map, from Weather Underground, shows an interpretive water temperature map based on buoy data. (I was under the impression that satellite IR measurements were quicker, cheaper and more accurate, but I couldn't find that info; I may have been mistaken there.) Note that temperatures out in the central Gulf are up near 90; mid to upper 80's in the coastal Delta region, mid to lower 80's near the base of the Florida Panhandle. This suggests if Gustav runs out through the middle of the Gulf, it could power up very rapidly, and maintain the high energy if comes on shore close to or west of New Orleans. (See Weather Moose- also linked above- for an explanation for why a miss to the west of New Orleans could be much worse than a direct hit) On the other hand, while poor Florida does not need more wind and rain, swinging along a more eastward path, skirting the western Florida coast for example, probably means it would not be as strong when it finally makes landfall.

Now I for one do not think that this administration has been held accountable in any reasonable way for it's dereliction during and after Katrina. And I think McCain got an inexcusable pass from the MSM when he claimed he had voted for every Katrina relief and reconstruction bill that had come up. In fact, he had not voted for any of them. I dread that we are about to learn first hand that little or nothing has been accomplished during the last three years to prepare us for the next blow, come all too soon.

I am saddened beyond description by the possibility that the final silver bullet to McCain's were-dog of a campaign is a human tragedy of the same magnitude that at last woke most Americans to the incompetence of our current deciders.

Irony alert: McCain's birthday is Friday, maybe +/- a day. He was having a photo-op with his buddy Shrub and a cake as hundreds of his fellow citizens, "my friends," were gasping and sputtering their final breaths. Three years later, almost to the day, there's a good chance that hundreds more of his "friends" will be respiring their last as he cheerfully cuts his birthday cake in front of adoring cameras, and prepares to accept a nomination for which he was never qualified, and clearly, at this point in time, is not fit.

"Heh heh! Sucks to be you!"

Lieberman? Srsly?

Just saw a little while ago that McCain tagged Lieberman for his VP post. Well. I hadn't really taken those rumors seriously. Honestly, I have been getting very fed up with all the VP speculation on both sides. The VP has no real role, other than breaking ties in the Senate. He's mostly symbolic... well, unless he's actually President, as in Cheney's case.

But the fact is, one of McCain's big problems is that he is viewed with great suspicion by the far right- which has, for the last couple of cycles, been the real "base" of the Republicans. The dems have fielded a couple of tepid, uninspiring candidates in Gore and Kerry, and people have looked at Shrub and basically felt more of a personal connection to him. (I'm overlooking the fact that most middle of the spectrum voters, as best as I can tell, simply ignore stated policy) But McCain has to able to count on the far right to turn out for him as they did for Shrub; then he can sell his "maverick" "straight-talk" schtick to the middle. (I'm overlooking the fact that this "maverick" has voted with Smirky/Snarly 95% of the time, and that every time he actually delivers straight talk, he makes the most incredible gaffs that the media then must find some way to ignore)

But the point is, Lieberman is known first and foremost at this point for supporting the Iraq war. Second, as a dem that went independent after loosing his primary, then winning his Senate seat back. Third, as Gore's VP choice. He will upset the solid righties, who will be unable to accept that he's a dino (democrat in name only). He will upset those in the middle, who are solidly against the war. JD points out that it might be good for the Jewish vote, though I don't have the sense that Lieberman is terribly popular among Jews. He has been solidly pro-choice, which is an enormous strike against him from the conservative perspective. It's not clear to me what McCain sees Lieberman bringing to the table with him. I can only imagine many of the Conservative punditry is gnashing their teeth right now, trying to figure out how to put lipstick and mascara on this sow.

I, on the other hand, am not entirely displeased with the choice.

Followup: Apparently, I misinterpreted the discussion I was sort of half watching on CNN. McCain (as best I can tell) has not announced Lieberman as his choice. What he has been doing is asking GOP leadership what they'd think about a pro-choice VP. Which points at Lieberman or Ridge. From McCain's position, I think Ridge would be a better choice- I think he got a raw deal as head of Homeland defense, a monsterous bureaucratic mash-up assembled like Frankenstein's creature, with no consideration of outcomes. From my perspective, I hope he picks Lieberman.

Quote of the Day, Maybe of the Year:

"I sincerely doubt I'm the only person wishing that Bush Brand Conservatism were given a proper burial with an actual grave, just so I could piss on it."

From Melissa McEwan guardian.co.uk
Full article on the funereal mood leading up to the GOP Convention here.

Republicans and Rodents

JOHN MCCAIN GETS MOLE REMOVED FROM FACE, July 28 Republican White House hopeful John McCain, who has been treated for skin cancer in the past, said Monday he had a small mole removed from his face during a routine dermatological check-up.Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news136484541.html

They decided to leave the mouse hanging off his nose. They have no idea how to remove his inner rat, and the bats in his belfry are a lost cause.

Sorry, this was too obvious to leave alone. And I know that moles and bats aren't rodents.

The "Plan"

My Brother feels I'm "a little hard on John McCain." I feel like I'm pretty snarky, and thus perhaps not serious enough, and therefore, not hard enough. I hope I get back to this and post my own reaction, but in the meantime, McCain's economic "plan" was apparently leaked in the last day or so. D-day has a pretty serious reaction here. I just checked, and I'm the only one who has commented so far. Matthew Yglesias has a somewhat more snarky reaction here. My reaction is, at this point, probably best expressed in the comment to D-day: I can't get my mind around it. I'll need to chew on this one for quite some time before I can react coherently.

McCain in Flip-Flops

We're having some of our first real summer weather of the season- we got up to 100 on Saturday; today is a much more tolerable 80. A muggy 80 by Western Oregon standards, but more tolerable than 100 by any standards.

But by flip-flops, I'm definitely not talking summer footwear. Anybody of sound mind who has been watching the elections has undoubtedly witnessed McCain's "repositioning" on at least a few issues, sometimes within minutes of contrary statements. I have been thinking of compiling a list, with documenting links, but silly me! Someone already thought of it! Saves me a lot of work. Fine.

Read'em and weep. This guy is being seriously considered for the most powerful office on the planet?