Dadahead - This blog kills fascists

...

2014-04-25T19:14:00.000-05:00

...

2006-04-27T21:09:00.000-05:00

"I know that you know as well as I do how fast thoughts and associations can fly through your head. You can be in the middle of a creative meeting at your job or something, and enough material can rush through your head just in the little silences when people are looking over their notes and waiting for the next presentation that it would take exponentially longer than the whole meeting just to try to put a few seconds' silence's flood of thoughts into words. This is another paradox, that many of the most important impressions and thoughts in a person's life are ones that flash through your head so fast that fast isn't even the right word, they seem totally different from or outside of the regular sequential clock time we all live by, and they have so little relation to the sort of linear, one-word-after-another-word English we all communicate with each other with that it could easily take a whole lifetime just to spell out the contents of one split-second's flash of thoughts and connections, etc. – and yet we all seem to go around trying to use English (or whatever language our native country happens to use, it goes without saying) to try to convey to other people what we're thinking and to find out what they're thinking, when in fact deep down everybody knows it's a charade and they're just going through the motions. What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant. The internal head-speed or whatever of these ideas, memories, realizations, emotions and so on is even faster, by the way – exponentially faster, unimaginably faster – when you're dying, meaning during that vanishingly tiny nanosecond between when you technically die and when the next thing happens, so that in reality the cliché about people's whole life flashing before their eyes as they're dying isn't all that far off – although the whole life here isn't really a sequential thing where first you're born and then you're in the crib and then you're up at the plate in Legion ball, etc., which it turns out that that's what people usually mean when they say 'my whole life,' meaning a discrete, chronological series of moments that they add up and call their lifetime. It's not really like that. The best way I can think of to try to say it is that it all happens at once, but that at once doesn't really mean a finite moment of sequential time the way we think of time while we're alive, plus that what turns out to be the meaning of the term my life isn't even close to what we think we're talking about when we say 'my life.' Words and chronological time create all these total misunderstandings of what's really going on at the most basic level. And yet at the same time English is all we have to try to understand it and try to form anything larger or more meaningful and true with anybody else, which is yet another paradox.

"…the whole my whole life flashed before me phenomenon at the end is more like being a whitecap on the surface of the ocean, meaning that it's only at the moment you subside and start sliding back in that you're really even aware there's an ocean at all. When you're up and out there as a whitecap you might talk and act as if you know you're just a whitecap on the ocean, but deep down you don't think there's really an ocean at all. It's almost impossible to."

--David Foster Wallace, "Good Old Neon"

Break

2006-04-02T15:24:00.000-05:00

I need to go on another short blogging hiatus; real life beckons. I'll be back before too long.

Love hurts

2006-03-30T21:32:00.000-06:00

Literally, sometimes.

Sometimes it even kills.

"Galileo was wrong"

2006-03-29T16:38:00.000-06:00

Which he was, of course, about a lot of things - but geocentrism was not one of them.

The Earth is at the center of Robert Sungenis' universe. Literally.

Yours too, he says.

Sungenis is a geocentrist. He contends the sun orbits the Earth instead of vice versa. He says physics and the Bible show that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we're at the center of everything, on a planet that does not rotate.

He has just completed a 1,000-page tome, "Galileo Was Wrong," the first in a pair of books he hopes will persuade readers to "give Scripture its due place, and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."

Geocentrism is a less-known cousin of the intelligent design, or anti-evolution, movement. Both question society's trust in science, instead using religion to explain how we got here - and, in geocentrism's case, just where "here" is.

...There's also no proof that the Earth rotates, he said....And in the absence of proof, the Bible has answers.

"If you see the Earth as just a humdrum planet among stars circling in a vast universe, then we're not significant, we're just part of a crowd," Sungenis said. "But if you believe everything revolves around Earth, it gives another picture - of purpose, a meaning of life."

...He came to rethink the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, the 15th-century Polish astronomer who advanced heliocentrism over the Ptolemaic, or Earth-centered, system.

"Einstein told us there is no center, that any point in the universe can serve as the center," Sungenis said. "If that's the case, Einstein has undermined Copernicus. You can't prove either one."

...There are no statistics on numbers of geocentrists. Sungenis said he thinks it's "definitely growing, both nationally and internationally."

Marshall Hall is one. He's been researching it since 1980, and posted his Web site, www.fixedearth.com, in 1997.

Hall realizes it's a tough sell.

"Normally the reaction is, 'You've got to be crazy,"' he said from his home in Cornelia, Ga.

So sometimes he uses this illustration story:

You want to travel from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. If the Earth is turning, why not just hover in a helicopter? Wait a few hours above the East Coast and eventually the West Coast will be underneath you.

I especially like the helicopter bit, and the fact that the guy totally contradicts his OWN THEORY by claiming that Einstein proved that there was no center of the universe.

And no, this isn't really any more ridiculous than "Intelligent Design."

Link (via the Corner).

"Journalism"

2006-03-29T14:48:00.000-06:00

If you haven't seen this Daily Show report on Fox "News," you have to watch it.

I'm back

2006-03-28T23:51:00.000-06:00

Sorry I was gone a bit longer than expected. (Making the world safe for democracy takes time.) We now return you to your regularly scheduled vitriol.

Looking ahead

2006-03-23T00:56:00.000-06:00

Sorry about the infrequency in posting as of late; I've been busier than usual. I've also been very behind on my email, so if you've sent me something and I haven't responded, that's why.

Now, I'm about to go incommunicado for a few days, so there probably won't be anything new here until Sunday or so. Hope all is well with everyone.

Too funny

2006-03-22T09:58:00.000-06:00

Michelle Malkin:

"If you can't see the poster for the Islamist-pandering piece of propaganda that it is, there's nothing I can do to help you."

All righty then.

The truth behind the criminalization movement

2006-03-21T22:43:00.000-06:00

It's long been obvious to anyone with the observational powers afforded by an even marginally rational disposition that the vast majority of those who advocate the criminalization of abortion are motivated not by a deeply and sincerely felt desire to "save babies," but rather by an anachronistic ecclesiastical wish to punish women for having sex outside the confines of marriage (within which, it is assumed, the question of abortion wouldn't come up - why would anyone but a shameful harlot want to avoid the divinely-dictated consequences of intercourse?). Why else would activists who ostensibly want to see as few abortions as possible be opposed to (or even not intensely enthusiastic about) the proliferation of birth control?

Still, it's always nice to see these things demonstrated, and Kevin Drum links to a post at Alas, a blog that does a pretty good job of making things plain. Basically, the author makes a chart that includes most of the policies supported by the criminalization movement, asking two questions about each: "Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder?" (the professed motivation of the anti-choicers) and "Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer the consequences?" You can guess what the answers are.

On a side note, it's nice to see the Drumstir (as Battlepanda likes to call him) continue to refuse to placate the Amy Sullivan set by conceding that the pro-criminalization movement is about anything other than raw misogyny. Kevin is one of the few popular male bloggers who consistently pays attention to abortion politics; I wish more would. Abortion rights seems to be treated as something that women are supposed to worry about; as long as liberal men are on the record as being pro-choice, they feel they've done their part. The only time I ever get questioned about my gender is when I write about abortion; the notion that I could be a woman (I'm not) seems to cross people's minds only when I pay an unusual amount of attention (for a male) to the issue.

It's true that abortion is a "women's issue" in the sense that it is primarily women who suffer the consequences of the march toward criminalization, but that doesn't mean that only women should be alarmed by it. The Iraq War affects few of us directly, but we don't leave it to Iraqis and US military personnel to complain about it. The war on women's reproductive rights is something that should outrage anyone who respects basic principles of justice and autonomy, regardless of what gender they happen to be.

The only sane answer is "No"

2006-03-21T15:50:00.000-06:00

President Bush was asked:

"Do you believe this: that the War in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse and if not, why not?"

His response:

"I haven’t really thought of it that way."

That's right: not, "No," not, "Do I look like an idiot?," not "Are you crazy? Hell no!" The president of the United States just hasn't really considered that particular possibility as of yet.

Anyway, the Iranians are led by a religious fanatic and must therefore be bombed back to the Stone Age immediately!!

Link (via Blogometer).

2006-03-21T13:17:00.000-06:00

The National Security Strategy

2006-03-20T12:17:00.000-06:00

In case you missed it, the new NSS is up. More attention ought to be paid to official documents like these, as they often provide a surprising degree of frankness about the administration's goals and plans. Of course, it's all drenched in a thick covering of rhetorical bullshit; I haven't worked through it yet, but a quick glance yields knee-slappers like "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" an "the United States Government will work to advance human dignity in word and deed."

Also notable is the fact that an entire chapter is included with the title "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade." Putting aside the destructiveness and injustice of "free trade" policy, what possible relevance does this have to "national security"? The administration's answer:

"Promoting free and fair trade has long been a bedrock tenet of American foreign policy. Greater economic freedom is ultimately inseparable from political liberty."

Of course, they mean "free and fair trade" for big business; "political liberty" for multinational corporations. But it's true that such economic motives have long been at the heart of US foreign policy, and continue to be. But the atrocity of using war as just another means to profit goes unmentioned in the mainstream, corporate press.

Mmkay

2006-03-19T21:02:00.000-06:00

Mark Noonan: "Iraq is one of the most brilliantly conducted military operations in history."

Is Bush the worst ever?

2006-03-18T23:17:00.000-06:00

Matt Yglesias has a puzzling post:

...seriously, what's with Harry Reid saying George W. Bush is "the worst president this country has ever had" or Hillary Clinton's similar claim that he's "one of the worst" in American history? On domestic policy, he's certainly been a bad president in the sense that I would gladly prefer Al Gore or John Kerry or Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman or Wesley Clark or Russ Feingold or pretty much whomever you like ... bad in a run-of-the-mill, parties- alternate-in- power, rightwingers- are-all-bad kind of way.

On other fronts, the Afghan War was necessary and it's been handled okay ... This just isn't the stuff out of which world-historical badness is made.

But wait! I forgot something: Iraq.

I still don't know that "worst ever" is the right thing to say, but certainly when Iraq comes into the picture you can start to see the case that Bush is super-bad. That was a big, giant, important blunder whose consequences we'll be living with for years if not decades. But then again, Clinton and Reid both . . . supported the war and don't support substantially changing Bush's war policy right now. So what can they be talking about? Who knows?

Now, what the import of this debate is I can't even imagine, so I don't even know why I'm commenting on it (but then again, few of these debates we have do matter, in the sense of actually having an effect on anything). But first of all, the Afghan war was neither necessary nor proper, and it has certainly not been "handled okay." And Yglesias ignores Bush's "handling" of the Katrina disaster, as Scott Shields points out.

It's true that it's hard to imagine Clinton and Reid basing their comments on the Iraq war, considering their support for it, but that's not really relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim that Bush is the worst ever.

I don't know if Bush is the worst ever; certainly Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman would deserve to be mentioned in that conversation, along with a few others. But he has been a disaster on every front, with basically nothing positive to point to, a track record which certainly puts him in the running. And he's still got three years to go.

Coolest death ever

2006-03-17T22:08:00.000-06:00

From Wikipedia:

Frank Hayes was a jockey who in 1953 suffered a fatal heart attack in the midst of a race. His horse, Sweet Kiss, finished and won the race with his lifeless body still atop, making him the first, and thus far only, jockey to win a race while dead.

Kind of makes you wonder how much of a role the jockeys really play, though.

Censure

2006-03-17T16:23:00.000-06:00

Sam Rosenfeld wonders how Harry Reid could possibly fail to support Feingold's censure resolution, given that Reid believes Bush is "the worst president this country has ever had."

(Is Bush the worst? There's a case to be made, if for no other reason than that the stakes are so much higher than they were when, say, Harding was president.)

Some are complaining that Feingold acted irresponsibly in bringing up the resolution; the charge is that he took his fellow Democrats by surprise. But first of all, do we know that? Just because Dems are scrambling doesn't mean they didn't have advance warning. I'm not saying Feingold did let them know ahead of time; I'm just wondering if anybody really knows.

But even if he did catch them off guard, that's hardly an excuse. This should be a no-brainer; if Harry Reid really believes Bush is the worst president ever, how many days does he need to decide that a censure is appropriate? Unless they're deliberating on whether to call for impeachment instead, or they believe that the censure should concern something other than the NSA scandal, he and the rest of the Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses pronto.

Father ready to give up plan to avenge dead son in Iraq

2006-03-17T15:13:00.000-06:00

From the AP:

AL-ASAD, Iraq It's been six months since a grieving Georgia father headed to Iraq to avenge his soldier son's death. And Joe Johnson is ready to come home.

Johnson went to Iraq after his 22-year-old son was killed in a roadside bombing. He says there were a lot of reasons for getting back in the military -- a sense of duty among them. Johnson admits he does not "really have love for Muslim people." And he says he'd be lying if didn't admit wanting some revenge for his son, Justin.

Now, after spending time manning a Humvee's gun, Johnson says he "shouldn't even have come." Johnson says he doesn't want to kill innocent people and won't be upset if he returns to Georgia without any blood on his hands.

Johnson's batallion is due to return home in mid-May.

Maybe this will help

2006-03-17T14:34:00.000-06:00

Fucking Blogger

2006-03-17T11:59:00.000-06:00

Grrrrr....

The dark side of Webster

2006-03-15T18:02:00.000-06:00

You thought it was just a sitcom about a cute little black kid who was adopted by rich white people and dated Michael Jackson. Oh, were you wrong.

When wingnuts try to be cool

2006-03-15T16:05:00.000-06:00

They make an offhand, one-line blog post that says: "The new Mogwai album is pretty good."

They've already started a website for conservatives who like organic food and wear Birkenstocks; maybe they'll start one for wingnuts who are into post-rock.

Cowards

2006-03-15T12:44:00.000-06:00

Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Durbin; none of them will even comment on Feingold's proposed censure of the president.

However, Kos digs up a list of senators who were willing to censure President Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, a list which includes Kerry, Schumer, and Durbin (as well as Kennedy, Lieberman, and Reid, among many others). This is maybe ever-so-slightly unfair, since in that context a resolution for censure was advocated as an alternative to impeachment, a possible compromise. But if these Democrats want to use that as an excuse, they will have to admit either that President Clinton was deserving of censure but President Bush is not, or that they supported the censure of Clinton even though they didn't actually believe it was warranted. Or I suppose, as a third possibility, they could say that they believe Bush is worthy of censure, but that they still don't support the resolution, but this would be more or less tantamount to admitting that they are cowards.

UPDATE: Via Kevin Drum I discover that the excuse mentioned above actually isn't available; the resolution to censure Clinton was introduced after the impeachment proceedings had concluded.

Chico-towner asks in the comments:

"Bush is at 34%... why aren't they ravaging his political carcass?"

Handdrummer answers:

"Because as a group they lack the courage of a lone buzzard."

How many Iraq dead?

2006-03-15T11:48:00.000-06:00

George Bush says 30,000; Andrew Cockburn says it's probably more like 180,000, possibly as many as half a million.

Joe Lieberman, protecting a rapist's right to breed

2006-03-14T23:22:00.000-06:00

Joementum doesn't think that hospitals should be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, saying "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital."

~~Battlepanda~~ Brock wants that quote to haunt him for the rest of his career. He's right. Hell, it should be his fucking epitaph.