Condalmo

Putting your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la la.

Nice. 

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion.

It's too bad the country is worn out from seeing so much of this from Bush & Co. that this story probably won't get much traction.  Flooding, wildfires, droughts - and it's only June!  La la la la la la

"Grampa, how did you take off your underwear without taking off your pants?"

via.

The new Obama rumors.

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

More here. 

Also of interest, should you have fearful relatives, as I do.

John McCain is going off the rails on a crazy train.

Does the man have anyone advising him?  I mean, I don't think he should be groomed into blandness like Gore was, but come on, the guy's making daily blunders.  From his green screen animatronic response to Obama securing the nomination, to asserting yesterday that he wants to lower taxes for corporations (are those the same corporations making record profits while you and I pay $4 at the pump and the economy's completely in the toilet?  why, yes) and make Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent (seeing how marvelously that stimulated the economy), to this on the Today show this morning:

What?  His campaign is trying to spin it as Obama/Democrat spin, and pointing to the full transcript, which includes the following (picking up where the above video left off):

American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General [David] Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.

“But the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. I’m proud of them. And they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that.”

It's fascinating that you don't realize that you just said it's not too important, dumbass, which is the first part of your statement and the part people are going to remember, and then you explained that the important thing is actually reducing American casualties, and inferred that as long as casualties are reduced, we'll just be keeping a whole of troops there indefinitely.  Nice!  That explanation will sit well with military families - as long as fewer people are dying, why not keep them in a dangerous war-torn country, away from their families?  Pretty callous, dude.  I think the Democrats are responding a bit hysterically - they should focus on not only "that's not important" but also the context, because just focusing on McCain's callousness isn't enough - it needs to be made clear why he's taking this stance.  Which is American Empire.

What will tomorrow bring?  I predict McCain will announce that he doesn't support increasing education benefits for returning soldiers.  Wait, nevermind, already did that!

UPDATE:  No sooner do I close this post and click over to my reader do I get a vision of the future:

And most disturbingly, McCain told a Cheney biographer in 2006 that he would want Cheney serving in his administration, should he be elected president:

"I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States... I don't know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

Yeah, he'd make a top-notch secretary of defense, wouldn't he?  Wouldn't he, John?  John? ...

I could ask my local taxidermist, I guess.

I still see a lot of cars and trucks (mostly trucks) that still have their Official U.S. Government Issue USA Terrorist Hunting Permit stickers, all red, white, blue, and sparkly. They're so pretty and shiny in the sun.

I wonder how many evildoers those brave souls have bagged. You'd think they'd all be caught by now.

McCain prefers you stupid and carrying a gun.

Okay, not exactly accurate, but it has a nice ring to it, couple of different meanings there if you toss in an extra comma.  I like McCain well enough most of the time, and I don't think it would be politically smart or even fair/nice to go after his military record, but what he does as a politician in relation to today's troops seems like fair game to me.  Especially when he doesn't return to the Senate to cast his NO vote, knowing how asinine/vulnerable it makes him look:

McCain's opposition to Senate legislation that would expand educational benefits for military veterans ignited a heated crossfire between the two White House contenders as they gear up for November's presidential election campaign.

McCain, a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam, reacted sharply after Obama criticized him for opposing the legislation. The Arizona senator did not return to the Senate to vote on the measure, which passed easily.

"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans," McCain said. "And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."

Obama, an Illinois senator who did not serve in the military, said he was proud to "give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve" by voting for the bill. He said in a statement he was disappointed by McCain's attack.

I think that it probably makes sense to McCain - well, okay, maybe not:

The legislation that sparked the exchange was sponsored by Virginia Democratic Sen. James Webb and Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, both military veterans. McCain and the Bush administration said it was so generous it could encourage veterans to leave the military after one term to take advantage of the increased college benefits.

Is it because it was sponsered by Jim "Did You Hear Me On Fresh Air?" Webb and Chuck "McCain You Dimwit" Hagel (not their actual names)?  Probably not, but who knows.  Nice of McCain to associate himself with George "20% and Dropping" Bush again, though.  Thanks!

Isn't the idea behind the bill to A) reward troops for a job well done, and B) provide incentive for intelligent, motivated young men and women to join up?  Because, Hello Desert Storm, you're not joining up because you want to be An Army of One Guy With PTSD and Some Unidentifiable Fatal Rash, you're joining up because the G.I. Bill will enable you to make a better life for yourself, and your children, when your tour of duty is up.  Would it encourage veterans to leave?  Maybe, if they're fighting with a ridiculous mandate in the middle of an endless civil war (oops!), but with college/trade school costs going up all the time, what else are you going to do to keep the volunteer draft workable?  Volunteer, maybe?   

Here's a picture of Javier Marias pointing to the pain caused him by illogical decisionmaking re: troop benefits.

75,000.

Wow.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch...  (via)

Younger than McCain.

That's not all.

Dear Scared in Texas.

My question: how does the following scared white person relate to offal?

This woman in Houston, Texas argues that people who can't communicate in English should be deported. (via)

Gas Tax Holiday.

Politics ahoy.  If the gas-tax holiday over the summer becomes a reality - and it won't, but if it does - I'm sending the $30 it will save me (and you, and all of you) to the Obama campaign.  I didn't want to get this site into politics again, but come on:

Hillary Clinton has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year—an idea that actually could aid the terrorists. What's worse, both of them know that suspending the federal gas tax this summer is a terrible pander, and yet they're pushing it anyway for crass political advantage.

Clinton and McCain have learned a destructive lesson from the Bush era: as Bill Clinton said in 2002, it's better politically to be "strong and wrong" than thoughtful and right. The goal is to depict Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. By any means necessary.        

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

Why is this gas pander so bad?...

On top of everything you can read at that link: as Obama pointed out the other day, it's slight of hand so that McCain - and Bandwagon Hillary - can look tough and concerned.  As he also pointed out, for the vast majority of people, the savings will amount to around $30.  Which will buy you half a tank of gas.  Don't take his word for it, and please don't take my word for it - take every conservative and liberal economist's word for it, because nobody with a calculator should be falling for this crap.  If Hillary wants to be known as the candidate for change, this works well, because the gas tax holiday will give you just that.  A pocketful of change. 

Hillary wants you to know she cares.

I want you to know Hillary is full of shit. 

John McCain 2000 would have known better.  John McCain 2008, well, whatever works, right?

Obama's running mate chosen; older (slightly) than McCain.

The best part is her reaction to his question.  82 years old, friends: we should be so lucky. (via)

Indignant hiatus interruptus.

Bush's '09  Budget Eliminates RIF Funding

by Kevin Howell -- Publishers Weekly, 4/17/2008 8:08:00 AM

President Bush's proposed 2009 budget eliminates all the funding for Reading Is Fundamental's book distribution program that has, since 1966, provided more than 325 million books to more than 30 million underprivileged children.

"With 13 million children living in poverty in this country, the need for RIF has never been greater," said RIF CEO/president Carol Rasco, The annually funded RIF program is currently approved through September 2009, but if Bush's budget is approved, 4.6 million children will not receive 16 million free books the following year. RIF, the oldest and largest children's and family nonprofit literacy organization in the U.S, has been funded by Congress and six Administrations without interruption since 1975.

"With a recent report showing a declining interest in reading among adults and teens, supporting children's literacy is critical to reversing this trend.," said Rasco.

"We received $26.6 million in federal funding in 2007 and we're requesting $26 million this year," said Frank Walter, RIF's director of marketing/PR, adding that 75% of funds are provided by federal grants and 25% is raised locally by RIF's 19,000 volunteer outlets that distribute books at childcare centers, schools or migrant work programs. Ninety percent of the organization's funds go to purchasing new books for lower income children and for motivational reading activities that take place during RIF's book distribution.

RIF's Web site (www.RIF.org) provides a link for supporters to find their senator and representative and send an email message to them and President Bush in support of continued funding. The appropriation committee will be meeting in May and June to decide on budgets.

James Patterson's recent blog urged fans to visit RIF's site and voice their concerns. "RIF, if you don't know, is one of the pioneers of kid-directed book distribution programs," Patterson wrote. "I've already reached out. Do you think you might take a couple minutes to reach out to your congresspersons? Infusing a love of books in our own kids is challenging enough . . . imagine how hard it is to do in families without our resources and level of education."

This is the second time the Bush administration has tried to cut RIF's funding. Bush's first budget proposal in 2001 originally allotted no money for the organization. "There was an uproar across the country and it was reinstated," said Walter.

Ironically, while President Bush continually overlooks the organization, both his wife and mother have held positions within the organization. Barbara Bush served on RIF's Board of Directors from 1980 to 1988 and then on its National Advisory Board from 1989 to 1992 (chairing the Advisory Board for three of the four years.) Laura Bush served on RIF's National Advisory Council from 1996 to 2001.

We now return to temporarily lurking, hovering, and not posting. 

Writer-in-chief: the stylings of Obama and Clinton.

I find this sort of thing fascinating.  Granted, you can only take so much of this, and with a grain of salt, but I'm of the mind that it does matter.  An ability to write well doesn't necessarily indicate an ability to govern well; but an inability to write well, or speak well - you needn't look too far for an example of how that goes. 

The books of Hillary and Barack are stacked up against each other, and Hillary doesn't fare very well.  I'm sure HRC supporters will add this to their tally of grievances against the media for attacking HRC and heaping hossannas on BHO, but the piece dishes out criticism of Obama's stylings, too.  I question the assertion abut HRC's sincerity, but the self-pity - and both the authenticity/narcissism of BHO - have some truth to them.  The whole thing's worth a read, but here's an excerpt:

Indeed, whenever Mrs. Clinton lashes out at her political enemies — President Clinton's opponent in an Arkansas governor's race, or the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, or Kenneth Starr — it is always in a tone of self-pity. This is not to pass judgment on her complaints, simply to note that, unlike most politicians, Mrs. Clinton sees political attacks as personal grievances — especially when she feels that her good intentions are being questioned. For if self-pity is Mrs. Clinton's major vice, that is only because it corresponds to what she understands to be her biggest virtue: sincerity. While she will admit to losing her temper or to misjudging the consequences of her actions, nowhere in the pages of "Living History" does she admit to a bad motive. She always sincerely means well; and it follows that, if her opponents disagree with her, they must be insincere and mean ill...

Conversely, if Mrs. Clinton's favorite anecdotes have to do with demonstrating the sincerity of her feelings, Mr. Obama's have to do with overawing people with the force of his authenticity. He writes that his constituents "tell me that they have great hopes for me, but that they are worried that Washington is going to change me and I will end up just like all the rest of the people in power. Please stay who you are, they will say to me."

As these lines suggest, if the vice of sincerity is self-pity, the vice of authenticity is narcissism — the belief that one is virtuous and lovable simply for being one's self. When one of Mr. Obama's supporters, questioned on a television talk show, notoriously couldn't name a single one of the candidate's accomplishments, he was inadvertently carrying to its conclusion the logic of authenticity: the idea that what you are matters more than what you do. The overreliance of Mr. Obama's campaign on his personal charisma is already emerging as the favorite target of his opponents. Ironically, if his books weren't so well written, they wouldn't offer such credible support for the charge.

(via.)

If the Red Sox played the Yankees in the World Series.

I know, it can't happen, but Obama/Clinton has the same sort of feel, no?  With lots of people scoffing at the notion that any of the Republican candidates having a chance in the general election, given the scandal-ridden Republican party, adrift with an ignoramus at the wheel, it's the Democrats' to lose.  (Of course, that was true the last two times as well, but never mind that for now.)  This Obama/Clinton (okay, /Edwards, but hold on) has a Red Sox/Yankees/World Series kind of flavor to it. 

Andrew Sullivan on the "tears" she "cried" the other day over the stresses and frustrations of the campaign:

The question to be asked is this: should women in public life be treated exactly the same as men? If so, is it not relevant to note that any male candidate who cried in public about the stresses of his campaign would essentially be finished? When we don't hold her to that standard, are we being sexist or just humane? I mean, I have long felt her to be one of my least favorite national politicians, but I can still see she's hurting, even if her bewilderment is inextricable from her sense of entitlement. I'm okay with politicians weeping occasionally in public. Churchill did it all the time.

On the other hand, I can see why Clinton can get frustrated. When she went tough on her opponents in the last debate, she was deemed "vicious" or "shrill" rather than simply aggressive. Maybe she can't win either way.

No, I suspect not.  I think she's simultaneously the first woman to have a genuine shot at becoming president, and the least likely woman to ever become president.  She's reviled by anyone within three inches of the right-side border of moderate centrism, and the media has largely bungled coverage, giving legs to cleavage stories, pantsuit stories, and now misty eyes.  And she's hated because of her husband, who also famously gave her some other reasons to dislike him; if she loses to Obama, he's partially to blame.  She's mired in the "woman for president" business. 

I would love to see a woman president, but not her.  Here's my take - the Clinton campaign is recognized as having the biggest political machine working to get their woman the nomination.  I do think she's calculating, for better and for worse, and I have to wonder if someone so controlled, so clearly intelligent and planful, would go into that diner unaware of her emotional status, unaware of the effect - disgusting as it is - that seeing her "crying" on national television will have on millions of undecided voters who haven't really thought all that much about whether a woman might be too emotional to be president.  As Sullivan said, if a male candidate got misty-eyed over the stress, he'd probably not even be allowed back on his own campaign bus.  I can't help but wonder what she was thinking, though I don't like myself much for wondering.

Edwards, for me, has pushed too many wrong buttons in recent weeks.  I like the anti-corporation message, though  he does sort of do it with crayons, but he's starting to grate.  This was a very stupid thing for him to do, on so many levels:

This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:

"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"

Dude, you just made yourself the anti-Obama, flushed your female voters down the toilet, and hung an "opportunist" placard around your neck.  Now who is Obama going to tap for V.P.?

 

Ron Paul: Shoot to Thrill.

It's unlikely that I would ever vote for Ron Paul, Internet Superstar; but, you've got to admire the man for calling "fascist" when he sees it.  We're seeing it a lot these days; nice to see it dropped into the discourse, if only briefly. 

Also: will someone please kick that "news" "anchor" in the ballsack?  All I want for Christmas.

(via.)

Orders already coming in from the Oval Office.

Experimental Xerox Paper Erases Itself,  Results In Temporary Documents On Reusable Paper

Xerox Corporation scientists have invented a way to make prints whose images last only a day, so that the paper can be used again and again. The technology, which is still in a preliminary state, blurs the line between paper documents and digital displays and could ultimately lead to a significant reduction in paper use.

You know - because they're environmentalists.

State of the nation: related headlines.

One appears right after the other on my news page.  Just another day in America.

"Childrens do learn," Bush tells school kids (Reuters)

Court won't declare chimp a person (AP)

Video: real or fake?

Or, both, I suppose.

Joe Biden: white!

Joe Biden wants your vote, black Democrats of America.  He's counting on it.

In the interview, Biden described Obama as "the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Asked during an afternoon conference call with reporters to explain his choice of words, Biden said he meant no offense in describing Obama the way he did, then lavished praise on the Illinois senator as a "very special guy" who has caught "lightning in a jar" like no politician he has seen before. "This guy is a superstar," he added.

Like Michael Jordan, man!  And that Webster kid!

Biden goes on to point out that there is at least one black man in America not offended by this imbroglio:

Biden also said that he had called Obama after the remarks became public and that Obama had taken no offense from them.

Obama later issued a statement that absolved Biden only in part. "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally," he said, "but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

After Obama's statement, Biden issued a statement further backtracking. "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone," he said. "That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama."

It was the second time in months that Biden has been forced to explain a comment that some interpreted as racially insensitive. In a videotaped exchange with a supporter last June, he said, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts [in Delaware] unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

Never liked the guy, anyway.  Knucklehead.  Next!

The Republican Ticket, 2008.

You heard it here first:  McCain/Lieberman. 

Big surprise.

I avoid political posts here by rule, but come on - all 16 intelligence agencies agree.  If you vote Republican this Fall, do you really have any idea why?  Are you actually thinking about your vote?  At all?