There are yet more conversations coming out of the woodwork to show that *gasp* Bush wanted to head into Iraq, no matter what:
The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not....We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's good cop.
Not that any of this matters anymore, but there you go.
John Cusack and Naomi Klein discussing crisis capitalism:
Via Jill, who incisively calls John Cusack "the thinking woman's sex symbol for nearly two decades." Totally.
As I've mentioned before, I had the opportunity to chat with him a few times, when we used to frequent the same record store in Chicago, and he really is just a lovely guy—as clever and witty as you'd hope, with excellent taste in music. Extremely crushworthy.
Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, takes a look at Sen. Hillary Clinton's faith and practice.
Clinton is neither secular nor awkward about her faith. She cites her Methodist upbringing as a formative experience, with its emphasis on "preaching and practicing the social gospel." As a teenager in 1962, she heard and met the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Chicago -- what would have been a profound experience for a spiritually alert youth -- and was later politically radicalized by his assassination. The likely Democratic nominee participates regularly in small-group Bible studies and is familiar with the works of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer -- the theological heroes of mainline Protestantism (and of some stray Evangelicals like myself).
In a nation obsessed by the influence of religious conservatives, it is easy to forget that liberal Protestants were once the dominant cultural influence in America. Beginning in the early 20th century, the social gospel advanced swiftly through most American denominations. Progressive presidents such as Woodrow Wilson spoke in the cadences of this movement: "Christianity was just as much intended to save society as to save the individual, and there is a sense in which it is more important that it should save society."
Of course his main obsession with Senator Clinton is how she squares her stand for social equality with her stand on reproductive choice.
At the same time ... her defense of abortion rights has been strident, even radical. She has attacked pro-life people as enemies of "evidence," "science" and "the Constitution." And she has blamed pro-life "ideologues" for the prevalence of abortions because of their "silent war on contraception" -- a remarkable accusation that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control is somehow responsible for abortion in America.
At the risk of teaching biology without a license, lack of contraception is the leading cause of pregnancy, and people who become pregnant have been known to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. So, yes, opposition to contraception does lead to abortion.
It is interesting that Mr. Gerson is willing to give Senator Clinton the same credit for being a person of faith without accusing her of coldly calculating to garner votes from the religious voters, but he wonders if she can pull it off.
How are religious voters likely to respond to a religious believer who is also a social liberal? Roman Catholics, with their strong commitment to the poor, should be open to a Democratic message of economic justice. A majority of Christians, Catholic and Protestant, support the goals of broader health coverage and increased humanitarian aid abroad. But the most intensely religious Americans of both traditions also tend to be the most conservative on moral issues such as abortion. And it is hard to imagine that these voters will be successfully courted by the most comprehensively pro-choice presidential candidate in American history.
Not all religious voters are single-issue voters, and the Religious Reich weren't going to vote for Hillary Clinton regardless of her stand on abortion. And if they have trouble squaring her social views and religious views, at least she has been consistent compared with the Republicans; John McCain jumps between Baptist and Episcopalian depending on who he's pandering to (I was surprised to see he didn't wear a yarmulke last week for Yom Kippur); Rudy Giuliani, a nominal Roman Catholic, has been all over the map on choice and gay rights in between writing alimony checks; Mitt Romney's Mormonism is still seen as a cult by the True Believers, and Fred Thompson doesn't go to church at all. Yet the GOP is willing to give them all a pass while giving Hillary Clinton the third degree?
Perhaps I'm incredibly naive, but I've never cared what religion a candidate was when deciding whether or not to vote for them, and I really don't care whether or not their faith informs their public policy. I do care how they practice their public policy, and that's all that really matters anyway.
The thing is, it's a totally fair headline. Bush quite genuinely did stun human rights activists by standing in front of the UN yesterday and delivering a speech in which he implored the UN to "recommit itself to restoring human decency," without a trace of irony or the merest glimpse of self-awareness.
Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who's widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism.
Bush didn't mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's "rendition" kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world.
"At first read, it's little more than an exercise in hypocrisy. His words about human rights ring hollow because his credibility is nonexistent," said Curt Goering, the deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA. "The gap between the rhetoric and the actual record is stunning. I can't help but believe many people in the audience were thinking, 'What was this man thinking?' "
…"I believe the president should be championing human rights at the U.N., but he's lost his authority and credibility as a world leader because of his policies on rendition and Guantanamo," said Tom Malinowski, the advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "His remarks would be more effective if the U.S. was practicing what it's preaching."
That pretty much sums it up.
Meanwhile, speaking of human rights and jettisoning habeas corpus, former US presidential candidate and zany wee nutbag H. Ross Perot has put up for sale his own personal 13th-century copy of the Magna Carta. He had loaned it to the National Archives for display, but instead of permanently donating it, which is something lots of billionaires tend to do with valuable artifacts, he's just gonna auction it off to the highest bidder. Which seems somehow appropriate in the good old US of A these days.
So, here's the part you're all going to want to talk about:
(click for non-worksafe version; photo by Oliviero Toscani)
That's Isabelle Caro, a 27-year-old woman with anorexia, whose picture is being displayed all over Milan during fashion week as part of an ad campaign for No.l.ita, an Italian clothing brand. Cheers to Caro for bravely showing people what her body really looks like. More cheers to the cities of Madrid and Milan for banning starving models from their runways. And yet more cheers to No.l.ita for acknowledging the connection between fashion advertising and eating disorders -- even if their website is still full of images of unusually thin, hypersexualized women who seem to carry all their weight in their hair.
Now for the jeers.
Jeers to Milan City Council official Tiziana Maiolo for going on the record with this statement:
"I don't think men want to see skeletal women and I want to say to women who are fuller- figured there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. They are undoubtedly the prettiest women about and the most intelligent."
I was with you part of the way there, Tiziana. But A) what "men want to see" really, really should not be the standard by which we judge the cultural acceptability of different women's bodies, and B) there are still plenty of ugly, dumb fat women, just as there are plenty of ugly, dumb thin women. I can't stand it when people attempting to make vaguely fat-positive statements resort to slagging off thin women or making unrealistic claims about the fabulousness of larger women. (I swear, I'm gonna punch the next fat woman who publicly self-identitifies as a "goddess" or a "diva" or a "queen" [the Queen excepted, of course] instead of a normal, mortal woman who happens to be fat.) The point here is not to set up a contest among very thin women and less thin women and moderately fat women and very fat women to see which category is Prettiest, Smartest, Kindest to Animals, whatever. The point is to acknowledge that we're all equally fucking human.
Jeers to Giorgio Armani, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana for still not acknowledging that the fashion industry has any affect on the incidence of eating disorders among young women. With extra-special bonus jeers to Gabbana for this remark:
Even people who take no notice of fashion get anorexic.
Yes, and those people? Live in a culture that takes entirely too much notice of fashion. They see images of ultra-thin models and actors every day -- images that normalize an extremely rare body type -- even if they never pick up a copy of Vogue or turn on a television. It's not something you have to pay attention to. You're soaking in it, dimwit.
And finally, jeers to No.l.itafor the superfluous periods in their brand name. Come on.
Now let's talk about that image -- with every good wish to Isabelle Caro that she may finally overcome the eating disorder she's suffered from for well over a decade. What do you think of this ad campaign, Shakers?
[Transcript: In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom, and as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly, and ultimately free and competitive elections.]
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran we don't have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you we have it." — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
-- was greeted with derisive laughter and catcalls from the audience at Columbia. The reaction of Ahmadinejad is priceless.
Of course Iran has gays, as does every country of the world, and Iran has executed them, so the president's whopper is just further proof that he's a liar and a thug. I'm a great believer in the Mel Brooks theory of how to deal with terrible people: laugh at them, and the audience at Columbia, with their impromptu and perfect response to this little tinpot despot was exactly what was needed. All of a sudden his preening anti-American rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual pomposity, not to mention his crocodile tears about being criticized by the president of the university, showed that he was just a petulant little turd, hardly worth all the rants from the outraged that made Mr. Ahmadinejad the boogeyman. He deserved nothing more than the laughter and the catcalls he got, and you can bet that played well back in Tehran.
Now what's really needed is a good gay make-over for Iran; get away from all that tired Persian desert architecture or boring glass and steel from the era of the Shah. They need something that makes the country completely gay-friendly, something that says, "Hey, boys, fly away on my carpet!" And it looks like Bruce McCall of The New Yorker has provided the perfect rendering for the newest condo tower in Iran.
Absolutely mental! It's the sound that their heads make when they hit each other's bodies that's just crazy. Thwap! Thunk! ZOMG.
At the state fair a few years ago, I had the opportunity to get right up next to a giraffe. First of all, even having seen them from a short distance at a zoo, I didn't fully appreciate the genuine enormity of giraffes until I was standing beside one—they are colossal beasties! Secondly, I'd always thought they seemed strangely delicate, balancing on those spindly legs and carrying around those impossibly long, thin necks, but being beside one, I could just feel the strength in its very presence. When I ran my hand along its neck, it was just amazing to feel the ropy muscle rippling beneath the smooth skin.
It collected some grain out of my hands with its purple tongue, to my amusement. I never thought to be glad it didn't knock the shit out of me with its head. Thwap!
John Edwards shows us how easy it could be to be rid of Bush's influence. For example, take this HIV initiative:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has unveiled a $50 billion five year HIV/AIDS strategy that also would dismantle many of the initiatives of the Bush administration which have been seen as limiting the effectiveness of earlier plans.
[...]
It would end federal funding for abstinence only education programs in schools and would provide for age-appropriate sex education. The Edwards plan also would expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive people before they reach later stage disabilities and AIDS. In addition it would encourage needle exchange programs for drug addicts.
Sounds good, but $50 billion? That sounds a tad excessive.
The latest pile of slop disgorged by the tiresome Hitchens, in which he address the possibilities that Al Gore will win the Nobel Prize and run for president, has many things wrong with it, most of which is handily taken care of by R-Far (and Sully comments on a particularly silly bit, too).
I can't let pass without comment, however, this preposterous assertion:
Should he make up his mind not to run, he would retrospectively abolish all the credit he has acquired so far. It would mean in effect that he never had the stuff to do the job and that those who worked and voted for him were wasting their time. Given his age and his stature, can he really want that to be the conclusion that history draws?
What in the bloody hell is Hitchens prattling on about? No, deciding not to campaign for the presidency in 2008 would not "retroactively abolish all the credit he has acquired so far." If anything, there is a more viable argument to be made that jumping into the race at this point would rob Gore of his capital as an advocate and statesman—an argument with which I happen to disagree, but regard as patently more meritorious than its opposite, being proposed here by Hitch.
No one adores and admires Al Gore, and wants him to run, more than I do; I've been longing for him to be my president for literally more than half my life. If he announced his candidacy, I'm certain I would faint dead away from happiness. But if he doesn't, I won't blame him a bit—and I certainly wouldn't consider having supported and voted for him a waste of my time, nor determine that he never had "the stuff to do the job."
Given the well-documented media hostility toward Gore, the means by which Bush was awarded the presidency after a bitter race in which Gore carried a majority of the voters if not the electoral college, and the far-reaching positive effects Gore has had advocating on behalf of his lifetime pet projects—the environment and the internet—not to mention the related personal success (writing a few bestselling books, launching a cable network, starring in the most successful documentary of all time, winning an Oscar, winning an Emmy, and getting nominated for the Nobel Prize), I almost can't imagine why he'd want to run for president again.
The truth is, we need him more than he needs the presidency. Eclipsing the most powerful position in the world with service to the global community is hardly evidence of not having the stuff to do the job of president. And if history draws the conclusion that he should have run, but didn't, I imagine he could live with that. After all, we had our chance to have a President Gore.
So Mr. Shakes sends me this article from the BBC about a former US intercontinental ballistic missile base being offered on eBay for a mere $1.5 million that the seller claims is a "gorgeous" property which could make a great summer camp or resort. (Here's the listing, if you're interested.) Says the BBC: "It is the ideal home for an aspiring James Bond villain, or an anxious survivalist seeking a refuge that can withstand an atomic bomb."
I was thinking, "Who on earth would have both the inclination and the resources to buy something like that?" But of course the answer is obvious.
This is Shaker Natasha's recipe for the dish mentioned in the comments of a recent QoTD:
Spinach, Garlic, Garbanzo Bean Soup
* 2 T olive oil * 4 crushed cloves of peeled garlic * 1 coarsely chopped onion (more or less to taste, but don't skip it entirely, even if you don't like onions) * 2 t. Cumin to season the onions and garlic * 5-6 cups of veggie or chicken stock, depending if you are a carnivore or a veggievore * 3 potatoes, peeled and chopped into 1/2 inch or so chunks * 15-oz can garbanzo beans, sans liquid * 1 c. fat free half and half (you can go the full cream route, if you want, but it doesn't add much) * 4 T. tahini (not essential - it tastes fine without it, but adds a nice touch) * 2-4 tablespoons corn meal (some people use corn starch, but corn meal adds a lovely flavor and thickness, a heartiness to the soup) * 1/2 pound or more spinach (again, add more or less depending on your preferences * Cayenne pepper or chili pepper flakes
Saute the onion and garlic in the heated oil, and season with cumin when tender. Add the veggie/chicken stock and potatoes, bring to a boil and then simmer for about 10 minutes. While that is cooking, mix the half and half, tahini and corn meal together, and add to the cooked soup. Heat through, then stir in spinach and cayenne/chili pepper flakes, and simmer for about 10-15 minutes more. It's even better the next day!
Looks fabulous! Let's get this going again--send in your favorites to: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com. If you have a blog, include a link!
In Part 1, we reviewed how Mr. Fiscal is throwing all of our money into the war shitter, directly contributing to a bleak outlook for our economy.
As I previously noted, there are plenty of domestic items that could use all of the billions of dollars being thrown to the war. Thanks to Supergenius, we now have one in the headlines: SCHIP.
In his current showdown with Congress, Bush claimed that the proposed SCHIP bill, at $35 billion, contains "excessive spending," which is quite the contrast to the $200 billion he's asking for Iraq, in addition to the astronomical amount we're already spending. Speaking of what we're already spending, here's something for you to chew on, care of the Dem Caucus:
That's right, everyone. In Bush economy, 35 is greater than 200 and $200 billion is not excessive. I think that at this point in his lame duck status, it would be nice for Supergenius to just say what he feels and stop beating around himself. If he feels his biblical mission in the Middle East is more important than anything else in our own country, he should just say it and cut the posturing crap. He shouldn't hide it in some ridiculous veto threat that defies logic. But, he won't. He won't, because he's scared to do anything that could upset his delusional view of his place in history.
It's ironic that a conservative like David Brooks would think that he would know what makes up the "center" of either political party, and it's even more funny when he dismisses the progressive "netroots," which he seems to think consists solely of the readers of Daily Kos, as being self-righteous and bullying. Nothing like that happens on the right, you know.
Although I am a huge science geek, my knowledge of quantum mechanics is so basic, so cursory, so pathetically limited, that I literally have nothing to say about this except ZOMG it's totally fucking cool!
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe. A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
This "bizarre idea" has been previously been dismissed by experts, but, because it provides a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums, as evidenced by the new research, it's suddenly looking less fanciful than it once did and "suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track."
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
So what I totally love about this is how it pulls back a curtain to give us a glimpse of how little we really actually know about the universe(s). We think we're so sophisticated, but we're still bloodletting with leeches to cure us of our plethoras.
Naturally, I have already incorporated the parallel universe theory into our lives at The Nerdery, aka Shakes Manor: "In a parallel universe, you do not pass me the ketchup. In this universe, however, you do." I don't think I've seen Mr. Shakes (who forwarded this story to me yesterday afternoon) quite so pleased by my geekitude since we were playing "Who Would Win in a Fight" last week and I offered up "a warg or a tauntaun?"
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
In 
