Skull Kill Krew #1 (Marvel Comics, $3.99) Adam Felber has written a comic book! I'm not sure what it's about, but hey! Brainwashed cows who regain their memories and wreck havoc on the universe? Who doesn't want to read about that? You can find it at your local comic bookshop.
HarperStudio has partnered with the Freedom to Write and International Programs at PEN American Center to publish Burn This Book, a collection of essays about censorship and literature in response to oppression, which goes on sale May 12. Edited by Toni Morrison, the volume features an A-list of contributors including Paul Auster, Nadine Gordimer, Pico Iyer, Francine Prose, Salman Rushdie, and John Updike.
The result is Burn This Book, a small volume whose essays range widely in tone and subject, yet all address the common theme of freedom of expression. Morrison's contribution explains why suppressing the voice of opposition is a hallmark of dictatorships: "Authoritarian regimes, dictators, despots are often, but not always, fools," she writes. "But none is foolish enough to give perceptive, dissident writers free range to publish their judgments or follow their creative instincts. They know they do so at their own peril."
Francine Prose balks at leaden overtly political fiction and art, and instead makes a case for "something more unexpected." Pico Iyer tells of a "bright, resourceful, well-educated" trishaw driver in Myanmar, stifled in a country where intelligence is "something to be feared and can best be used by giving oneself to something other than words and ideas."
A petition to stop censorship and more information about the book is available at the right to read. 
Flotsametrics and the Floating World: How One Man's Obsession with Runaway Sneakers and Rubber Ducks Revolutionized Ocean Science, by Curtis Ebbesmeyer and Eric Scigliano (Smithsonian Books, 286 pp., $26.95)
This promises to be a fascinating book, the life story of the oceanographer and UW professor, Curtis Ebbesmeyer. I've been watching his work ever since Ridley Pearson talked about asking his help while researching the tidal flows for his novel, Undercurrents. You've probably heard the quirky stories over the years, those shipping containers of 80,000 Nike shoes that washed overboard and how they came in with the tides along the West Coast and the rest of the world. Or that time millions of little yellow rubber duckies were lost at sea and became more popular than Japanese glass floats. Or more recently, the 6 human feet that have washed up in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
You can listen to a podcast of Prof Ebbesmeyer on KUOW.
democommie finally contributes to the Book Report! His brings us this lovely review from Nordette at blogher. I don't want to sell you this book. I want you to go buy it from the ladies at Thistle Farms, where all proceeds benefit their good works.
Find Your Way Home: Words from the Street, Wisdom from the Heart.
The Women of Magdalene wrote this book with the founder of the Magdalene community in Nashville, Tenn., Becca Stevens, an Episcopalian priest. You may be aware this organization under the name Thistle Farms through the marketing of its handmade candles and bath and body products.
Thistle Farms is a non-profit business run by women who have survived lives of violence, prostitution, and abuse. Thistle Farms products are hand-made by the very women they benefit. All proceeds go back into Thistle Farms and the residential program, Magdalene. Into every product goes the belief that freedom starts with healing and love can change lives.
UPDATED: Just for Bukko!
Fall Fund Drive
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Department of Book Reports: This and That
Friday, April 03, 2009
The Opinuary Column
The Opinion that getting rid of the Glass-Steagull Act "would be a wonderful idea" died on March 26th, 2009 while on vacation in the Bahamas. The Opinion, born in the 1930s (right after the creation of the Glass-Steagull Act) and fully realized in 1999 when Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which nullified GSA and its close friend the Bank Holding Company Act) had been suffering ill health for the past six months.
A private service was held for family and a few friends at Our Mother of Incomprehensible Securitization in Sweaty Palms, Florida. Pall bearers included former President Bill Clinton, Phil "Gitcha" "Gotcha" Gramm, Milton Friedman, Penny Pritzker, magician David Copperfield, Alan Greenspan and a visibly shaken Scrooge McDuck.
The deceased Opinion enjoyed traveling, golf, yachting and hiding. It is survived by the Opinion "The invisible hand of the free market will fix everything" and its cousin "Mine! Mine! Mine!"
In lieu of flowers the family has asked that contributions be made to bankers and insurance agents everywhere.
++++
If you would like to submit an Opinuary (it can be the death of an opinion, idea, meme or pick-up line) please email it to the Jivester: mortaljive@earthlink.net. The Opinuarys will appear on Fridays until we run out of dead ideas.
++++
Wolverines! Resist Obama's Electricity!
From WorldNetDaily where Joseph Farrah is still denying he's the gay.
Praise Revisited
I celebrated my daughter's 29th birthday tonight and I ain't got nothin' to blog, so what the heck, let's praise the Lord with Paul again.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
9-12 Wolverines!
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The 10/31 Project | ||||
| ||||
Robot Brothels Carry Pine Tree Air Fresheners
Andrea Sheldon Lafferty
Executive Director
Traditional Values Coalition
Dear Mrs. Lafferty,
I know you're completely focused on "sodomy in battlefield situations," right now--surely, all the thought you're giving to "bare-backing parties and other forms of homosexual orgies" in the military gives you little time to think about anything else--but I've leaned of another threat that deserves your attention as well. That threat is robot prostitution.
It was only a matter of time, I guess. Sooner or later, we were bound to see a case of robot prostitution--it's the logical next step after the gay marriage--now, we have such a case in Michigan.
Last week, Jason Leroy Savage was sentenced to 90 days for performing an un-natural act with what police euphemistically described as a car wash vacuum. Yeah, sure, a car wash vacuum. We've all seen these so-called "vacuums," sitting there all bright, and steely, their long sucking hoses draped seductively over their hot little hanging hooks.
You know how it is. You can almost hear them calling out to you, "Come on General. It's only a dollar. Go get some tokens. I won't laugh at you again."
Before long, the temptation becomes too great. So, you buy the tokens. You put them in. You flip the switch, but you embarrass yourself before you even get to taking the hose off the hook. And the lying whore laughs at you. Yes, it laughs at you after it promised not to. God dammit! it laughs at you! So you start crying and screaming and saying it's never happened before, and then, everyone at the car wash is looking at you and they're laughing too. Bastards. They are all god damned bastards. Fucking bastards. God damned fucking bastards and they can go straight fucking to hell. Especially, Cletus. Fucking lying bastard. Don't believe a word he says. The goat was drunk. I mean I was drunk. Screw it it. We were both drunk.
I don't know. I've kind of lost my enthusiasm for writing this letter now, so let me just say, do something about the god damned robot whores! And don't believe Cletis. He's a lying son of a bitch!
Heterosexually yours in a chaste and biblically acceptable kind of way,
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Jimmy Carter's Greatest Wrong Finally Righted
An actual memorandum from the United States Geological Service:
In Reply Refer To: March 26, 2009
Mail Stop 411
OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2009.03
Subject: GROUNDWATER: Ground water versus groundwater
It has been a longstanding practice within the USGS to spell ground water as two words and to hyphenate when ground water is used as a modifier (e.g., ground-water hydrology). Ground Water Branch Technical Memorandum 75.03 ( http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/GW/gw75.03.html) issued just under 35 years ago specified that the two-word form should be used.
Language evolves, and it is clear that the one-word spelling of groundwater has become the preferred usage both nationally and internationally. The one-word spelling has been used by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary since 1998. Most water-resources publications also use the one-word spelling, as do many technical groups, such as the National Research Council. With the emphasis on interdisciplinary science, many USGS scientists who are not specialists in the field commonly use the one-word form, as increasingly do many hydrologists within the Water Resources Discipline.
The term surface water has not seen the same language simplification that has occurred with the term groundwater. Surface water continues in the English language universally spelled as two words. Use of the two terms together spelled as groundwater and surface water has become common usage.
With this memorandum, we are making a transition to the use of groundwater as one word in USGS. Changeover to use of the one-word spelling in our publications and web sites will be accomplished as seamlessly as possible. Reports in preparation should be converted to the one-word spelling where this does not require a special effort. Reports submitted for approval after August 1, 2009, will be expected to use the one-word form. During this transition period, the one-word or two-word spelling should be used consistently throughout a publication.
William M. Alley
Chief, Office of Groundwater
This memorandum supersedes Ground Water Branch Technical Memorandum No. 75.03
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
From the People Who Brought You the Echo Chamber: A Call to Give Back
Imagine that, in this world, health care for all prevails, with no place for insurance company intermediaries or pharmaceutical ad campaigns. Elections are publicly funded and verifiable, and politicians are responsive to the people, not to corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors. Openness is prized, and intellectual property restrictions, proprietary software, and closed ways of doing business have fallen from favor.
Imagine people no longer stirred by religious leaders to restrict the role of women, reject science, and hate or invade their neighbors. People boldly charting their own courses in life according to their values and sense of authenticity, rather than following standard routes laid down by others. People living without fear of scarcity or distrust of difference, confident that together their diverse abilities are ample to meet all their needs.
For ten decades, the industry I now have the privilege of representing has worked tenaciously to protect you from this nightmare scenario. The men and women of my profession are proud to have developed and deployed strategies rooted in FUD — Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt — that have made the world I have just described nearly inconceivable, and its proposed "innovations" widely reviled.
Throughout our history, FUD producers and service providers have fulfilled the needs of leading institutions, culminating in the world in which you now live. The beauty of that world can be found in the productivity and efficiency gains that arise once people recognize that there are no alternatives to the systems governing them.
Over the years, we have brought you the think tank, the astroturf campaign, and the echo chamber itself. Such advances yielded profound social achievements: the War on Drugs, the Cold War, the War on Terror, and the credit-based consumer economy. Secure in our knowledge of these accomplishments, we have long ceded the spotlight to others, content to remain in the shadows.
Today, however, our companies, represented by the FUD Industry Association of America (FUDIAA), are standing up to claim our legacy, and to ask for the public's steadfast support of our vital work amid these challenging times.
To accomplish this, we are officially launching FUD University, our online learning center. FUD University educates the public about FUD's critical role in everyday life and our industry's trusted position preparing decision environments for our institutional clients. It is our goal that FUD U will engage you with our work, and inspire you to make our fight your own.
This is a critical moment for the FUD industry, one that will determine whether we are able to maintain the levels of production that you have thus far enjoyed. Some of the industries that have helped to sustain us in the past have fallen on hard times, and several major clients are even facing bankruptcy.
Others that had the foresight to increase their spending on FUD as turbulent times approached have confirmed the wisdom of our methods. Despite a change in administrations, our clients in the financial realm have seen their investments in FUD continue to pay off. Our patrons in military contracting also know that their prospects remain strong. These bright spots in an otherwise bleak outlook only underscore the urgent need for our work.
But the threats we face are not solely economic. Today, angry purveyors of "openness" and "transparency" are attempting to take advantage of these dire economic times, inciting a War on FUD that threatens all we have accomplished. Anti-Fuddite extremist groups such as the Center for Media and Democracy, the Sunlight Foundation, and Media Matters breed distrust of our industry and the institutions we serve.
To the impressionable, diatribes against our profession serve as enticing invitations to question and resist the conformity that we have worked for decades to safeguard. We must contain this threat by keeping the radicals isolated from each other: single-payer health care fanatics in one cell, free software zealots in another, foreign policy insurgents in yet another, food system subversives in still another, and so forth. If we limit them to reacting to our tactical advances on each issue, they will remain unable to unite against our overarching strategies.
As long as we remember that FUD is what makes America great, we will never give in to those who tell us we can succeed without it. It is our source of strength, the beacon we raise to guide the world. Regardless of your political beliefs, always be aware that the life you enjoy is a product of the largesse of the institutions we serve.
To ensure that the fruits of our labor endure, you must now commit to giving back. Start by learning more about our work at FUD University. Then, choose an issue that matters to you, and try your hand at sharing your gratitude of how FUD has shaped that issue. You can write your appreciation directly into The Book of FUD, our new crowdsourcing initiative, which will record the public's support for our work. You can also help us to monitor and document the threats we face from the anti-Fuddite Jihad.
Together, we can produce consensus about the imperative function our industry fulfills, and revive the levels of spending on FUD that are needed to sustain your way of life. Should the private sector be temporarily unable to meet these needs, we are confident that your cooperation will help us secure the public investments required to preserve our industry and its essential products.
Only your shared commitment to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt can sustain our crucial work to isolate those who seek radical social transformation from the grassroots.
J. Pratt Vulpes is the Founding Executive Director of FUD University, and previously served as Associate Director of the Research Department at the FUD Industry Association of America (FUDIAA).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Evil
My inner Frenchman is screaming.
From the Post:
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.Turley adds:
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a "fixer" for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al-Qaeda only after Sept. 11 -- and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.
The Bush torture program is a wonderful example of not just the time-proven junk that comes from torture, but also the value of legal process as a way to acquiring legitimate information in legitimate ways. Putting aside the obvious immorality of the program, the reports show how we tortured people for little more advantage than the visceral and political benefits of “getting tough on terrorism.” It turns out that we sold our collective soul pretty cheap in creating this torture program. The question is now whether Obama will continue to buy into the same cover-up by continuing to block a special counsel.I'm ashamed that I live in a country that committed torture and is currently doing everything possible to prevent those responsible for it from being brought to justice. It's an abhorrent practice, an immoral practice, an un-American practice, and we are all responsible for it if we allow Obama to sweep it under the rug because he thinks it is politically expedient to do so. There must be trials. The people must face the horrors of what has been done in our name and see that it is wrong. And we cannot afford another generation of Negropontes and Abrams. We cannot risk for the likes of John Yoo to be available to serve in a future administration. Our nation's very soul is at stake here.
Why we lost the election
Our sainted Sarah Palin had no one with whom to pray:
So I'm looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra. And the McCain campaign, love 'em, you know, they're a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Kissing the Sacred Purple
His Eminence,Daniel Cardinal DiNardo
Archbishop of Galveston-Houston
Most Revererend Eminence,
Thank you for denouncing the University of Notre Dame for inviting Obama to speak at their commencement ceremonies in May. Hopefully, the University will rescind the invitation and invite someone more in keeping with the current Pope's values--perhaps someone like John Yoo, or better yet, Dick Cheney.
Unfortunately, I doubt such a rescission will occur--Obama is the President of the United States, after all. You should be prepared for that. You need to create a competing event to distract attention away from Obama's heretical commencement speech.
I'm thinking you should produce one of those old-style variety shows to premier on Cinemax at the same time as the commencement. Yes, I know what you're thinking, "Why would anyone want to watch a Catholic variety show and why would Cinemax want to air it?" Well, the answer is in my proposed title for the show "Kissing the Sacred Purple."
That's right. It's the same phrase one is supposed to use as a closing for letters written to cardinals, but, I think it can have another meaning, one that will please viewers and Cinemax as much as it's pleased the priesthood and the Pope over the years.
Think about it. It could begin with America's newest Catholic superstar, Newt Gingrich, sharing that wonderful story about how a friend kissed his sacred purple in the front seat of a car while his children scurried past.
Next up, you could feature a musical number by The Altar Boyz, and maybe get Bill O'Reilly to do a juggling act featuring falafels, loofahs, and his ReamMaster 5000.
Of course you'd want to end it with something big--something you could use to tease the public for weeks before the event--and what would be better than a video of Monsignor Georg Gänswein fluffing the papal mitre.
I'd be glad to try to put it together for you, but I'd need at least three million dollars to begin.
Kissing the Sacred Purple,
Gen. JC Christian, patriot
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.
The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.
Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.
Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.
Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.
These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.
To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.
Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.
The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?
Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.
Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.
