android photography

Some of my Daily Kos compatriots show their PhotoShop chops and have a little fun with Sponge Bob . . .

Here. (Sample proverb: "Whoever desires is better than money in the chest.")

(via Mâvarin and Other Inspirations)

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has rebuffed pleas to join a European diplomatic drive to persuade Iran to give up any ambitions to add nuclear bombs to its arsenal, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats say."



Yeah, real men countries shoot first and send in inspectors later.



(Yahoo! News, via James Wolcott)

"You know, if you have not sold your stocks and bought property in Italy, you better do it quick."



--Seymour Hersh, discussing the future prospects of the United States. More here.

"Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence."



ex-neocon Michael Lind, in the Financial Times



(via Daily Kos)

Ripped directly from Melanie at Just a Bump in the Beltway, this is the latest information from CIDRAP, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota:



# If an influenza pandemic were to occur in the near future, vaccine for the pandemic strain would not be readily available for a number of months, as noted in the previous section. Even though some developed countries have stockpiles of antiviral agents effective against influenza, supplies of these agents would be extremely limited (see References: Hayden 2004). It is unlikely that they would have a significant effect on curtailing spread of the pandemic unless a mobile stockpile with adequate supplies was created for use in the area where the virus emerges (see References: Monto 2005; WHO: Influenza pandemic preparedness and response 2005). Therefore, prevention and treatment options would essentially not be available during the initial wave of the pandemic.



# Once a vaccine is available, the current plans do not adequately address how the vaccine will be distributed globally. This is of great concern, since vaccine is only produced by a few countries and those countries are likely to not release vaccine until the needs of their populations are met.



# If the next pandemic strain is highly virulent (such as the 1918 strain) the global death toll could be dramatic. The current plans generally do not address the social, political, or economic issues that would likely be associated with an ongoing influenza pandemic. It is very possible that substantial disruption of basic services (such as health care, food, clothing, provision of utilities [eg, water, electricity], and transportation will occur. Furthermore, international trade will likely be impacted, which could have serious global economical and societal consequences. (emphasis mine)



The people who know the most about this situation are also the ones who are the most concerned. That should tell you something.



Update: The first documented case of human-to-human transmission has been reported.

Today is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The Agonist notes that this "is likely to be the last major anniversary while living memory survives."

A father's thoughts.

Here (can't post it, too big)

How does Americans' view of themselves and their country square with the rest of the world?



The gulf between how Americans view themselves and how the world views them was summed up in a poll last week by the BBC. Fully 71 percent of Americans see the United States as a source of good in the world. More than half view Bush's election as positive for global security. Other studies report that 70 percent have faith in their domestic institutions and nearly 80 percent believe "American ideas and customs" should spread globally.



Foreigners take an entirely different view: 58 percent in the BBC poll see Bush's re-election as a threat to world peace. Among America's traditional allies, the figure is strikingly higher: 77 percent in Germany, 64 percent in Britain and 82 percent in Turkey. Among the 1.3 billion members of the Islamic world, public support for the United States is measured in single digits. Only Poland, the Philippines and India viewed Bush's second Inaugural positively.



And it's not just perception:



The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements . . . Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established their own distinctive ways—none made in America.



Then there's our legal system:



Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.



The article has it right. We're living in a dream world, a self-imposed bubble of media-style fantasy in which both the world and we agree that we are quite wonderful. The truth is something else: while we are not altogether as bad as our worst moments, and the worst actions of our government, we are not wonderful, and the rest of the world knows it. If we don't realize it too, we'll wind up the hapless witnesses to our own national demise--one that's already taking place, while we fiddle away.

Well, first SpongeDob Stickypants bravely alerted us to the secret agenda of a certain cartoon character. Now James Wolcott has discovered that there are even worse temptations being disseminated via your TV wavelengths, in the seemingly harmless guise of '50s and '60s westerns:



. . . Goodlife has also saw fit [sic] to resurrect a batch of Warner Brothers Westerns that exude a musky aroma of a bunkhouse where the wrong kind of bunking has been going on after sundown.



Bronco, starring Ty Hardin. Bronco. Ty. You tell me those aren't gay-sounding names. Then there's Sugarfoot, starring Will Hutchins. Sugarfoot--another name that sounds awfully fey to me. In the title song, he's described as "easy lopin'" (the sagebrush version of crusing), and joggin' along "with a heart full of song." Show tunes, no doubt. Cheyenne, starring Clint Walker, whose title tune asks the haunting musical question, "Cheyenne, Cheyenne where will you be camping tonight?" Camping, indeed! The song has him dreaming "of a girl you may never love," and I think I know why he may never love her, and why he needs to go "camping."



But no Warner Brothers Western promotes the gay lifestyle more than Lawman, starring John Russell and Peter Brown. "John Russell, a 6'4" ramrod straight, ex-Marine with the most compelling steely gaze on television, embodied the courageous, no-nonsense Marshal Dan Troop," says a Lawman fan site. Peter Brown played his young deputy, and theirs was a stern daddy/ relationship seething with subtext. "The series generally avoided sentimentality, but for those who looked for it, the bond between the two characters was even stronger than the words exchanged would suggest." The nature of that bond is indicated in the opening credits, where sheriff would toss his rifle to his handsome deputy, who "hefted it with approval." Oh I just bet he hefted it with approval.



Wolcott goes on to explain exactly how unsuspecting heteros everywhere are about to be seduced. Oh, the horror.

Washington: The Pentagon, expanding into the CIA's historic bailiwick, has created a new espionage arm and is reinterpreting U.S. law to give Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld broad authority over clandestine operations abroad, according to interviews with participants and documents obtained by The Washington Post.



[ . . . ]



The Strategic Support Branch was created to provide Rumsfeld with independent tools for the "full spectrum of humint operations" . . . Human intelligence operations . . . range from interrogation of prisoners and scouting of targets in wartime to the peacetime recruitment of foreign spies. A recent Pentagon memo states that recruited agents may include "notorious figures" whose links to the U.S. government would be embarrassing if disclosed.



[ . . . ]



[G]uidelines issued this month by Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone state that special operations forces may "conduct clandestine HUMINT operations . . . before publication" of a deployment order, rendering [Congressional] notification unnecessary. Pentagon lawyers also define the "war on terror" as ongoing, indefinite and global in scope. That analysis effectively discards the limitation of the defense secretary's war powers to times and places of imminent combat.



[ . . . ]



Assistant Secretary of Defense Thomas O'Connell, who oversees special operations policy, said Rumsfeld has discarded the "hide-bound way of thinking" and "risk-averse mentalities" of previous Pentagon officials under every president since Gerald R. Ford.



"Secret Unit Expands Rumsfeld's Domain" (Washington Post, emphases mine)





Washington: Somewhere in the shadows of the White House and the Capitol this week, a small group of super-secret commandos stood ready with state-of-the-art weaponry to swing into action to protect the presidency, a task that has never been fully revealed before.



[ . . . ]



The role of the armed forces in the United States has been a contentious issue for more than a century. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts military forces from performing domestic law enforcement duties, like policing, was enacted after the Civil War in response to the perceived misuse of federal troops who were policing in the South.



[ . . . ]



The commandos here this week were the same type of Special Operations forces who are hunting top insurgents in Iraq and Osama bin Laden in the mountainous wilds of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But under the top-secret military plan, they are also conducting counterterrorism missions in support of civilian agencies in the United States.



"Commandos Get Duty on U.S. Soil" (New York Times)



Update: TalkLeft has more on the civil liberties implications.

Further proof that that Ecclesiastes dude was one smart guy: there's a fifteen-point primer explaining how to change "A Limited Republican Government Into An Unlimited Hereditary One." Its first point of advice is to "Get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices" by "all possible means."



The pamphlet's author is one Philip Freneau, and it was published right here in the USA . . . in 1792.



The good people at BOP News have posted it in its entirety; go take a look, and see how much rings true today.

An Iraqi girl screamed Tuesday after her parents were killed when American soldiers fired on their car when it failed to stop, despite warning shots, in Tal Afar, Iraq. The military is investigating the incident. (New York Times)



"There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."



--George W. Bush, Inauguration Speech, January 20, 2005

I've written before about the avian flu that's sweeping parts of Asia. The latest update about the flu's status does not bode well.



First of all, it turns out that there have been repeated negative tests for patients who were eventually found to be infected. This suggests several things: that the current tests are inadequate; that this virus, the H5N1 virus, mutates quickly; and that there may be many more infected people than is currently suspected.



Second, and even more alarming, is the news that there may finally be a confirmed case of human-to-human transmission of the virus; all previous cases, with one possible exception, have been bird-to-human transmission. In the current case, three brothers in the same family have been diagnosed. It is possible that all three were infected from eating the same bird; however, the second brother did not fall ill until two weeks after his older brother, for whom he had been caring, and the third brother's diagnosis was even later. So there is a strong likelihood that the brothers have infected each other.



Airborne transmission is what will make the H5N1 virus a real disaster. As Charles says in this post, the average flu has a mortality rate of 1%. The great flu epidemic of 1918, which killed over a million people worldwide, had a mortality rate of 2% - 5%. The H5N1 virus has a mortality rate of about 70%. If it does mutate into an easily transmittable human-to-human form, we are in deep trouble. (Remember, in 1918 we didn't have widespread air travel.)



Our best protection against infection is the NanoMask. It filters airborne particles of a significantly smaller size than other masks, and also forms a tight seal around the face, unlike most masks. It is reusable, with a replaceable filter, and is currently available for order by phone (702-558-5164) for only $4 (thanks to Melanie for the info). If an epidemic hits, expect demand to exceed supply, and expect the price to go up. If you belong to an at-risk group, or you work with or care for a member or members of an at-risk group, it's worth the investment to buy one (or more) of these now.



I'm deeply grateful to Melanie and Charles at Just a Bump in the Beltway for tracking this story, which is being largely ignored by the U.S. press. I will keep you informed of any updates as they come along.



Update: The press is finally paying some attention. U.S. health officials have plans including quarantine and rationing of vaccine. Death estimates range from a conservative 2 to 7 million people, to as many as 50 million people, depending on the rate of infection and availability/effectiveness of vaccines. As Melanie points out, a serious epidemic could disrupt basic services, including banks and stores; so if you starting hearing that the avian flu is spreading, get ready to batten down the hatches, with essential supplies and cash on hand, as if you were going to wait out a massive snowstorm or other natural disaster.



Update II: Melanie, in comments, corrects my stats on the 1918 epidemic; it killed somewhere from 50 to 100 million people worldwide--at a 2% to 5% fatality rate. If the H5N1 virus mutates into a form that's easily spread from person to person, while retaining its current fatality rate of 70% . . . well, you do the math.

Something shocking happened during the Faux News Network's inaugural coverage: one of their guest commentators told the truth.



Yes, I hear you scoffing even now: "Come on! On Fox News? I don't believe it." Well, there's a video, and you can watch it here.

Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, remarked a few days ago that "innate differences in sex may explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers." Then David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, displayed his superior wisdom by generously explaining to women why they should make a "greater effort to marry early" and dedicate 15 years to staying home and having kids before they think about anything like having a career.



Jennifer Saba, who clearly lacks the maturity to appreciate such sage advice, responds to both gentlemen. Check it out.



Update: PZ Myers, an XY scientist, goes to bat on behalf of his XX colleagues.

Roger Lowenstein, writing in the The New York Times (registration required), looks at the history of Social Security, as well as the so-called "crisis" currently being manufactured by the Bush Administration with the aid of a compliant media.



(via Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo; if you don't want to mess with registering at the Times, Josh has a good summary of Lowenstein's article.)



And for more straight shooting on the issue, check out There is No Crisis.

"[Los Angeles] is also the wet dream that red-state bluenoses are afraid to admit they've had, causing them to vote, alone in the voting booth, for moral values that, alone with their consciences, they know they betray.



"It's a flaming target for the guilt-ridden and envious, an enormous beast, difficult to kill, not because it lacks a heart, but because it has so many."



CaliBlogger, whose blog is here.



The comment occurs in a Daily Kos discussion thread; kid oakland's musings on the city, and the Kos community's responses, are also worth a look.

One of the shining lights of the lefty blogosphere, Billmon, suffered so much outrage fatigue and burnout around the time of the elections that he shut down his blog. But he's back--at least for now.



Go read his recent posts, from "The Salvadoran Option" to "Sounds Like Victory." Even when they don't contain a single word he wrote himself (except sometimes the title), they're the most trenchant, thought-provoking commentary around. I humbly suggest that you appreciate him while you can.

Billmon, one of the best bloggers to ever wield a keyboard, and who now blogs only occasionally, has a post up about the Pentagon's current debate about whether to send Salvadoran-style death squads into Iraq.



It's classic Billmon. Go read.

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.



In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.



In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to 'man on dog' sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.



In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a 'good man' who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.



Read the rest here.

If you haven't heard of Michael Savage, well, you're lucky. If you have, you know he's a rabid right-wing radio talk show host. Here he is talking about the tsunami relief effort:



We shouldn't be sending as much as we're sending. Bush has a lot of gall writing a check for 135 million dollars. This is more a UNICEF deal, it's a U.N. deal, it's a Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, George Soros, Bill Clinton bleeding-heart-liberal deal. I don't want to send them any money. You know, a few airplanes with some medical supplies and a little lip service would have been fine for me.



Note that this was before the administration was shamed into upping its aid to $350 million. But Savage has more to say on the subject:



If you are a God-believing, God-fearing person . . . You could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don't know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don't argue that because I'm not a theologian. Nor do I believe that God is omnipotent. I believe God is omnipresent. But I don't think God has control over every act because there would be no free will and I don't believe in that. ... But then again, who knows? I'm one man amongst billions of people, with one man's opinion.



[...]



Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit by these tidal waves were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? ... I think what we're doing is feeding our own demise. ... I truthfully don't believe in foreign aid.



[...]



We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I don't want one nickel of my money going over there. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth.



David Neiwert, author of the excellent blog Orcinus (where I got these quotes), dissects the Savage commentary:



The ignorance that abounds here really is astonishing . . . The epicenter of the quake was near Sumatra, one of the islands of Indonesia, a largely Muslim nation. (In case anyone has forgotten, it was also a noteworthy victim of an Al Qaeda attack, namely, the bombing in Bali.) Most of the rest of the victim nations are Hindu or Buddhist.



What's dangerous about these remarks is the way they play right into the hands of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As I long ago remarked, people who make all of Islam out to be our Enemy are furthering bin Laden's hopes, which is to draw us into an all-out global religious conflict pitting Islam against the West.



Neiwert also recognizes that Savage represents an ominous trend in more ways than one:



Fortunately, no one really takes Savage that seriously. He remains firmly embedded in the public mind as a representative of far-right conservatism.



The flip side of this caveat is the fact that he's the third-most popular talk-show host on right-wing radio. If he's on the fringe, it's become a mighty big damned fringe.



The amount of hostility, and the rhetoric of outright violence, being directed against anyone perceived as "liberal" in this country is increasing significantly. And "liberal" is increasingly being defined as a) anyone who criticizes the administration, and b) therefore synonymous with the "enemy."



How long until the fringe becomes the center of public discourse?

A Spokane woman trying to divorce her estranged husband two years after he was jailed for beating her has been told by a judge she can't get out of the marriage while she's pregnant. [ . . . ]



Hughes' husband, Carlos, was convicted in 2002 of beating her. She separated from him after the attack and filed for divorce last April. She later became pregnant by another man and is due in March.

[ . . . ]



"It's not the child's fault that mom got pregnant," [Judge Paul] Bastine said. "The answer is, you don't go around doing that when you're not divorced."



(via Eschaton)