First, the East Coast dudes from The Lonely Island collaborated with Chris Parnell to create Lazy Sunday. Then, the West Coast responded with Lazy Monday.
It may take the Midwest a while to catch onto the latest trends, but when they do, expect it to come full force. Muncie, Indiana natives and Elks Club Mack Daddies Kirby Heyborne and Chris Cox have produced the Midwest’s rap battle response: Lazy Muncie.
And these boys have Jim Davis. Yeah, that Jim Davis.
Midwest Represent!
A Google search for “Mr. Pibb + Red Vines = Crazy Delicious” brings The New Vernacular up at #9. It also happens to be where the majority of my traffic has been coming from lately.
Looks like my evil plan to drive people toward my Web site using pop culture references is working. I wonder what would happen if I wrote posts about Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars or Project Runway.
I haven’t had time to post lately, but I’ve got a few ideas in the docket and I should be attending some pretty interesting events this week. Hopefully I’ll get a substantial post up by Friday. In the meantime…
I saw this today and thought it ridiculous, clever, pointed, potentially unfair, and timely:
From Politics1.com:
GAY ADOPTION. State Senator Robert Hagan (D-Ohio) says he will introduce legislation to ban Republican couples from adopting children. According to Hagan, “credible research'’ shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing “emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.” Hagan agrees there is no scientific evidence backing his claims about Republican parents — just, as Hagan notes, there is none backing State Representative Ron Hood’s (R) bill banning gay parents from adopting. Hood claims children purportedly suffer from emotional “harm” when they are adopted by gay couples. Hagen admits he created his proposal to mock Hood’s proposed ban on gay adoption in a way that people would see the “blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive” nature of the bill. The GOP House leadership does not support Hood’s proposal.
Possibly surprising, but definitely sad, adoption by gay parents is already banned in Florida and similar bans are being proposed in at least 16 other states.
Since the Bush administration approved the sale of a British company that operates six major U.S. ports to United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World, lawmakers and executives from both parties and at all levels of government have been voicing passionate opposition to the deal. They claim that putting the operation of U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab-owned company will endanger national security.
Despite calls to halt the deal, I’ve got to back the Bush administration on this one (although they should have been more public with the deal… Bush didn’t even know about it until it was completed and details came slowly from unofficial sources).
I agree that this deal should undergo a thorough vetting process, just like any major deal with large domestic and international implications, but I haven’t heard an effective argument as to how it would negatively impact national security.
The main complaints about the deal have been that the company is Arab-owned… that it poses a threat to national security.
Shouldn’t we instead be encouraging economic ties with Arab countries in an effort to strengthen relations and gain support in the Middle East?
Today on Good Morning America, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) argued that he had issues with the deal because the UAE has allowed nuclear materials to pass through its ports and was home to two of the 9/11 terrorists.
I agree that the nuclear materials issue is sketchy, but it’s Dubai Ports World, not UAE who will be operating the ports. And the Coast Guard will be in charge of port security, as they always have been. (It’s reported that the Coast Guard is severely lacking in resources and funding, but that’s a different story.)
And just because two terrorists come from a country does not condemn the country. Terrorists can come from any country, including the United States.
It’s not as though DPW will be hiring people from outside the U.S. to operate the ports. The port workers will likely remain American workers who in those six cities, just as they were before.
I’m guessing that DPW might lose some business if they helped facilitate a terror attack. These guys aren’t anti-western fundamentalists. They’re a huge corporation that with major financial interests in the success of their operations in the United States. If you’d want to commit acts of terrorism, there are cheaper ways to do it than aquiring a company for $6.8 billion.
I don’t know if this helps or hurts my case, but Jimmy Carter agrees.
‘’The overall threat to the United States and security, I don’t think it exists,'’ Carter said on CNN’s The Situation Room. “I’m sure the president’s done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.'’
Calling for further review and investigation of the deal is fine, and even appropriate, but it’s inappropriate to oppose the deal outright simply because aquiring company is Arab-owned.
Looking at the fiasco from another angle, it looks as though the focus on terror and fear has finally come back to bite the Bush administration: The Democrats have learned that the national security card trumps all.
While I disagree with it, coming out strongly on this issue is a win-win for the Democrats. If they defeat the deal, they can chalk one up for speaking out to defend the nation against terrorists. If, after further investigation, the deal is deemed legit, they can say that they were just trying to defend the nation against terrorists. And that’s patriotism. You can’t argue with patriotism. Just ask Karl Rove.
Same goes for all of the Republicans who’ve voiced concern with the deal. Lately, after the NSA spying program and the Cheney incident, going against the administration hasn’t been seen as going against the party.
It’s easy to criticize the administration here, but it’s not right.
Hat tip: Fresh Politics and The Progress Report
Anyone who’s interested in all the essential poltical news injected with reverent wit and wisdom should obviously be reading The Note every day, but, believe it or not, there are other forms of information floating around in cyberspace.
My new favorite, recommended to me a couple days ago, is “The Progress Report“, put together each morning by the crew at the Center for American Progress.
It’s true that the Center for American Progress is a progressive, partisan think-tank… but The Progress Report only has a hint of lefty rhetoric mixed in with tons of information and valuable heads-ups to developing stories (unlike it’s blog-cousin Think Progress).
The Progress Report breaks down the day’s top stories in an easy to read format, providing links to every source (I’d prefer that they cite, but it’d break the flow of their prose).
The Report features separate sections for more “provacative” stories and important issues that have gone “under the radar”.
Oh, and the link from the RSS feed is just the barebones, print-page style text, served just the way raw information should be.
Try it, I think you’ll like it.
Note: The googling monkeys have yet to be taken out for brunch.
Step 1: If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whistle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud.
The folks at Oxygen.ie claim to have images from a government Web site that has illustrated instructions of what actions to take in the event of a terrorist attack… and they’ve added their own captions.
Some of the best:
If you spot terrorism, blow your anti-terrorism whistle. If you are Vin Diesel, yell really loud.
After exposure to radiation it is important to consider that you may have mutated to gigantic dimensions: watch your head.
If you hear the Backstreet Boys, Michael Bolton or Yanni on the radio, cower in the corner or run like hell.
Always remember to carry food with you during a terrorist attack. At least you’ll be able to enjoy a nice coke and apple before you die.
Note: I highly doubt these images are authentic… they just seem too ridiculous and pointless. But most funny things are.
All you Poli Sci majors out there will be interested in this:
Francis Fukuyama, the man who attained mega-scholar status with his Neoconservative argument that American hegemony would bring liberal democracy to the world and cause “The End of History“, has decided that history isn’t really ending and that neoconservatives are no longer the cool kids. Or something like that.
Fukuyama describes his new analysis in an essay titled “After Neoconservatism” in the NY Times.
Essentially, Fukuyama now argues that the original “Bush Doctrine” calling for possible preventive wars to defend itself and eliminate terrorists was solid, BUT
By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran…
The problem with neoconservatism’s agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them. What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a “realistic Wilsonianism” that better matches means to ends…
Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Funny, I’ve read “The End of History” (the abridged version) in probably four different classes, but every time I was told that, although we should definitely read it, we shouldn’t take it too seriously. I guess those TA’s knew what they were talking about.
hat tip: Think Progress
What should we be doing in Iraq? Create a timetable for bringing our troops home? Stick around until we secure the region and lock down terrorist threats? The issue’s been on the backburner of American politics the last couple weeks, but it probably won’t stay there long.
Former General and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (it sounds like something from Star Wars, yeah?) Wesley Clark has a solid, rational proposal from the military perspective (unfortunately something we’re not seeing a lot of in politically-charged Washington):
Wesley Clark’s NY Times Editorial (12/6/05):
We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.
On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country’s borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.
We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq’s several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won’t be “sealed”; they’ll just be more challenging to penetrate.
We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.
But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.
But then again, our friend Johnny Cougar has a point:
We all know what we are losing in the Iraq war. We are losing our precious soldiers. With 2,200+ dead, 16,000+ wounded, and countless others coming back with mental disorders such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, we are losing a good segment of our young men, and the sanity of their families.
We lost our credibility as a nation. The lies that brought us into war have shot down the “America is a great peacemaking nation” image that was so valuable to us. Muslims nations, who before the war, didn’t necessarily hate America a whole lot, now disapprove of America almost totally.
We lost the faith of the Iraqi people. Now, 80% of the population considers us “occupiers” and less than a handful call us “liberators”. Forty-five percent or more think it is okay to attack US troops.
And of course, the national treasury has lost billions of dollars regarding this war. In fact, some estimates say that, including the lifelong healthcare costs of brain-damaged soldiers, money lost in the economy due to deaths in Iraq, and all other costs combined could add up to over $1 trillion.
I don’t have the time to write anything substantial at this point, but here are some excellent links furthering my point of view on school choice (I’m writing this like anyone who reads this blog cares besides Brophey).
Paul Soglin: Kids, Schools, and Cities Part I
Public schools work. Public schools that have 90% of their kids above the poverty line do just fine. When public schools have over 40% of their kids from households below the poverty line, performance tanks.
To fix the problem, it takes a three-pronged strategy: money, parental involvement and a sound faculty. Public Education: Resources Matter, as Does Context - Milwaukee is NOT South Dakota
Here are some of the critical elements that are too often ignored:
- Low income kids are more likely to be from a single parent household.
- Low income kids are less likely to have a working computer and printer at home.
- Low income kids are more likely to have chronic health problems resulting in frequent absences.
- Low income kids are less likely to have a parent involved in their education because:
- Their parents may not have a high school education.
- Their parents had lousy educational experiences and consequently do not want to go to the school.
- English is a second language for the parent (and perhaps the child).
- Transportation to after-school conferences and evening activities is difficult, or even impossible.
Low income kids are less likely to have access to after-school or summer recreation programs which would enhance their skills. Thirty years ago, many school districts said, “We have the kids from 8:00 am until 3:00 pm, after that, they are not our concern.” Most districts now realize that if there is going to be academic achievement, the child is of concern 24 hours a day.
Folkbum (Jay Bullock): Voucher Questions, Budget Woes
Actually, well you’re at it, just read Folkbum everyday… you’ll be better for it.
I’m currently engaged in a school choice with James Widgerson over at his Library and Pub.
It started with my response to this post… where Widgerson contends that not raising the cap on school choice is “standing in the way of school choice and educational opportunity for young African Americans in Milwaukee.”
My response was simply a cross-post of my earlier rant on school choice that I posted here on January 23rd.
Widgerson devoted an entire post in response, saying that I’m “honest enough to admit they would like to end school choice.” I can’t really argue with that. I still consider myself open-minded… and if I can be convinced that school choice is a positive solution, then so be it. But I’m not there yet.
Widgerson goes on to quote me and respond:
One correspondent here has laid out what I think are the basic arguments against school choice they’re willing to offer.
He writes, “Money used for vouchers to send Milwaukee students to private schools is money that could have been put towards the public school system”
The question is, why is this an issue? Shouldn’t the education dollar follow the student? And if there’s a more efficient means of educating the student (our presumed goal) then shouldn’t we put our investment there?
And that’s the beauty of the concept of school choice. The education dollar follows the student, and the parent (whom we trust would know best) gets to choose what is the best method for educating that child.
Here, Widgerson highlights our main difference, which I address in my comment:
One of the major problems with school choice that I haven’t seen addressed is that it’s parents, not students making the “choice” to attend a school out of the district. Unfortunately, in parts of the MPS district, there are parents who couldn’t care less where their kids go to school. Unfortunately, not all parents care enough (or have the time… with a strained family or work situation) to put much thought into their children’s education.
I think that’s our true difference. You say that it’s the parent that “we trust would know best”. That’s a broad assumption… I argue that’s (again EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATELY) not true. Sometimes school is the refuge for a child who’s home situation is less than desirable.
This post may be a little self-serving - but I think it’s valuable to have this discourse in a single venue so that it may be seen in its (near) entirety. The education of our (well, not my) children is an extremely important issue, and one that is currently being overwhelmed by partisan poltics and bickering on both sides. I have yet to see either public officials or political pundits lay the issues and priorites out as plainly and honestly as in this discussion.
Update: The one and only Chris Brophey weighs in (take a look at the comments):
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure schools operate on economies of scale. Therefore, removing money for individual students hurts the students left behind, not the institution or the teachers union some accuse Democrates of only looking out for. You may gladly forsake the remaining students, but I simply cannot. Especially when the solution is not as simply send them to private school. Fourth, an all charter/private school system in Milwaukee? I dont believe the city has the infrastructure for that.
Additionally, when funds are diverted to build this, where do they come from, MPS schools trying educate? And when you infuse large amounts of MPS students into the existing private schools, where do the kids that currently attend the private school go? There are such things as school capcities. So the kid that planend on going to private school now has to attend public…is that not the problem you are trying to avoid?
My first article as a reporter for the Badger Herald was published in today’s edition:
Wiretapping scandal provokes Washington legislators
It’s not the headline I would’ve chosen. Scandal implies that the program was, without a doubt, illegitimate. There have been plenty of scandals plaguing Washington in recent months, but this doesn’t qualify. It very well may be that this particular system of warrantless wiretapping was illegal, but that’s a matter for further investigation and review.
A more appropriate headline would probably be “Wiretapping program potentially violates civil liberties and law”. The Bush administration contends the authority to engage in wiretapping was implied when Congress gave the “authorization for military force” agains Al Qaida after 9/11. The argument is really over whether that phrase actually gives them the right to do this or not. Sen. Russ Feingold doesn’t think so.
Most lawmakers, but Republicans and Democrats, don’t have a problem with what the program accomplishes, or even the methods used… but there is a concern that the president’s actions have bypassed the normal checks and balances enforced by judicial approval of warrents for such activities.
Similar arguments have been used for and against the alleged torture of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay.
Here’s an excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced last week he will introduce legislation that would force the National Security Agency wiretapping program to be reviewed by the courts every 45 days.
As it currently stands, the program is re-authorized by President Bush every 45 days.
Dubbed the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” in an effort to focus on its role in thwarting future attacks, it allows the NSA to listen in without a warrant on conversations between Americans and suspected members of al-Qaida outside the country.
Lawmakers agree some level of terrorist surveillance is essential to national security, but some questioned the legality of warrantless spying during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Monday.
Specter, the Committee chairman, said during the hearing that he did not believe Congress’ authorization to use “appropriate force” in the War on Terror included domestic surveillance.
His sentiments were also echoed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
“I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche,” Graham said.
Democrats and Republicans grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during the hearing, specifically questioning whether the Senate’s resolution to go to war in Iraq implicitly authorized surveillance normally approved in court under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
As a contrast to the last post featuring photos of Mexico City, here are a batch of demonstrating the natural (and man-made) beauty of rural China. Makes me want to do some travelling.
Photographer: Feng Jiang
hat tip: J-walk Blog
A helicopter pilot has taken some amazing photos of Mexico City and created a gallery on the web. An excellent way to waste 10 minutes. Many examples of super-high-density housing and creative architecture.
Low income housing in Ixtapaluca
Update: Thanks for pointing out the missing linkage, Brophey.
There’s definitely been a shift in web technology and design in the last couple years, what some people call the “Web 2.0” era. Web Design From Scratch has a great assessment of what most well-designed sites have in common and provides examples of good design.
Some common features of great sites:
Archives
TNV’s Top Picks
- SNL - The Dakota Fanning Show
Media
Technology
WI Politics: Left
WI Politics: Right
US Politics
US Politics: Left
US Politics: Right
News
Everything Else
Meta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Wordpress and A Small Orange. Template based on Pool. RSS Feed.