Scientists Discover How to Turn Light Into Matter

From the Environmental News Service via AlterNet:

Physicists at the Imperial College London have thought up a way to convert light directly into matter in a new type of high-energy physics experiment, using technology already available in the UK.

“As we are theorists, we are now talking to others who can use our ideas to undertake this landmark experiment,” said Professor Steve Rose at the Department of Physics, Imperial College London.

More here.

Something uplifting for a change.

Apparently, scientists haven't actually done the deed, but feel like they've got a very sound approach to making it happen, and will be doing so in the near future.  But don't get too excited, at least, not just yet.  The matter they're creating isn't ham sandwiches or gold bullion; it's just some particles.  But do get excited.  This is pretty major, I think, and opens up the door to all kinds of groovy cool science fiction stuff, and making ham sandwiches or gold out of energy is chump change.  I mean, okay, creating sandwiches and gold is significant in itself, but I'm talking matter transportation, at the speed of light, potentially across vast distances.

It's probably worth mentioning that matter transportation, conceptually speaking, isn't really transportation so much as it's converting matter into digital code, which presumably destroys the original matter, and then beaming said code as energy through space to whatever its destination is, where it then uses the code and energy in said beam to create a perfect copy of the original, which no longer exists because it was destroyed during the encoding process.

Actually, I suppose you don't have to destroy the original, but then it would simply be a replication process, and if we started doing that with human beings, it would get pretty weird pretty fast.  On the other hand, any human being transported in such a way is effectively dead, and the person on the other end of the matter transport process is, in fact, a completely different person, albeit exactly like the original in all respects.

You know, Dr. McCoy was always right to bitch about the transporter on Star Trek.  It's a pretty creepy idea.  Creepy but cool.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why Propaganda About Generational Warfare Is Dangerous and Wrong

From AlterNet:

You might think that understanding what makes each generation unique, and how those factors end up shaping historical challenges would be of endless interest and concern to parents, educators and politicans. Instead, what we’re seeing today is a rising wave of ill-informed and ugly generational warfare mongering. Led by people such as billionaire investor Pete Peterson, who has long wanted to privatize Social Security, they are trying to incite anger and jealousy in younger Americans by erroneously suggesting that older Americans are stealing their futures.

Newcomers to this bandwagon include MSNBC’s Abby Huntsman, whose commentaries seek to foment Millennial anger; Pew Research Center special projects chief Paul Taylor, who told NPR while hawking his book on the coming Boomer-Millennial clash, “We’ve got to rebalance the social safety net so it’s fair to all generations;” and even Salon.com, which writes headlines like, “Waiting for a millennial revolution: Could baby boomers’ worst nightmare finally come true.” The list goes on.

More here.

So, as a good Gen Xer I have to admit to being highly influenced back in the day by Douglas Coupland's 1991 book Generation X.  In the book, Coupland lambastes what he perceives as Boomer arrogance and self-righteousness coupled with their seeming lock on decent bourgeois jobs, all against a backdrop of what, at that point, appeared to be a rather bleak future, economically speaking, for the generation born between 1965 and 1985.  I spent more than a few years pissed off at the Baby Boomers, especially as I gravitated politically toward the left, holding them responsible for giving up on the attitude that made the 60s so earthshaking.

As I got older, however, that anger started to fade.  Sure, the Boomers, as a group, certainly were, and to some extent still are, arrogant and self-righteous.  But the seeming lock they had on all the good jobs was never what it appeared to be: rather, in 1991 we were in the midst of what was a multi-decade corporate pushed dismantling of the American middle class.  And the Boomers, as a group, didn't have anything to do with that--sure, a few individual Boomers shared some responsibility, but the vast majority did not; it was about raw political and economic power making the rich richer and more powerful at the expense of regular people like you and me.  Really, the Boomers have just been doing what we've ALL been doing, trying to live our lives, to build something lasting, to raise families, in the face of ever more pressing circumstances.

I mean, how can you make the 60s go on and on when it's always more difficult to put bread on the table?  Arrogance and self-righteousness can only take you so far, so it's no wonder at all that the hippies became soccer moms and stock brokers.  Only the very desperate and the very idealistic can sustain a revolution, and paying the bills when your company keeps threatening layoffs, while not necessarily a desperation inducer, is decidedly an idealism killer.

At any rate, I've decided that these generational tensions the press likes to construct and shove down our throats every five or six years are mostly bullshit.  Well, I continue to be annoyed by Boomer snottiness, but, you know, whatever.  The bottom line is that we really are all in this together.  Boomers are hurting.  Gen X is hurting.  And as Millennials enter the workforce in increasing numbers, they're hurting, too.  The plutocrats don't give a shit when we were born.  They're happy to rip us all off.

Indeed, that's what this new generation tension bullshit is about.  Playing us against each other on Social Security.  Don't buy it.  The people pushing this are the ones who want our money.  That is, it's not stupid human interest anymore.  It's lying propaganda of the divide and conquer variety: the ONLY way Social Security will fail is if we let Wall Street take over.  It has nothing to do with greedy Boomers.  But it have everything to do with greed.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NO, I'M NOT GOING TO ACT "NICE."

Lawyers Guns and Money responds to an establishment lament that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice decided not to speak at a college graduation in the face of protests, courtesy of Eschaton:

Don’t Want A Torture Facilitator to Get $35K for a Bad Speech? Why Are You A Bigot?

So, Rice played a major role in a war fought on false pretenses that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and 2 trillion dept-financed dollars. Her administration also arbitrarily tortured people. No major figure involved with this has faced the slightest punishment. And not only am I supposed to be upset that she decided not to give a commencement address for a large pile of money after some protest, but I’m supposed to believe that people who protested are comparable to climate troofers? Are you shitting me?

More here.

This REALLY reminds me of the attitude displayed by the establishment media back when Stephen Colbert made laughingstocks out of them at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner back in 2006.  Clearly, the press was outraged because Colbert called them out for the utterly lousy job they had been doing covering the Bush administration's countless failures, but the way they spun it, you'd never know.  I mean, of course they couldn't attack him for what actually pissed them off because that would open up the door, you know, to talking about how pathetic they are.  Instead, they came up with something else entirely.  For the mainstream media, Colbert's sin was talking about issues (gasp!) at what was supposed to be a decidedly genteel, professional, and friendly affair.

But what the fuck kind of rule is that?  A lot of people were dead at that point, with still more to come, because of Bush's horrifically failed presidency.  Never mind the fact that pretending everything is just dandy when it's far from it is the opposite of journalism.  That's bad enough.  But expecting a freaking comedian to follow your stupid nihilistic rules of decorum because you're all "professionals" is just too much.  I mean, it's beyond too much.  It's insulting and patronizing.  And evil.

In a democracy, when something horrible is happening, it is every citizen's RESPONSIBILITY to condemn it as loudly and as often as possible until democracy's machinery gets to work ending the horror.  Failing to do so makes you a part of the problem, an enabler of the horror.  Your "professionalism," your expensive suit, your big paycheck, your social status, all that shit's meaningless when all you do is hang out smoking cigars and drinking brandy in the study with your Ivy League pals.  Screw you.  Stephen Colbert is one hundred times the American any of you are.

For god's sake, you people are JOURNALISTS!!!  What good are you?

This New York Times editorial lament that Condoleezza Rice decided not to deal with people potentially protesting her war criminal status at the graduation ceremony where she was slated to speak is essentially the same thing.  I mean, why isn't Mr. Elite Journalist out there protesting her himself?  Is he afraid his Gucci suit might get sweaty?  Why didn't he write instead an angry essay condemning her role in the debacle that was the Bush administration?  Why isn't he in solidarity with the protesters?

Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, indeed.  Disgusting.  And to think, people believe the NYT is liberal.  Go figure.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRANK ZAPPA FRIDAY AND 70S POP MONDAY ON SATURDAY

Two of my facebook features exported to Real Art.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Stella, the best cat.

Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE END OF GALVESTON. AND NEW ORLEANS. AND THE GULF COAST AS WE KNOW IT.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Scientists say Antarctic melt now unstoppable, Gulf must prepare for change

Conservative predictions put a rise at 2 feet by the end of this century and Anderson said that could potentially double as the ice sheets melt.

A 4-foot increase would mean much of the Galveston island that we know would disappear. It could also have a dramatic impact on industry that relies heavily on coastal infrastructure.

"People have been looking at that Western edge of the Antarctic for a long time," said Jim Lester at the Houston Advanced Resource Center. "The only practical thing is to retreat from the coast in the long term."

HARC studies air, energy and water with a view toward maintaining a sustainable economy. The group said long-term planning is now the key defense against rising sea levels.

More here.

It's not simply that Galveston, Padre, and no doubt New Orleans, too, will disappear, which will be horrible enough.  It's also that everything associated with these areas will be gone, too.  Indeed, we're going to lose miles and miles of coastline, and all this will equal profound economic disruption, which will, in turn, equal profound disruption of civilization as we understand it.  And that's just from permanent flooding associated with the rising oceans.  Now throw in changing climate patterns, turning fertile agricultural lands into deserts, allowing ever more frequent wildfires, supercharging hurricanes and tornadoes, and we have an AWFUL future in store for our children and grandchildren.  Hell, if we live long enough, this stuff is in OUR future.  Really, we're starting to see these effects already.

We might be able to adapt to some extent, thereby mitigating the severest effects.  Of course, we'll need to have some of that government interference in the economy that gets libertarians and the Tea Partiers all full of piss and vinegar, if we're serious about the survival of our civilization, but given the fact that said piss and vinegar has successfully kept us from doing anything about the global warming causing these effects in the first place, I'm not terribly hopeful.

Who would have ever thought that greed would be the deadly sin that did us in?  Greed coupled with head-in-assed self-righteousness among the global warming deniers.  And to think these people get pissed off when I call them fools.  Whatever.  They're fools.  And they've helped to destroy us.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

What Tim Geithner doesn't know about Social Security is ... shocking

From the Los Angeles Times business section, courtesy of Eschaton:

But let's get to the nub. Does Social Security "contribute to the deficit"?

The answer is, bluntly, no. By law, it can't contribute to the federal deficit, because Social Security isn't allowed to spend more than it takes in. Those who claim -- as Geithner has at one point or another -- both that the program contributes to the deficit yet will be forced to reduce benefits to retirees once its trust fund is depleted are trying to have things both ways: The reasoning behind the threat of reduced benefits is that Social Security can't engage in spending money it doesn't have, i.e., deficit spending.

And

Geithner either knows that, or he was an amazingly inattentive T-secretary. You see, every year he served in Washington he put his signature to the Social Security trustees' report that listed the program's T-bond purchases, in numbing detail. 

More here.

This is what I keep talking about.  The people who get paid the big bucks to understand economics DON'T FREAKING UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.  And this is a real nuts and bolts issue, pretty simple, not rocket science, not vague, abstract, or weird.  Social Security is on a completely separate accounting system from the one used when we talk about federal deficits, and it's that way by design.  Indeed, as the article observes, the Social Security trust fund is prohibited by law from running deficits.  So any political figure who talks about the need to cut Social Security benefits as a way of dealing with the deficit is either totally stupid or just straight up lying.  

Actually, I'm not sure which is worse.  If Geithner and his ilk don't know what they're talking about, then our nation is being run by total incompetents who need to be tossed out on their asses immediately.  Because, you know, we could probably do just as well with a four year old child in charge.  That's pretty bad.  Chances are very high that the ship of state will be sinking soon, and it's kind of amazing that it hasn't already.  But if they're lying, which I assume would be for various ideological reasons, or for subservience to the vastly wealthy class who own the nation and our political system, or both, then we can be pretty certain that we citizens simply don't matter, and our concerns are seen as nothing short of contemptible.

Stunning incompetence or deep seated malevolence, which is worse?  I suppose in the end it doesn't matter.  The nation is totally screwed no matter how you slice it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 

Anti-Semitism 'Infects' One in Four People, Global Survey Finds

From NBC News courtesy of a facebook friend:

Only 54 percent of people polled globally are aware of the Holocaust — and an alarming 32 percent of them believe the mass genocide of Jews was a myth or has been greatly exaggerated, a sweeping new survey has found.

The numbers highlight how pockets of “anti-Jewish sentiment” are alive and well worldwide, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s “ADL Global 100” report released Tuesday.

More here.

In deep retrospect, I believe my suburban upbringing really helped me out in terms of my relationship with and understanding of Jews as a people.  That is, the Jews I knew when I was growing up were totally assimilated Americans.  Their worship, as American Reform Jews, was pretty similar to Christian worship.  They wore the Star of David instead of a cross, but otherwise spoke, dressed, and behaved very much like me and everybody else I knew.  Indeed, when I first learned about the Holocaust I was amazed: why the Jews?  I just didn't get it.  I mean, I got it, understood that it was awful, but I simply couldn't comprehend the motivation behind it.  Jews are just like me.  Why on earth would anybody want to wipe them out?

By the time I was older, and had started to learn about the history of antisemitism, it started to make more sense.  Okay, the Holocaust on many levels continues to be senseless, but the different cultural customs of Jews in Europe and elsewhere, at least, made it easier to understand how, as a minority, it was easy to target them.  Fortunately for me, by the time I was figuring this out, I had already started to lean liberal, and had developed a decent knowledge of racism and how it functions socially, so I was ready to absorb the concept of Jews-as-other without it weirding me out.

That is, even Hasidic Jews are just like me, even though they speak, dress, and behave very differently from everybody else I know.  I mean, so what?  Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

Antisemitism continues to be extraordinarily irrational to me.  I have only an intellectual understanding of why so many people hate Jews, and that understanding is, by and large, a simple one: people fear and loath what they don't comprehend.  It is very disturbing, indeed, that, in this day and age, when information is omnipresent and cheap, and comprehension is just a few mouse clicks away, a quarter of the human race hates Jews.  It seems to me that a lot of people actually prefer to live in a state such that they don't understand the world around them, which is what one needs, willful ignorance, in order to harbor antisemitic attitudes.

Now that I think of it, it seems that antisemitism isn't the only contemporary problem associated with willful ignorance.  I mean, just look at the Tea Party.  Or the Texas State Board of Education.  We've got a lot of work to do.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

VA Official: Non-Christian Public Prayer Violates My Rights ‘Because I Don’t Believe That’

From Americans Against the Tea Party, courtesy of a facebook friend:

The recent Greece v. Galloway Supreme Court decision, which affirmed the right of groups to offer sectarian prayer at (government) meetings has caused quite a stir. Not only has it smashed a gaping hole through the wall between church and state, but it has opened the door to non-Christian groups offering said prayers.

For instance, Florida resident Chaz Stevens has requested to deliver a prayer to his lord and master (Satan) at a legislative meeting–something he can now do under his newfound “religious freedom.”

Unfortunately that right of any religion to offer sectarian prayer will not be honored in Roanoke County, Virginia. Al Bedrosian, a member of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has decided, despite that ruling, that only Christians will be allowed to offer invocation prayers at their meetings from this point forward.

More here, with video.

I really bet this is eventually going back to the Supreme Court.  I mean, it shouldn't because, as the article observes, the SCOTUS ruling was crystal clear that such prayer shouldn't be all Christian.  But with militant attitudes like this guy's pushing things forward, it's only a matter of time.  You really expect Bible Belt school board officials to tolerate Muslim prayer at their meetings?  Wiccan prayer?  I think not.  But right now, that's the law of the land: you can officially pray at public meetings, but it cannot be confined to simply one religion.

This is why the ruling on this is so f'ing stupid.  It's opened up a MASSIVE can of worms that will drive militant Christianists insane--I say "Christianist" to invoke the word "sexist;" it's like sexism but with Christianity.  The whole point to separation of church and state is precisely to calm such civic unrest as this, but the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, or in its stupidity, one of those two, has decided that revisiting the national strife that tore England apart in the seventeenth century is a darned fine idea.

Why must we always be fixing things that aren't broken?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Neil deGrasse Tyson Sends Right-Wing Flagship Newspaper Into Tizzy Over Evolution and Climate Change

From AlterNet:

The Washington Times' Rusty Humphries says he loves science, but only if that science includes his creator of choice. Moreover, his love for science doesn't extend to accepted scientific theory, the television show "Cosmos," and its host Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Humphries took to ​the paper​ to espouse his support for "theistic-based science,"—you know, the kind that eschews and supplants evidence and research with “God did that!”

More here.

Science isn't theology and theology isn't science.  Both are legitimate lines of philosophical inquiry, but they just aren't the same thing.  Combining the two doesn't create Reece's Peanut Butter Cups, either.  Rather, putting them together ruins what's good about both, kind of like putting ketchup on a nice filet mignon or a mustache on the Mona Lisa.  Theology and science are not two great tastes that taste great together.  And scientists, to the best of my knowledge, appear to understand this; they don't run around publicly telling theologians how to practice theology.  Lots of theologians, or, at least, people who are clearly coming from a theology-based point of view, in stark contrast, do NOT seem to understand this, and continually try to mix science and theology.

I just don't get it.  I mean, I get it, sure.  When scientific conclusions come into direct conflict with theological conclusions, which are really important to the people who embrace them, you know, people want to reconcile the conflict.  But it strikes me that the way to do that is with some more theology--why do observed physical phenomena differ from what our theology tells us ought to be happening?  What I don't get is why these people try to mix theology with science instead of furthering their theological inquiry.  It seems totally insane and/or intellectually dishonest, and it will never offer any satisfying conclusions. 

Also, as the linked essay observes, it betrays an obvious religious insecurity and a profound weakness of faith.  Think about it this way.  God is omnipotent.  If He wanted to do so, he could easily and without effort create a physical reality that is totally at odds with his revelations to mankind in Scripture.  Actually, that's what appears to be the case.  The Genesis creation story appears to be totally at odds with what the physical evidence tells us about the origins of life and the universe.  So, okay, go use your theology to figure out why this the case.  Unless you think your theology isn't up to the task.  If that's the case, I guess throwing up your hands in frustration and attacking science becomes an appealing course of action.

But when you do that, you clearly don't trust your own theology to provide answers.  That is, you're running scared.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRANK ZAPPA FRIDAY AND 70S POP MONDAY ON SATURDAY

Two of my facebook features exported to Real Art.




$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Winkie

Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CAPITALIST NAZIS? HOW COULD THIS BE?

A friend of mine posted the pic below on facebook.  Another friend called me in to explain how anybody could ever think of Nazi Germany as being capitalist.

Here's the comment I left:

It really depends on how you're defining capitalism and fascism. Fascism, at it's power structure nucleus, and before you throw in nationalistic trappings and militaristic fetishism, is about a very cozy arrangement between big business and the government. You had exactly that in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, not to mention various other Central and South American dictatorships throughout the twentieth century.

So if you're defining "unfettered capitalism" as being about mega-corporations and big business, then yeah, definitely, Nazi Germany was a nightmare combination of oppressive government and capitalism. On the other hand, if you define capitalism as also including medium and small business, then no, Nazi Germany was not about that. It left smaller business out of the loop. Especially Jewish business.

What's frustrating is how people take an all-or-nothing approach to understanding capitalism as a concept. A lemonade stand run by kids can be loosely defined as capitalism, but so can Exxon. Clearly, the two are NOT the same, but whenever I criticize capitalism in terms of big business running roughshod over everyone, including smaller business, everybody thinks I'm trying to collectivize the population and take away their televisions and ice cream.

There's got to be a better way.

Excelsior!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

GODWIN'S LAW CAVEATS

From AlterNet (actually, a few weeks ago):

Not to be upstaged, another foul-mouthed Ted—dinosaur rocker Ted Nugent—sprang up on the Texas campaign trail on Tuesday and spewed more predictable right-wing filth to boost Republican Attorney General Gregg Abbott’s bid for governor. The Detroit-born Ted answered Texas Ted’s prayer for discrimination by calling President Obama a "subhuman mongrel,” among other things. It wasn’t the first time he’s said it. However, this time the national media took note.

More right-wing insanity here. 

Would it invoke Godwin's Law in some way if I observed that Ted Nugent referring to President Obama as a "subhuman mongrel" is one of the ways that Nazis described Jews? It seems that there ought to be good faith exceptions to GL, you know, situations where comparisons to the Nazis are entirely appropriate. Like this one. Because Ted Nugent is a total racist who thinks the President is a "subhuman mongrel."
 
And he ripped off Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Climate Change Is Already Wreaking Havoc in America's Backyard

From the Guardian via Alternet:

Once a distant threat, climate change is a present-day danger, the report warns in stark language.

The scientists singled out sea-level rise, especially in Miami, drought and wildfires in the south-west, and heavy downpours as the biggest threats confronting Americans. The report, intended to be the definitive account of the effects of climate change on the US, is expected to drive the remaining two years of Barack Obama's environmental agenda.

“What this report shows is that climate change is happening now in our own backyards,” Thomas Karl, the director of the climatic centre at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Guardian. “There are a number of changes that have become faster and more apparent and stronger than we first anticipated.”

More here.

I put global warming deniers into two categories.  

The first category is comprised of capitalists.  I'm not talking about people who simply support capitalism.  I mean real capitalists, people with buttloads of money, people who very likely accept the science on global warming, but who also just don't care because dealing with it potentially means a loss of revenue, and, in any case, they're filthy rich so they can probably shield themselves and their families from the worst aspects of climate change--that global warming in the long run also means that they may very well face revenue losses, anyway, because the phenomenon will DEFINITELY be disruptive to capitalism as an economic system overall, is simply not considered; capitalists are notoriously oriented toward short-term gain, which creates a sort of cognitive blind spot when it comes to the long run.  In short, capitalists are the ultimate selfish sociopath-assholes, and that's why they deny global warming, even though they might actually believe it in private.

The second category is comprised of conservatives, you know, normal Americans who would rather die than ever vote for a Democrat.  And, actually, that's a pretty key point in considering this.  By and large these people deny global warming simply because, in their minds, they associate it with Democrats and liberals--I mean, it gets complicated, with some understanding that dealing with climate change means government interference in the economy, which they hate almost as much as they hate liberals, but with others not thinking it through at all and simply denying it because they hate liberals.  Either way, though, it's all about personal identity, anger, and hate.  They strongly and tribally identify with conservatism, ergo anything "liberal" is of the Devil.  It doesn't matter whether something is actually liberal.  If they think it's liberal, they hate it.  So they absolutely reject global warming as some sort of liberal plot against "freedom" or some such.

I mean, the "skeptics" HAVE to be understood in this way because global warming really is happening.  The scientific consensus is overwhelming.  And it's happening RIGHT NOW.  Anybody who denies it is either sociopathic and doesn't care, or his identity and world view makes accepting reality virtually impossible.  What this all means, of course, is that when you put the economic might of capitalists together with the over-the-top zeal of hate-driven conservative boots on the ground, you get just enough political opposition to prevent any real action on the matter from being taken.  

That is, all rational and psychologically well adjusted Americans, you know, most people, understand how freaking dangerous this is, how we're essentially fiddling while Rome burns, but a minority of evil and/or deranged Americans have gone out and done the right-wing equivalent of environmentalists chaining themselves to trees.

How the hell are we ever going to pull ourselves out of this one?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NFL a Case-Study in Why America Requires A Major Civil Rights Overhaul

From AlterNet:

If ever there was a perfect example of how employment discrimination against gay people operates on a day-to-day basis — and why Congress needs to outlaw such discrimination — the National Football League just provided it.
 
Following SEC Defensive Player of the Year Michael Sam's announcement that he is gay, the league issued an official statement saying: "We admire Michael Sam's honesty and courage. Michael is a football player. Any player with ability and determination can succeed in the NFL. We look forward to welcoming and supporting Michael Sam in 2014." 

That's all well and good. However, in a Sports Illustrated story about Sam, other league officials hiding behind anonymity declared that NFL teams will likely punish Sam for his sexual orientation.  

More here.

Wait. This is for real? NFL players can't handle an out gay man among their ranks? Seriously? The toughest he-men in the nation would experience discomfort playing football with a gay man? They use gay slurs so often that it would affect their playing abilities to stop doing so?

Man, if that's true, what a bunch of whiny wussies.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Militiamen And Oath Keepers Drew Weapons, Threatened To Kill Each Other

From Crooks and Liars:

The right-wing media tried to sell Americans on the idea that the antigovernment “Patriots” and militiamen who gathered to block the roundup of Cliven Bundy’s illegally grazing cattle in Nevada were well-meaning lovers of liberty. However, Bundy’s most ardent defenders have revealed themselves to be a volatile collection of hotheaded, paranoid men (and a few women) with big egos and even bigger guns.

The situation at the Bundy ranch, where armed militiamen and “Patriots” are camped out, has deteriorated so badly that competing factions apparently drew weapons on one another during heated arguments.

More here, with video.

A thug draped in an American flag is still a thug.

Also, this is almost as funny as when a gun nut at a gun show accidentally shoots himself. These people got into an argument about whether Obama was sending a drone strike to wipe out their encampment. One group wanted to get out; the other group called the first group "deserters" and drew their weapons. I mean, that scene in Life of Brian when the rival anti-Roman factions face off with each other comes to mind. But this is real life, which is virtually always more psychotic than fiction.

Good times, good times.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRANK ZAPPA FRIDAY AND 70S POP MONDAY ON SATURDAY

Two of my facebook features exported to Real Art.





$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Frankie

Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Eleven Years Ago: 'Our Chief Was Landing on the Deck'

From Pressing Issues, courtesy of Daily Kos:

Today marks the 11th anniversary of Mission Accomplished Day.  Sadly, it comes amid more sectarian violence in Iraq--and further attempts at Bush revisionism upon the opening of his "art" show at his Library.

In my favorite antiwar song of this war, “Shock and Awe,” Neil Young moaned: “Back in the days of Mission Accomplished/ our chief was landing on the deck/ The sun was setting/ behind a golden photo op.” But as Neil added elsewhere in the tune: “History is a cruel judge of overconfidence.”

And

When Bush’s jet landed on the aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded. That was over 4300 American,  and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, fatalities ago.

More here.

I don't know if this was the worst moment of the entire post 9/11 era, but it's certainly a candidate.  It was certainly the highpoint for "American exceptionalism" and arrogance, Bush declaring victory just as the sectarian bloodbath in Iraq was getting warmed up.  It was also certainly the highpoint in US history for image trumping reality.  At the time, Americans loved this stunt, and, as the linked blog post observes and documents, the news media were cheering it on.  

I wonder if anybody who was inspired by it then feels like an idiot now.  They should.  The invasion was clearly in heavy violation of international law, clearly based on lies, and clearly fueled by the sense of national emasculation so many people felt after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, an attack which had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.  No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, either.  And, even as Bush played dress-up for this massive photo op, it was quickly becoming clear that the occupation was a failure.

We were total chumps.  And we were fooled by a bland and ineffective rich frat boy playing army man.  So much for "American exceptionalism."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$