vendredi 4 janvier 2008

And so the madness begins...

Hard to believe that at one time the Iowa Caucus was the kickoff to the presidential campaign, isn't it? It seems as if the campaign has been going on ever since John Kerry took his $14 million in leftover campaign cash in November 2004 and went home before the vote count was even certified.

There isn't much to say about the Republicans, other than the near-historic collapse of Mitt Romney, who spent a mint of money in Iowa and lost to Elmer Gantry. There's a certain "chickens, home, roost, etc." feeling I have about Huckabee's win; that he is the Frankenstein monster created by the Republican Party's embrace of the most lunatic fringe of the religious right for so many years. The party hackocracy has always been able to keep the flat-earthers in the fold by giving lip service to their values and then virtually ignoring them in the arena of actual policy. In Huckabee, they have Their Guy -- a guy who talks life where blastocysts are concerned, but brags about how many people he killed as governor; a guy who says wives should submit to their husbands and then frees a rapist because his victim was distantly related by marriage to Bill Clinton; and a guy who thinks the earth was created in six days just as it is today by a Big Alpha Male in the Sky. The few mainstream Republicans left are appalled at this, but they have no one to blame but themselves. They put up with this for years; now they have reaped their just rewards.

On the Democratic side, all I can think of is that ModFab is one happy guy this morning, and if he weren't such a good and generous soul, he'd be perfectly within his rights to be smug as hell. Apparently we were at the wake when Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were running things at MSNBC, and I wasn't about to watch Brian Williams and Pumpkinhead, so instead we alternated between Air America's coverage (which included the intelligent and learned David Bender trying mightily to cut into Mark Green's obvious spinning for Hillary Clinton and The Odious Lionel being far better than he is on his own show) and the Sammy Cam.

This was a HUGE win for Obama, one in which he was the choice of half of voters under 45 and 57% of those aged 17-29. Despite the perception among everyone born after 1964 that the baby boom generation has a sense of entitlement to all the marbles in perpetuity, any progressive boomer with half a brain knows that even if the candidate you supported didn't win (and mine didn't), that first-time caucusgoers showed up in droves and voted for a candidate that gives them hope for the future is great, great news. The political process has become so cynical, and the processes of government have become so debased, that the sound repudiation of the corporatist Hillary Clinton by young voters last night is wonderful to behold, and the enthusiasm of those young Iowa voters who caucused for the first time last night and those from out-of-state who went to Iowa to spend their Christmas break going door-to-door to stump for Obama is something that should be nurtured and encouraged to carry over into other states and into years to come.

In February of last year, Bill Maher asked John Edwards, "Since your competition is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, mainly, do you think it's unfair baggage that you're a white man?". It was a joke, of course, but for all that Edwards has been channelling Paul Wellstone this year, and for all that before all this started, the Democrats were touting Mark Warner as the Great Southern White Hope for 2008, there does seem to be a strong desire this year to do a soft-storm of the Bastille and move away from anything that smacks, however remotely, of the Washington cesspool of the last seven years. And despite his message, the fact remains that John Edwards is still a Southern White Guy, and no matter what he runs on, you can't tell in five seconds of television imagery that he DOES represent something different.

Watching Edwards speech last night (which at one point veered dangerously close to Howard Dean's misrepresented rally from 2004 with its litany of states), his studied avoidance of words like "victory", and his (from what I could see) framing of the night's results as a resounding message of change, I had the sense that before this is all over, one way or another, Edwards and Obama are going to be able to do business. Whether it's a one-two punch one way or the other; or some other kind of good cop/bad cop relationship, my sense was less that Edwards is believing he's going to win this thing, and more one that he's bound and determined to continue the message right through February 5 and possibly beyond. For John Edwards, this is less about an Edwards presidency than it is about putting an end to the corporate control of the United States Government, and that ultimately he's not going to care how it gets done as long as it does.

Ezra Klein, who despite looking twelve years old on television is rapidly becoming one of the smartest political analysts around, has this to say:


Barack Obama won tonight, but, in a sense, John Edwards' campaign also triumphed. The progressivism of the race, the focus on ideas, the courage of the Democrats -- all were products of his early example. He began the campaign by talking about poverty, announced his candidacy in the mud of New Orleans, set the agenda with the first universal health care bill, and closed Iowa speaking of the uninsured. This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved. But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda and finished second, ahead of the Clinton juggernaut. He said his role was to speak for the voiceless. He now barrels towards New Hampshire with ever more volume. And while his shot at the nomination is long at best, his candidacy, even if it fails, will have been far more successful than most.



This is not to say that he's out of this thing; that he squeaked by ahead of Hillary Clinton, who has far more money and far more media coverage, shouldn't be underestimated. Even Time regards his second-place finish as a boost:


John Edwards went into the Iowa caucuses last night a fighter and he emerges from them as scrappy as ever. In other words, don't assume, because he lost to Barack Obama, that Edwards is down for the count. After all, as his campaign advisers are quick to point out, by finishing second Edwards's David can claim victory over at least one Goliath. "The person hurt in all this is Hillary Clinton," Joe Trippi, an Edwards senior advisor, told TIME minutes after his candidate claimed the silver medal in Des Moines. "The former president of the United States flew all around this state and so did she. They outspent us three-to-one at least. And we beat her."

[snip]

All that's now left to decide, said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' top strategist, is what kind of change the country wants. "Are we going to have a philosophical version of change, or are we going to have a fight to bring about the change we really need?" Prince asked in a rhetorical flourish meant to contrast philosophical change (Obama) with the real thing (Edwards). Edwards' populist message has focused on stamping out the power of corporate greed in Washington, and he argues that Obama's Kumbaya inclusiveness cannot get that job done. "Asking lobbyists to simply give up their power by asking them? In whose world? Not in the real world. That is a complete and total fantasy, it'll never happen," Edwards told a crowd in Ames Tuesday.


I suspect we're going to see younger journalists sounding the death knell of baby boomer politics in Hillary Clinton's third place finish. But I think that it says far more about how wrong the punditocracy is that suddenly Hillary Clinton, after fifteen years in which they regarded her as the yokel from the hicks who wasn't fit to eat off of Nancy Reagan's dishes, became the shoo-in, the anointed nominee, by virtue of having been in Washington for a decade and a half; and that they were 100% wrong all along.

Even if Obama isn't your first choice, there IS something terribly exciting -- and hopeful -- about the fact that a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama" was the first choice of a predominantly white population in a flyover state in a post-9/11 world. Even the fact that Mike Huckabee, as much of a willfully ignorant, theocratic moron as he is (and arguably the Mirror Universe version of Bill Clinton, a theory for which Lower Manhattanite makes a compelling case), won on the Republican side is a hopeful sign that perhaps we are getting past the reptilian-brain mindset that too many Americans have had over the past six years; one fed by the media and right-wing politicians, that Killer Muslims are Coming To Get Us™ and that this fear should occupy our every waking moment. I'm not saying that there aren't very real dangers in the world, but it's clear by now that the Bush/Cheney/Giuliani methodology of attack first and ask questions later is one that no longer resonates with the American public, no matter how many right-wing talk radio hosts and TV talking heads try to perpetuate it. I'm not saying that Huckabee's win is a good thing; I'm with tristero in that I think that in a group of utterly batshit crazy Republicans, he may be the most dangerous of all. But his victory in Iowa, I think, is less about evangelicals in that state and more about the fact that "Vote for me or die at terrorists' hands" isn't resonating the way it used to be.

I'm still not sold on Obama being tough enough to fight effectively back if he's the nominee and the Republicans start painting him as a Muslim spy who's also a cocaine addict. I still think he's frighteningly naïve about the reality of today's Republican Party, whose goal is not just to crush the opposition, but crush it, mangle its corpse, then have sex with it, then cook it and eat it with fava beans and a nice chianti for dinner. I still think that he vastly overestimates the feasibility of consensus with greedy corporate executives who are loath to see their taxpayer-funded gravy train derailed. And I'm troubled by his use of right-wing framing on issues from Social Security to trial lawyers. There is a kind of incipient Joe Liebermanism in him that troubles me.

I've heard some Obama supporters say that I needn't worry, that this is just how he sheathes the sword before applying the death blow, and I suppose we can always hope. But while hope may be enough for young voters who haven't lived through the assassination of their generations' heroes (and I hope they never have to) and watching their hopes of what America can be dashed time and time again; you can't blame the rest of us for saying "I'm from New Jersey....show me."

However, I AM willing to be shown.

jeudi 3 janvier 2008

Carlisle Castle Bistro, Newtown

Tucked down the backstreets of Newtown, the Carlisle Castle isn't known to many, but is dear to the hearts of locals, who appreciate its low-key unadorned charm ahead of the trendier pubs on the main drag. The enormous marble bar in the front, transported from Italy in the early 1900s, is quietly impressive, but the overall mood is unashamedly casual with patrons largely made up of students,

Iowa Caucus coverage

Sorry to be a bit off my game, folks, but here at Chez Brilliant we're dealing with a death in the family so energies are directed elsewhere for a couple of days. That's why the Brilliant of 2007 list and Critics over Coffee isn't up yet. Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that I can't spend the day and evening glued to the TV, though; after all, it was just four years ago that after the Iowa caucus was over, I was do depressed that for three weeks I could hardly drag myself out of bed in the morning to go to work.

But others are on the case, and here are some observations as we head into caucus day that are worth your time:

Brad Friedman on how the election in Kenya should remind Iowans of the importance of decentralized, precinct-based vote counting.

eRiposte has a ton of posts to help uMitt Romney's World of Pure Imaginationndecided Iowans sort it all out, such as a three-part series on whether Hillary Clinton is a corporate Democrat.

It isn't just Democrats caucusing today. For those following which one of the Republican nimrods, crazies, and theocrats (not that the three characteristics are mutually exclusive, mind you) is the choice of beleaguered Iowa Republicans, Americablog's Iowa correspondent reports on.

In case you missed it, the New York Times' Michael Gordon (no friend to Democrats) interviewed John Edwards on foreign policy. If you think Edwards is a lightweight, read this and be enlightened.

Note to Walter Shapiro: Why are you joining the MSM in burying John Edwards before anyone even gets to the school all-purpose room? Want to know why I'd rather sit at a wake than watch the television coverage that's going to be even worse? This is why.

Eric Stern, former executive director of National Stonewall Democrats, reminds us in this Salon compendium of celebrity prognosticators that when Gen. Peter Pace called gays and lesbians "immoral", John Edwards was the only candidate to immediately speak out. Overcompensating for his "internal struggle"? Perhaps. But the words are what people see.

Mike Caulfield makes a compelling case for Chris Dodd (who would be my #2 choice).

Jeff Fecke looks back on the Manly-Man Campaign that Wasn't of Fred Thompson.

DistributorcapNY discovers that political pundits are run on faulty operating systems.

Steve Benen on the splintering of the unholy alliance between the greedmonsters and the Jeebofascists of the Republican Party.

So we go into today with no idea what the citizens of Iowa have in store for us tonight. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Iowa, please don't fuck this up. The future of the Republic is in your hands.

mercredi 2 janvier 2008

New Year's Eve cocktail party at Ocean Room

Noone does New Year's Eve quite like Sydney.As an estimated one million revellers packed in tight around the foreshores of Sydney Harbour, I was fortunate enough to receive complimentary tickets (thanks Raita!) to the cocktail party at Ocean Room at the Overseas Passenger Terminal.With tickets normally retailing at $350 per head, we were treated to a never-ending stream of gorgeous seafood

New Year's is Christmas for purveyors of diet products


Ce n'est pas mon petit dejeuner


On Saturday I went to Harmon to pick up one of those temporary "cover the gray" sticks to use till I get to the hairdresser this weekend. Those of you who have Harmon stores in your neighborhood understand why I put this particular chain in the pantheon of other emporia without which one simply cannot live a civilized existence: Trader Joe's, World Market, and Tuesday Morning. Harmon always puts those bins of travel size packages of every toiletry product you can imagine near the front door, but once you've successfully navigated that particular gauntlet, you get to the seasonal merchandise.

Most of the year, this stuff is pretty innocuous -- cheap gift sets, Whitman's Samplers in heart packaging, plastic hollow Easter Eggs, sunscreen and flip-flops. But once Christmas is over and New Year's is in the offing, the seaonal merchandise becomes diet products.

Given that January 1 occurs every year, and given that every year there's a spike in the purchase of diet products and gym memberships after the year turns, you'd think people would wonder why every year the market for diet products is so huge, and you'd think they'd put it together that maybe all these appetite suppressants and Slim-fast bars and overpriced, pharmaceutical-named snake oil, and whatever piece of plastic-and-metal crap Tony Little is pushing this year just don't work. I've seen a lot of New Years, and every year there are millions of people going through this drill yet again.

I know people who swear by Weight Watchers, and if that works for you and you want to spend your life counting points and denying yourself for the next three days if you happen to dare to eat a point-heavy meal (such as the bounteous repast of which we availed ourselves New Year's Eve, one which featured hummus, falafel, babaganoush, zucchini pancakes, lamb kebab, and baklava), well, more power to you. For me, the last thing I need is something where I have to obsess even more about food than I already do, not to mention a "lifestyle" that ultimately will require me to live on the morning dew and a lettuce leaf after my Russian peasant body keeps adjusting to an ever-lower calorie count.

As far as I'm concerned, Kate Harding is my go-to gal for those times when I find myself succumbing to the mandatory self-loathing that's part of being a "person of girth" (girth being anything over a size 0) in this country. And she's been on a tear about Weight Watchers lately:

The only thing you really get from WW, or any of its competitors, is a specific structure for your efforts. If that’s what you want, go nuts. It’s your money. And it’s certainly true that some people respond well to the WW structure and do lose weight steadily on it. I myself lost 40 lbs. on Weight Watchers pretty easily, as diets go. Found it all again within a few years, but hey, that’s just me and my lazy, non-committed, hopelessly gluttonous ass, right?


Uh huh. Except, do me a favor. Go click on the “Success Stories” section on their website. I won’t link, but go ahead, I’ll wait.


Do you see that asterisk underneath the “after photos”? The one next to the words “RESULTS NOT TYPICAL.”


Yeah.


Weight Watchers, according to their website, is “unique.” It’s different from all those other diet plans — in fact, it’s not one! And one of the main reasons it’s different is that they will give you “the knowledge and info you need to help you keep it off for good.” But for some strange, inexplicable reason, they still have to include the same disclaimer as every other diet program that touts its success with pictures of former fatties. The disclaimer that says, in slightly fewer words, We cannot legally claim that someone who lost weight and kept it off represents the typical consumer of our product, even though the entire purpose of our product is to help people lose weight and keep it off. Or, in still other words, In a majority of cases, our product does not do what it is meant to do.


Oddly enough, they still include that same disclaimer, even though this is not like all those other programs that include it. Even though this is the one that will teach you how to lose weight and keep it off for good! Somehow, despite having discovered the magic secret to permanent weight loss, they are still not willing and/or legally permitted to claim unreservedly that it works for most people.


Weird, huh?


Weight Watchers: A time-tested approach informed by analyzing years of scientific studies.


Diets: “Proof” often based on one scientific study designed to support the diet’s claims.


Okay, first, how “time-tested” can their approach be, when only thirty years ago, their approach was fucking Mackerelly? And when the Weight Watchers program I did in 2003 was a different program from what’s offered now (though what I did was very similar to the current “Flex” plan)? One of the slogans in the new campaign is, “If diets work, why do we need a new one every 5 minutes?” To which I respond, if Weight Watchers works, why does the whole program get revamped every five minutes?


And… *snicker* and… *BWAH* and… *wipes away tear*… I’m sorry, did Weight Watchers just slag off other diet programs for basing their claims on studies designed to support them? I need to go lie down.


Weight Watchers: Flexible food plans that can adapt to any lifestyle or unique needs.


Diets: Little consideration for you as an individual, with just one approach to suit everyone’s needs.


That’s right. Weight Watchers doesn’t offer “just one approach.” They’ve got TWO! The “Count our fancy POINTS instead of the calories and fat they represent!” plan, OR the “If you’re already a vegan who doesn’t eat sugar, you’ll never have to count anything again!” plan. SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE.


That’s it. That’s their whole list of ways Weight Watchers is different from “diets.” On the other hand, here are a few things the program involves that bear some small similarity to “diets”:



  • Restricting fat and calories

  • Exercising for the express purpose of being permitted to consume more fat and calories without breaking the rules

  • Focusing on weight loss as the primary goal

  • Weekly weigh-ins

  • Rewards and encouragement for losing weight

  • Zero guarantee that the program will help any given individual lose weight at all, let alone permanently

  • Warnings that people who do lose weight and keep it off are not “typical”of those who use the program

  • Warnings that “only permanent lifestyle changes - such as making healthful food choices and increasing physical activity - promote long-term weight loss.
” Promote long-term weight loss, you’ll note. Not guarantee it. Not even cause it. Merely promote it.
  • Blame placed entirely on the individual, not the program (much less the myth of long-term weight loss being possible for most people) — if permanent weight loss does not follow from adherence to the program



  • In this post, she addresses the "You must be lying about what you ate" factor at the mandatory weigh-in.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't think it serves my mental health to pay good money to go someplace where if I haven't lost any weight between meetings they'll blame it on the Hall's Ice Blue Peppermint cough drops. I mean, think about it: COUGH DROPS? Are these the depths to which we must descend? I don't know about you, but I don't even LIKE cheesecake; but if you tell me that if I eat cheesecake it means I'm a lazy-ass slob, you can bet your life that I am going to respond by heading over to Mara's Bakery and buying the biggest-ass piece of cheesecake I can find.

    Accusing overweight women of lying about cough drops. This is a healthy lifestyle? But I really don't have time to rant about this any more. I'm taking my fat, lazy downstairs to do my morning yoga, after which I'll have a gluttonous breakfast consisting of a 100% whole wheat English muffin spread with a tablespoon of Smart Balance of Omega 3 peanut butter, a glass of milk, and a clementine. If I'm really feeling gluttonous, I might even have TWO clementines. Now if I were really committed to weight loss to start off the new year, I'd go outside and suck the frost off a grass leaf in the front yard.

    Obstruction

    That's the word Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton use to describe the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes:

    In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

    A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

    As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

    As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.


    It's no secret that while I'm not a "9/11 Truth"-er, I do believe that there are aspects to what happened that day that point away from the "nineteen guys with boxcutters using planes to bring down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon and there is no way we knew anything at all even remotely connected to such a plan" official story. If the Administration and the CIA want to squelch this kind of inquiry, they're doing a pretty lousy job of putting people's questions and concerns to rest.

    Two more bloggers endorse for Edwards -- and one doesn't

    Sean-Paul Kelley and Ian Welsh of The Agonist endorse John Edwards:

    In the last four years it is not so much that America has changed, but that the circumstances of life in America, our role in the world and our politics have deteriorated, drastically. A kernel of hope and faith in America still remains, but change, now, more so than then, is urgent. Add to these reasons those that Ian so lucidly outlines, and we believe, once again, that John Edwards is the candidate who will finally put an end to the plaintive mewling for, and cooing about, the need for bi-partisanship and consensus in our capital.

    Today the middle class--the very foundation of America's great wealth--disappears, gutted by Bush's "Haves and Have Mores." An out of control trade deficit--not to mention an inflationary monetary policy--sucks our treasury dry. And most tragically, a generation of Americans and Iraqis bleed to death in the forbidding deserts of Iraq.

    It is time we pulled America into the future and the man to do this is John Edwards.


    And Ian Welsh weighs in:

    There's no middle left and anyone who thinks that the vast majority of Republican Senators will respond to good will is living in a world of denial. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Republican behaviour in the last 7 years indicates that will happen. Just as nothing in the behaviour of oil companies and health insurers indicates they're interested in "compromise" when not compromising has done so very very well for them and taken them from victory to victory.

    Which leaves us with John Edwards: who wants to kick ass, take names, and help the middle class stop getting reamed out by credit card companies, banks, oil companies, Wall Street and all the other invertebrates whose existence is based on sucking blood from ordinary people while denying they have any responsibility for how pale and weak the middle class has become.

    Can he do it? Many Democrats, used to having their teeth kicked in for years by Republican bullies, say no. They reason that without 60 votes, they'll still have to compromise with Republicans and so they want a Compromiser-In-Chief sitting in the White House.

    But compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably a million Iraqis dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted.

    So perhaps the key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forwards sniveling on ones' knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a President aggressively make the case that the American people want health care, want lower oil prices, want fairer credit card policies -- a presidnet (sic) who is willing to go the wall over it.


    Now we get to my beloved and dear friend ModFab, whom I tried to convince that John Edwards was the candidate who best embodied the progressive values we share. But alas, it is John Edwards' "internal struggle" against his Southern Baptist background in his views on gay marriage that was the dealbreaker, and so he is endorsing Barack Obama.

    I can't fault him on his choice. If I were faced with a candidate who admitted to feeling "icky" about me and about who I am, no matter how much he "battles" that; one who just couldn't get past a bunch of childhood preachers to get to a point where my publicly-expressed oaths to my beloved were somehow "not as good as" someone else's, I'm not sure I could support that candidate either. I have more faith in Edwards' ability to separate his religious background from policy than ModFab does, but then, it's easy for me to have it because it isn't my life and my rights that are at stake. Yes, we did discuss Donnie McClurkin, but the issue seemed to be what the candidate believes, not the red meat he chooses to dish up to certain constituencies is. And so his choice is Barack Obama. I understand that an Obama presidency would be a transformational change in a way not even Hillary Clinton would be. I know how Obama is capable of inspiring people. But what ModFab sees as thoughtfulness and showing leadership in Obama's maddening tendency to want to split the difference when dealing with Republicans (despite all evidence to the contrary that such a thing is even possible), I see as a creeping Joe Liebermanism -- a willingness to sell the middle class down the river in the name of conciliation. And because of that, I don't think gay issues are going to fare particularly well with Obama. In fact, I'd say that Obama's willingness to concede just about anything bodes far more ill for gay concerns than Edwards' internal struggle. At least John Edwards has Elizabeth and daughter Cate needling him about it.

    But at least ModFab isn't supporting Hillary Clinton. THEN I'd have to ask him to step outside and we'd probably resort to fisticuffs.

    (UPDATE: Don't miss this great post at The Left Coaster on why the Change™ Obama professes to stand for doesn't necessarily include progressivism.