Hope you're burning in Hell, Jerry Falwell

DADT was repealed today. An important milestone in the culture wars, which are by no means over. But a huge victory nonetheless.
My view is that the Republicans have stonewalled the repeal of this absurd law because it represents a threshold. If we are to concede that heterosexuality and national security are core issues for a conservative (as opposed to liberals, who enjoy nothing better than enabling airplanes being flown into their offices as a result of homosexual shenanigans), then it becomes difficult to square the legitimizing of a group you have historically demonized as Satan's spawn by letting them be Soldiers, who Serve, and Sacrifice, so that we may be Safe, and enjoy our God-given Freedoms by going Shopping.
Just saying.
A tells me Andrew Sullivan has already said something to the effect. Well, pish.

The GOP needs to win, and then lose- for good

Here is Andrew Sullivan:

... if the current GOP wins the House, which in many respects, I hope they will - if the GOP is to grow up, and take some responsibility for fixing the appalling mess they largely made at home and abroad.

I agree. Further, the Republicans need to win so that they can prove, conclusively, that they are unfit to govern. And there is no better time for doing so than elections 2010, because if the Democrats win, they are going to have to legislate with even thinner majorities than they have had in the past 4 years. So they are going little done, and what they get done is going to be so watered down that it will infuriate their base even more, which will lead to a presidential election disaster in 2012.

Better, I say, to lance the boil now.

This may be true... or maybe not.

My life did not begin until late 2000, when I discovered the music of the late nineties.

You must be crazy, AZ!

I have to say that nothing that has happened in the political world in the last few months has made me as bitter as the Arizona legislation that allows search and arrest of suspected illegal immigrants.

Here is the core issue as I see it: Who, after all, is going to be suspected of being an illegal immigrant?

Writing in the NY Times, Kris Kobach, a law professor and former advisor to John Ashcroft, Atty General under GWB, says that the law forbids race as the sole consideration, and lays out a scenario for “reasonable suspicion” that conjures up an image of sweaty (and swarthy) young men crammed into a minivan that is speeding along a illegal alien smuggling corridor. Well, fine. A (I hate to use this much-derided-by-Jon-Stewart phrase) perfect storm of suspicious behavior, who can quarrel with that? On top of that, a country’s wish to regulate its borders, nothing wrong with that, either. Apparently close to 70% of Arizona ’s polled public approves of the law; hey, it’s a democracy, isn’t it?

Not so fast. The question is one of fairness. How is it possible to avoid racial profiling under this law (no matter what the pious sentiments expressed by Mr Korbach are)? Is it conceivable that every carload of blonde haired and blue eyed teenagers, acting evasively because they are concealing little baggies o’ goodies in the glove compartment, is going to be put through an immigration check? Wait; you say (I’m talking to you, blonde and blue eyed Young Republican friend of Maisy's Ma); a driver’s license is proof of legality in AZ; if they can show it, they’re free to go (unless of course they get busted for the pot). But you are not required to carry a license in AZ, dear blonde lady; now what? Is your cop going to suspect your young Aryan friends of being illegally smuggled from Mexico and arrest them, or is he going to give them a ticket for speeding and move on?

Or look at it this way. Two carloads of sweaty, evasive teenagers are pulled over. One is full of blonde, blue eyed kids wearing expensive clothes, the other of brown kids in shabby clothes. The cop has a choice (for whatever reason): check only one car for immigration status. What does the law say? Reasonable suspicion points to car number two – but why? Arizona is full of poor brown people who are there legally! So is it fair that only they get “reasonably” suspected?

Really, now, be honest. Distaste of greasy haired little brown folk and the smelly food they eat is allowed, of course, but their blatant persecution is not. People who claim it is unfair to those who come here legally are dodging the argument; the controversy in the law is not about illegal vs legal. The controversy is about racial profiling. People who claim that there is nothing wrong with carrying your driver’s license around (as a surrogate marker for legality) are fudging the issue. Since it is not a requirement of the law to carry your driver’s license, the only people who are now obligated to carry their driver’s license around are brown people. So stop dodging and fudging, seventy percent of Arizonians and anyone else who supports this law. Admit you don’t like brown people. Admitting the truth will set you free; free to wear your conical white hats.

Loser, baby

So here I am, sitting at home, catching up with the things and thangs that happened while I was at work, then playing squash and chatting - nay, unburdening - with Captain America (and I name him that in the best way it is possible to be named Captain America; a big, strong, forthright, straight-up, good-humored, good-natured, good-hearted, good-everything man about whom the one adjective that qualifies his every quality is also the adjective that qualifies him: good) (one feels that a really good part of this man is that he does not read blogs), and I want to listen to some music, so what do I go for? I go for the "I don't know" buttons, viz either KCRW or Pandora.

I see how I almost never play music that lies on my hard-drive, spread-eagled, as it were, waiting for a gesture. Noooo. I must go after the unpredictable, the wtf is this, music. So why do I buy the cow when the milk is free? Because it's good?

Galloping consumption of politics

For a person who has tooted her health care horn literally from the get go, Tammy Baldwin has had nothing to say while the carefully constructed health care reform bills fall to pieces around her. Leadership, my ass. This is a class "A" non-entity, and our progressive, politically active, highly informed district deserves much better. Okay, some might say that asking for a Russ Feingold clone in the House might be wishing for too much; but why? I mean, if Feingold were a US Representative, WI District 2 would be a match made in heaven. Instead, he represents all of Wisconsin. No quarrel there, but why can District 2 not come up it's own Feingold, and have to settle for a milquetoast personality like TB? (Hah!)

Unfortunately, the record of Dave de Felice, Dane County Supervisor and putative Baldwin challenger, is unknown to me, besides this brief condemnation of the health care process in the WSJ online. This guy has something to say, and from what I can tell, he has no idea either. Okay, you say; what about his webpage? Fuggedaboudit.

All that and all that

as Gopal would say, but am I really back?
We'll see. I hope so. At the very least, the urge to write is certainly back. Still, many a slip.

The Supremes

I finally understand the rage that my pro-life friends - oh, alright, who am I kidding, I have no pro-life friends, just pro-life acquaintances, and fake-smile-and-thank Western-Civility-acquaintances at that. At any rate, I can finally empathize with pro-life lunatics.

I refer to the last Supreme Court decision to allow unfettered corporate funds in electioneering, made in defiance of all precedent and tradition. Yes, I hear you, watching a liberal defend tradition - but I have two words for you, while I sip some nice whisky: British Constitution (was anyone else brought up on Wodehouse, or do I have to explain the sobriety test ante breathalyzer): that is to say, there is none, and look at Britain. The right wing of that country, as is well-known, makes some progressives in the US look like rivers-of-blood Powell-ites.

Anyway; as I was saying, I finally feel the rage of the lunatic right. Roe v. Wade : Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Broke at Saddleback

I realize Obama cannot be all things to all people. But he’s trying to be. What else is the purpose of pandering to people you say have views that are “entirely contrary to mine”? Abortion is one thing: most sane people can reasonably agree that abortions are unpleasant, and should be rare. We can then come together to thrash out how to keep them rare, without taking away people’s rights to their own bodies. Here, there is “room for dialogue”. On the other hand, where is the room for dialogue with someone, when that someone is equating your entire identity with that of a pedophile or an animal-poker? It’s not that different from garden-variety bigotry; the same bigotry that was marginalized by laws and attitudes that made Obama president-elect.

Accordingly, here is the transcript of an email I wrote to David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager (not that I hold any hopes of it ever being read, but at least I got it off my chest). I was especially pleased to have called Mr Obama’s belief system “mumbo-jumbo”, but kept it polite by saying “thanks”. Thanks for nothing, asshole.

Hi

I am an Obama supporter and contributor.

I understand his statement that there should be "room for dialogue" on abortion, even though I am staunchly pro-choice.

But I do NOT understand how there could possibly be room for dialogue on explicit bigotry towards gays, as Mr Warren has demonstrated with his repeated statements and emails. There are other ways to engage Mr Warren's work on AIDS and poverty. Having him perform the invocation at the inauguration legitimizes his entire work, not just the good parts of it. If Mr Obama must have religious mumbo-jumbo at his inauguration, there are other, more inclusive, priests and denominations.

I am tremendously disappointed by this pandering. I do not intend to contribute any more of my time and money towards Mr Obama's "campaign for change".

Thanks

Helloo Nadia!

As part of our 5th anniversary celebs, we are returning to the place where A and I had our first serious serious date. As everybody knows, we met on match.com the week before Thanksgiving, 2003. After IM'ing a back and forth over a few days, days during which A's "space" key was spacing out -utter hilarity of the nerdly kind ensued- we met for coffee at Michelangelo's, on State St. Although it was not planned, we ended up going to La Paella (since deceased) for dinner. And then, just to show you what nerds can do when they get their dander up, we ended the night at the Plaza Tavern, home of the most massively over-hyped burger on the planet. It was a good date.
Then, on the weekend following Thanksgiving, I took her on a proper date, the details of which escape me; but we ended the night at Nadia's, me drinking single malt, A sportingly putting up with my peat-infused ramblings, setting a pattern for our relationship that persists to this day.
So, it's to Nadia's that we return tonight. It's a little worrying that its last good review was in 2000, but hey. The things we do for love.

More things other people said better

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

End Times Countdown - Bush Exit Interviews

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Got you on my maa..ind

Thanks, A. It's been a great five years. I look forward to fifty more.

As usual, someone else said it better

William Dalrymple, author of my most favorite book on Delhi, author of many other fantastic books on India and travel, doubly beloved to me because I had a brief and pleasant email exchange with him once (blessed are the validated, for they shall revalidate), says what I think should be said, except better.

A pox on both your houses

I agree with Ahmed Rashid (click on ListenNow) that it was not in the Pakistan government's interest to have been involved in the Bombay attacks (yes, to me, it will always be Bombay, meri jaan). It's also quite true that chances are better than even that the terrorists who struck in Bombay had something to do with Pakistan, in the same way some of the 9/11 pilots had something to do with Saudi Arabia. If the Indian government wants to point fingers at Pakistan, it should do so without making mealy-mouthed statements and veiled implications, and prove its case; if not, then it should find a way to work with Pakistan in an open and honest way that isolates terrorists. Why is it not obvious to the leaders of both countries, in the way that it's obvious to everyone else, that they are both in a terrible situation, security-wise, and the only way to head towards a more secure environment is to cooperate, militarily and economically?

One more reason

Part of the reason why I started getting uncomfortable with food blogging is here.
By the way, anyone else enjoying The Daily Beast? (He asks his world-wide audience.)

We have found the enemy, and he is us

We watched the Frontline on Lee Atwater yesterday. Inasmuch as it was somewhat discomfiting to see the phrase "I hope you die in pain" play out in real life, I'd like to point out an obvious fact (as is my wont; a much loved and heavily bearded schoolteacher once called me a "Master of the Obvious"): the problem with Lee Atwater scaring the public with black rapists and mental illness is not Lee Atwater, it's the public.
And while I agree that the issue is a little more complicated, in that a leader (or a TV ad, apparently), has the ability to appeal to best or worst in us, I believe that these sides of our personalities are not independent beings. We still retain the ability to consider what's being told to us, after all. It would be nice -and really different- if an otherwise great documentary series like Frontline was less coy about who bears the ultimate responsibility for letting Willie Horton in 1988, Rove's "McCain has an illegitimate black child" rumor in 2000, or "Obama is a Muslim" this year become issues, and what that really says about our society.

Something for something

Attorney Adorable and Wonder Boy treated us to lunch at the Brasserie today, capping a week in which we had a huge turn-out for Monday Night Squash (a.k.a Vilas Dads Beer Group), elected a new president on Tuesday, celebrated A's birthday on Wednesday, played squash with The Boy (as usual) on Thursday, supped with The Fam on Friday, and pretty much napped all day on Saturday, before ordering out from Bandung last night (see previous post).
We ate at Lombardino's for A's birthday. As usual, a high quality meal; I had a half-portion of the "Straw and hay" pasta, notable for the slow-cooked chicken deliciousness, followed by a "Beef and Brussels" steak on polenta which was downright sinful. I should say I actually wanted the Cobia again, but decided to work my way down the list instead - with happy results. A had the "Tortelloni ala Bolognese", which was a two-thumbs-up-way-up situation, as I understand. Now the truly pleasant surprise, in all this, was actually how good the "wine special" Chianti Classico was; I had had it last week when we had our "family date night" (also the Night of the Cobia), and it was still good.
A's Mom made a so-called "lamb o' leg" on Friday; this one was off the rack, so to speak, in that it was ready to stick into the oven from Trader Joe's. Very nice. TJ's is a place which has made its name in surprises, both pleasant and unpleasant. In that if you're out of ideas, you can get some really good stuff there; but if you're looking for something specific, you best not waste time trawling the aisles hopelessly.
Thanks, AA and WB! We enjoyed our sandwiches - and of course your company - a lot. Enough that we are eating only steamed broccoli for dinner.

I Love My Indonesia!

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, Stewy the Stewart brought this to my notice


For the cognoscenti, the frowny dude in the beginning is also the dude who played "Mogambo".
Anyway, A and I have been eating take outs from the Indonesian restaurant Bandung.... it's only been here over 15 years, why wasn't I told!

I finally caved today

and bought one more product from Mr Jobs - it's a thing of beauty, what can I say; I bought it for the artistic value - and then I read this. Thanks, Pogue! You did your best, but I don't care.

Ah, the mtrfxing 80s!

The Dwag is fuzzy, so when A goes to work, he generously gives her some of himself to remember him by, mainly by plastering it all over her clothes.
The phenomenon is best described in a song that is a living symbol of a decade filled with wretched music. Check the subtitles.

ADDED: I only bring this up to confess that we showed this exercise in (what the good Sam has called) jack-assery to The Boy, who - predictably - enjoyed it ultra plus.