Religiosity Gene Discovered...

...in Mouse DNA

Scientists have recently analyzed the impact of the certain receptor genes on the risk of high religious conservatism as measured by frequent church attendance, attendance at tent revivals, positive associations with evangelical ideas, and monetary support for corporate churches and conservative talk show hosts in white mice.

Results show that the mice's religious-based political conservatism is caused by a different set of DNA components than simple strong religious beliefs. It would appear that the political variant of this DNA sequence is a strand shared with reptiles. Replacing this strand with a sequence taken from a prescient mammal, such as a whale or baboon, it is theorized, would transform a rabid Repubvangical mouse into a mere European Social Democrat mouse.

iTunes, version 2

Slow Train Coming by Bob Dylan

There is the form.

There is the content.

There is the intersection, where you have to serve somebody.

   Is
         this
               my past,
               my future,
      or
      is this,
   just
my present?

My so-called friends...

have fallen under a spell.
They look me squarely in the eye and they say, "All is well."
Can they imagine the darkness that will fall from on high
When men will beg God to kill them and they won't be able to die?
Bob Dylan, Precious Angel

A few weeks ago I wrote that it would be an error for Democrats to expect to benefit from any pre-convention split among the Republicans.

Since then, the so-called "mainstream media" and the conservative talking heads have provided an exciting confirmation (see this - thanks KC; and my earlier musings here).

Today, Karl Rove re-initiated himself into the discussion with an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. He affirms that the political contest to be waged by Republicans will become very unpleasant, very soon. He is also trying to deflect some the attention to stories on McCain's relationships with lobbyists. There are layers, and there are layers.

I am told in discussions with really smart friends, the really well-informed ones, that John Cougar Mellencamp was right. "Nothing matters and what if it did."

"...I hardly think Karl Rove is a source I want to devote much time toward."

"...it's just more of Karl Rove's diarrhea of the mouth..."

Perhaps I err.

Maybe this Obama-mania and the surrounding aura will be enough. Maybe his rhetorical flourish, intellectual armor and political instinct are so fantastic that they will protect him against his personal and political short-comings throughout the campaign.

Maybe this really is the year of the Democrats. Maybe Bush and his criminal regime have dragged down the Republicans to such an underwhelming state of disrepute that, as a national political force, they have already exhausted any realistic opportunity to win the Presidential contest in November.

And maybe, just maybe, none of us has never squandered an opportunity that was ours to squander.

Hope is not a strategy.

History shows that an opposing candidate underestimates the Rush Limbaughs, the Karl Roves and their oozing, beguiling ilk at his own great peril. These guys act as a forward area scout for an army of 300 million camped just beyond the hill.

So maybe,
    just maybe,
        we
            should
                prepare
                    for
        what is
    to come.

XM Radio, Version 1

Eighties Station

ZZ Top is playing...

Every Girl's Crazy About a Sharp Dressed Man

Nothing to do with me.

I dress like a guy with no future.

I dress like a guy with no past.

I like it just the same.


It is family game night.

And...

I
finally
won
at
Uno Attack!

iTunes, version 1

Mister Heartbreak by Laurie Anderson.

It would make me feel old

if

I didn't
love
it

sooooooo
much!

Excellent Birds.

Super Delegates...

should be proportionally allocated.

Why is this confusing?

Why does an allocation of Super Delegates according to the proportion of the vote constitute something other than the simple proportional representation used in the Democratic Party?

Any
        other
        allocation scheme
                is
    less fair
            to voters.

Even Fox News...

loves Obama, in their "Fair and Balanced" manner.

Last night they "interviewed" a representative from each of the campaigns.

Question to Clinton Campaign: You just had a campaign shake-up. The new advisor is a black woman. Was that an effort to improve sagging relations with black voters, with whom you are struggling?

Question to Obama Campaign: Your candidate gave a great speech last night. Tell us about it.

   Something
      strange
         is
            in the air.
      Something
         very
            very
   strange.

Democrats would be wrong...

to assume that they can benefit during the November general election from the apparent disagreement among Republican factions during the primaries.

Civil competition during a primary helps a party in the general election -- as long as the money holds out. (This premise holds true for the current Democratic race as well.)

While Dobson, Limbaugh and Colter may lead a band of socially conservative ideological purists into the desert, no one in that wing has any reticence about changing directions. They will compete in full force at the Republican convention. They will exuberantly exert the absolute extent of their influence on their constituency during the general election. Their oxygen is derived from the game. They will support McCain.

Limbaugh and Dobson do not need to explain, or even acknowledge really, radical shifts in their positions, or dramatic changes in direction. Their flock do not evaluate or critique the logic used to develop their conclusions. Their particular constituency accept their conclusions on faith, not evidence. The assertion that "they forced" McCain to select Huckabee or Thompson as his running mate will drive their Volte face. They will support McCain.

The defection of Limbaugh's Lemmings is ephemeral.

The negotiations between the wings of the Republican party are well underway. History suggests they will come to a satisfactory - and competitive - resolution.

Democrats,
    it
        would
            be
                an error
    to interpret
these events
as favorable.

Huckabee is right...

about one important issue.

The American People have embraced civility in this election to a greater extent than any election since before Reagan.

Every state primary and caucus has reacted negatively to negative campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to be seen trying to make another candidate look bad as a person.

On both sides, Republicans and Democrats.

Edwards picked on Hillary, saying he and Obama were the guys. He was wrong.

Romney hammered on McCain. That turned out badly for him.

There is a competition between both Clinton and Obama, and Huckabee and McCain, to be seen as the nicest guy, resulting in a conversation among gentle-persons, a very aristocratic affair.

I wonder whether this trait will or can be extended into the general election.

Would
          that
                    be
       a great
               change,
          or
               what?

I Learned Something about Myself 2.0

I worry about things I cannot control.

This problem would appear to increase the number of things I cannot control, as I evidently cannot control what I worry about.

It is a great wonder I am capable of learning at all.

The issue of change...

may be a bit of red herring if you have Ted Kennedy stumping for you. One of the great fossils of the Democratic party is for change?

There is a further contradiction in a "change candidate" supported by half of Washington.

There may be an even bigger contradiction in a "change candidate" surrounded by guys like Tom Dashle and others who were run out of Washington as the old guard a few years ago.

I like Obama. I will happily support him in the election. I also like Kennedy and Dashle. I really like them a lot.

I
     do not
          like
               hypocrisy.

I like politics because I like..

To know candidates' stands on various issues. So what do I want to know? What bores me? What makes me mad?

Positions of interest
There are issues I care about. I want to know whether these issues matter at all to a candidate (a primacy of focus) or did he just create a policy to run; I want to know his or her apparent level of talent and experience in each area. Finally, I want to know the candidates level of tolerance for competing positions, and willingness to adapt to new information. I am interested in the following major and minor policy areas.

-International Relations
-Homeland Security
-Military Policy
-Immigration Policy
-Iraq Policy
-Energy Policy
-Environmental Policy
-Fiscal Security
-Social Equality
-An approximate budget for the US for their first year
-View of the role of the government in society
-Number of lies I know about
-Do I like them
-Able to incorporate new information into world views

[[Editor's Note: my mother correctly points out that I omitted education, which is a very important issue to me. Thank you, Mom!]]

-Education

I can vote for someone who does not make me want to have dinner with them. I will always vote for effectiveness over affability. I want to vote for a candidate I like, but it is not absolutely essential.

I think every candidate should be required to deliver an initial budget during the primary, and a revised budget during the general election. This budget will allow me to judge many of a candidate's issue positions.

I do not care
There are a number of things I do not care much about.

-Opportunism, unless it makes me not like them.
-Megalomania, unless it makes me not like them.
-God complex, unless it makes me not like them.
-Whoring around. Why do I care? I do not care.

I assume each of these unfortunate characteristics is significantly abundant in anyone motivated to run for office. I do not like to hear candidates accuse other candidates of these things. That is redundant and not useful.

Make me mad
There are a few things politicians do that absolutely make me mad.

-Ignores new information. This is listed twice because it is important.
-Party switching - these people are disloyal users, and should both be immediately forced to return all campaign contributions, and be unceremoniously forced from office and required to stand again.
-Lying - every lie requires a public admission apology. Flogging would be good, too.
-Confounding their particular perspective, platform or policy with patriotism. Grrr!

                          Now
             you know
                          what
             to expect
                          if I
             ever become
             master
                                       of the universe.

Sometimes I get it all wrong...

I interrupt someone who is trying to agree with me.

I offer assistance to someone who is goofing on me.

I sneeze when I should cough.

Sometimes I get it right.

I see the feigned cooperation that is merely a disguised attempt at cooptation.

I see real cooperation that is masked by anxiety.

I offer an obvious target to someone who is goofing on me.

Sometimes I just do not get it.

I zig when I need not zag or zig at all.

I post when even a get is out of place.

I opt out when there is no option at all.

Sometimes I give it away.

Sometimes I just give it all away.

Demand a Grand Compromise by Voting for Second Place...

in the primary. Why should anyone vote for the person he wants in second place?

The Bush years have taught us a significant and valuable lesson. We now know that the entire country can be run from the vice president's office. Pretty effectively, in fact, if measured against their stated intentions. No administration in history provides a clearer example than the Bush-Cheney regime that the country can be completely managed by someone other than the president. Simultaneously, Bush has taught us that being a likable figurehead can get one a four year contract renewal. We should sincerely thank President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for this valuable lesson.

What additional insight might be gained should we compare this configuration of the American political system to states with different positions for head of state and head of government? Could we parlay our system into one with a cordial, likable, spirited head of state, and a competent manager running the government? A Royal and a COO?

Is anybody thinking Clinton - Obama - Clinton - Obama - Clinton?

I will wage a fiver that a much larger majority of Americans would campaign for, vote for and enthusiastically support a ticket containing the two together in any combination - The Grand Compromise - than either could garner alone.

The primary variable for all Americans and all Democrats interested in a Grand Compromise is our inclination to give sufficient power to the candidate holding the second place ribbon at the convention. More is better. Even so, ordinary democrats may need to articulately, and yet forcefully, demand the Grand Compromise at the convention regardless of what happens beforehand.

Vote in the primary for the person you want second on the ticket. Vote for the Grand Compromise.