Rush Limbaugh’s From the Future and He’s Here to Help

I think this situation in Honduras is very instructive. Anybody who thinks that [Obama] intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts … These are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.

Rush Limbaugh, Cassandra: Will no one stand with Rush to stop Obama from seizing dictatorial powers and a third term in 2016? Wake up, sheeple!

Why *Did* We Buy Alaska in the 1950s?

Once again Glenn Beck raises the questions the liberals in the MSM won’t: Why did we buy Alaska in the 1950s if not to drill for oil?

Senator Franken

What can we expect from the Democrats now that Al Franken is their 60th Senator? Ezra Klein points out that 60 is a big number, one not achieved by either party since 1974. Open Left thinks this is a boost to the public option in health care. Grist looks ahead to climate change and the Senate version of ACES. The Nation talks filibusters.

It falls to Donkeylicious to remind us that there are still a lot of bad Democrats, including two who have thus far disappointed me, Kay Hagan and Claire McCaskill.

Why Facebook Sucks

Facebook’s never-ending mission to destroy itself takes a great leap forward today as they announce status messages, photos, and videos will become visible to all by default. The situation is actually much worse than this, as Facebook continually resets selected privacy options whenever it feels like it—so not only will you have to make yourself private again this one time, you’ll have to maintain constant vigilance against mission creep.

North Carolina in the News!

A longtime reader sends this link to io9’s coverage of disgusting alien slime monsters living underneath Raleigh, North Carolina. Note: I’m not kidding; the video is, in fact, disgusting. Stay safe, Raleigh.

Why Not Her? Part 2

As Palin has piled misstep on top of misstep, the senior members of McCain’s campaign team have undergone a painful odyssey of their own. In recent rounds of long conversations, most made it clear that they suffer a kind of survivor’s guilt: they can’t quite believe that for two frantic months last fall, caught in a Bermuda Triangle of a campaign, they worked their tails off to try to elect as vice president of the United States someone who, by mid-October, they believed for certain was nowhere near ready for the job, and might never be. They quietly ponder the nightmare they lived through. Do they ever ask, What were we thinking? “Oh, yeah, oh, yeah,” one longtime McCain friend told me with a rueful chuckle. “You nailed it.” Another key McCain aide summed up his attitude this way: “I guess it’s sort of shifted,” he said. “I always wanted to tell myself the best-case story about her.” Even now, he said, “I don’t want to get too negative.” Then he added, “I think, as I’ve evaluated it, I think some of my worst fears … the after-election events have confirmed that her more negative aspects may have been there … ” His voice trailed off. “I saw her as a raw talent. Raw, but a talent. I hoped she could become better.”

Lots of attention being paid today to Vanity Fair‘s gossipy anti-Palin hit piece, in which the same McCain staffers who insisted she was the second-best possible person for the presidency now (anonymously) admit she was a “Little Shop of Horrors” and alternatively call her a “diva,” egomaniac, and “whackjob”. Here’s Bill Kristol with some pushback, and it’s worth noting that this sort of negative media attention doesn’t exactly hurt the martyr complex that fuels Palinmania on the right.

Who among us can wait for 2012?

Why Not Him?

Why not him? The Minnesota Supreme Court has unanimously declared Al Franken the winner of the state’s Senate race after eight months of litigation.

UPDATE: At his press conference, Coleman announced he concedes.

What’s Next

China Mieville tries to get ahead of upcoming trends in SF. Via 3 Quarks Daily.

ii) Post-Elegiasm

The end of the world, whether wrought by Peak Oil, rising sea levels, the rage of nature, war, warlordism, nuclear conflagration or–D’oh!–tailored virus will not be achingly beautiful, nor morality tale. So will insist the Post-Elegiasts. This grumpy group of literary dissidents will be infuriated by the lightly disguised End-Times pornography of all the countless supposedly ‘bleak’ and ‘dystopian’ (right…) apocalypse fictions and culture. Visions of startlingly gorgeous ice floes under the Chrysler building, lugubrious lip-smacking depictions of ash landscapes, the lumpen bucolicism of all those overgrown cities, will not be for them.

Post-Elegiasts are to be united in scorn for what they will perceive as this cowardly surrender, and will term ‘High Tea among the Ruins’. This will manifest in one of two very contrasting ways: the ‘High’ Post-Elegiasts will depict the not-end of the world, endless accelerating advances, perhaps including singularities, perhaps asymptotic improvements, never one-sided but doggedly progressive. The ‘Low’ or ‘Punk’ wing will revel instead in depictions of Ragnaroks of various kinds that are genuinely horrible, ends-of-the-world unrecuperable by sanctimonious aesthetics, ugly, base and totally depressing. These are to be considered the more daring artists, but will sell in very low numbers.

The influences of the High Post-Elegiasts will include Golden-Age Science Fiction, Extropianism, Futurology and Fabianism, as well as self-help manuals and Paolo Coelho. The Low will focus instead on splatterpunk, Pierre Guyotat and D. Keith Mano’s The Bridge. Both wings will be united in their disdain for Alan Weisman, Richard Jefferies and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road.

What to say: ‘Fiction of justice beyond an eschatological horizon is exoneration.’

What not to say: ‘Will Smith sucked but overgrown New York looked kewl.’

Midday Tuesday

Midday Tuesday!

* Those of you participating in Infinite Summer (hey kate) may enjoy IJ blogging from Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and others at A Supposedly Fun Blog.

* Bleeding Cool reviews Brian K. Vaughan’s Y: The Last Man script.

* Maybe information doesn’t want to be free? Malcolm Gladwell pours cold water on Chris Anderson’s Free, itself famously in trouble for some apparent plagiarism:

There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money). The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, “has so far failed to make any money for Google.”

Why is that? Because of the very principles of Free that Anderson so energetically celebrates. When you let people upload and download as many videos as they want, lots of them will take you up on the offer. That’s the magic of Free psychology: an estimated seventy-five billion videos will be served up by YouTube this year. Although the magic of Free technology means that the cost of serving up each video is “close enough to free to round down,” “close enough to free” multiplied by seventy-five billion is still a very large number. A recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars. In the case of YouTube, the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other.

* Kunstler: Don’t call Americans “consumers.” Because when you rename a problem it suddenly goes away.

Tuesday!

Tuesday!

* Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in jail on Monday. I think what I enjoy most about this is the absurd dialogue, oddly ubiquitous, over whether the punishment is “too lenient” or “too harsh”—as if, that is, it were a sentence one might possibly serve out and not more years than any human being (much less any 71-year-old human being) has ever lived. They might as well have sentenced him to a million jillion years.

* Uranium on the Moon! We need to secure it before the Russians Chinese Martians Islamofascists get their hands on it; clearly we have no choice left but to blow up the Moon.

* The World Clock will depress you in any number of ways. Only 14,766 days of oil left; forty years, less than a third of Madoff’s prison sentence. (via @charliejane)

* Obama spoke today to the controversies over gay rights that are rapidly disillusioning so many of his supporters. Via LawDork, who seems reasonably pleased with the speech, if at the same time anxious for real action to be taken.

* ‘Iraqis jubilantly celebrate U.S. troop withdrawal’: U.S. forces handed over formal control of Iraq’s major cities today … “a defining step toward ending the U.S. combat role in the country.”

* Twitter Politics: With the Iranian election, we’ve seen a privately owned technology becoming a vital part of the infrastructure supporting political activity. That’s a problem.

* Debating the public option: Will it just turn into a giveaway to the private insurers? Do you really have to ask?

* It seems like only yesterday that Obama was being accused of orchestrating the coup in Honduras. Now he’s a communist for opposing it.

* And Ezra Klein has your chilling vision of things to come.

F vs HoL

Shoot the Projectionist reads Foucault’s “What Is An Author?” against one of my favorite novels of the ’00s, House of Leaves.

Health Insurance Monopolies vs. the Public Option

Health insurance monopolies vs. the public option, at TPM (now hiring!).

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as “a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate.”

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

The problem is most acute in small rural states, according to the report. In Shelby’s own state of Alabama, the biggest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, controls 83 percent of the statewide market. There, and in nine other states — Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa — the two largest health insurers control at least 80 percent of the market. So much for Shelby’s “marketplace for health care.”

Defining Treason Down

Defining treason down to include weak-tea environmental reforms. If this be treason…

Change We Can Believe In!

Change we can believe in: ‘White House drafting indefinite detention order.’ What a disaster.

About half of the remaining detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release, it added, while the other half “present the greatest difficulty” because they cannot be prosecuted in either a federal court or a military trial.

Evidence against these detainees is either classified, was provided by foreign intelligence services or was obtained through harsh interrogation techniques approved by former president George W. Bush.

If you can’t try them because Bush tortured them, say so, and then start prosecuting the Bush administration. This “solution” isn’t remotely legal, much less ethically tenable.

Ricci

Excitement on the SCOTUS beat as the Court overturns the lower court Ricci decision in a 5-4 vote along the usual partisan breakdown. Since Sonia Sotomayor had been part of the Second Circuit’s upholding of the original decision, now overturned, this decision will undoubtedly receive a lot of attention even beyond the usual contentiousness that surrounds affirmative action. I haven’t followed the case closely enough to say much of anything about it—and to be fair it sounds like an especially hard case—though my gut reaction to any 5-4 decision from the Roberts court closely matches this take from conservative columnist Ramesh Ponnuru in the New York Times:

The debates on these issues are highlighting a deep inconsistency in the way my fellow conservatives approach race and the law. Many conservatives oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination because she does not appear to support originalism, the notion that legal texts, including the Constitution, should be interpreted according to the meaning that the informed public assumed them to have when they became law. We argue as well that judges should try to overcome the biases of their backgrounds in the name of self-restraint. But when it comes to the race cases before the Supreme Court, too many conservatives abandon both originalism and judicial restraint.

Where Ponnuru and I differ, of course, is in his belief that originalism as a judicial philosophy has any useful content whatsoever. I don’t think it does; as I’ve said before, it’s a rhetorical strategy, not a method, deployed when convenient and passed over when not.