safe-haven laws,

or how to make a kid feel wanted.

LOL

I'm there.  

On not mailing it in

Apparently mail hoarding is a little more common than I'd like to think. The upshot is that usually instances of mail hoarding involve only junk mail; in other words, hoarding of this variety is somewhat of a public service.

Make note: don't move to Chicago if that $25.00 Christmas check from Aunt Millie is a key item in your annual budget.

My favorite line: "I'm glad in a way," he told his judge. "It needs sorting."

Breaking: Hitler only had one testicle.

hypothetically speaking

(updated)

Let's say any Republican (or independent who caucuses with the Republicans after his homestate Republican voters effectively ejected him from the party) senator who chairs a committee had gone around the country during the campaign and campaigned for Obama, spoke at the DNCC, supported two Democratic incumbent senators against promising Republican challengers, repeatedly intimated and coyly refused to rule out that Sen. McCain was a fascist ("an interesting idea") and Nazi,* and routinely questioned McCain's patriotism.  McCain then wins the election, and the Republicans end up taking a huge majorities in both the Senate and House.  Does the senator get to keep his chairmanship?  Hell no.  And he'd probably suffer far worse consequences than that.  Do you think a Tom DeLay or Mitch McConnell would put up with that sort of treachery?  Of course they wouldn't.  

But what's really interesting, and I'm just totally conjecturing here, but were a Democratic senator to have done some of the things above viz. John McCain--insinuate he's a fascist and Nazi and openly question his patriotism repeatedly--isn't it probably the case that that senator would get more flak and fallout from the Democratic leadership than what Lieberman's getting here?  I can just imagine the furrowed eyebrows and scowls on Reid's face when dealing with a renegade senator who went "over the line" in his/her rhetoric and would be sanctioned somehow as a result.  Fox News would be in a feeding frenzy, as would talk radio and the rightwing blogosphere.  And respectable liberals would chime in to say how unfortunate Senator X's remarks were (enter stage right: Marshall, Yglesias, et al.).  I could see Sen. X even losing his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Cmte; after all, he insinuated that President-elect McCain was unpatriotic and was a Nazi, etc.  That sort of far-out leftist lunatic can't be trusted with something as important as our nation's security!  

Isn't it sad and doesn't it illuminate how the Democratic leadership simply thinks of its earnest leftwing supporters and die-hard partisans who comprise the base as useful idiots and saps?  It's very likely the case that Lieberman will get off with the same sort of punishment (or less!) than hypothetical Sen. X, even though Sen. X merely impugned McCain's patriotism and insinuated he's a Nazi/fascist, but did not campaign for Republicans, speak at the RNCC, etc.  

My point here is that the Democratic Party will treat equally or perhaps punish more severely the rhetorical excesses of those of its own who impugn hard-right, war-mongering Republicans as it will those of its own who savage the Democratic nominee in the most vicious and scurrilous ways on top of a litany of other serious acts of party disloyalty and treachery.  

[*I chose "fascist" and "Nazi" because I think these two terms are roughly the rightist equivalent (at least rhetorically or slander-wise) of "socialist" and "Marxist," respectively.]

Update: And . . . capitulation--standard operating procedure for Democrats when it comes to standing up to the dominant right-wing and imperialistic slant of our politics and discourse.  Taking away that subcommittee chair who no one, including Lieberman, gives a shit about is really gonna teach him.  Reid and most all of the other Senate Democrats are pathetic jokes.   Although I guess the joke's on the Left and the activist base.  We've seen this movie before many times, and I suspect it'll be on heavy re-runs over the next four years.  Notice Sen. Mikulski's obsequious and deferential posture--she'll take her cues from the leadership, which is appropriate enough, and President-elect Obama.  Note to Sen. Mikulski: there are three branches of government and Obama is no longer a member of the legislative branch.  Theoretically, his opinion on this matter shouldn't count any more than mine or yours.  But I guess old habits, deferring to the executive branch no matter who occupies it, die hard.  

This episode with the new White House Chief of Staff illustrates pretty clearly why leftist voters, among other groups, need a vehicle outside of the Democratic Party in which to register their dissent, i.e., America needs (at least) another political party and/or states' ballot access requirements for independent candidacies need to be made less onerous.  It's maddening enough when the Democratic Party can take certain constituencies' support--leftists, blacks, unionists, gays--for granted b/c those groups have nowhere else to go electorally.  Worse is when the Democratic leadership actually uses their base's ineffectual anger at having enabled or ratified Bush lawbreaking to score points with center/right voters, or, as Emanuel put it, to look more "bipartisan."  

Oh never mind.  kos is right, fuck Ralph Nader. 

curious(?)

A major California theater director decided it would be a good idea to fork over $1,000.00 to the Yes on 8 campaign.  Probably not the best idea professionally.  Sort of like a greyhound track owner donating to Yes on 3 in Massachusetts?  

Or the 43rd President of the United States actively supporting the San Francisco sewage treatment plant ballot proposition (Prop R)?

You want self-destructive?  I'll SHOW you self-destructive!!  I fucking wrote, directed and produced self-destructive, and  then set it to a saccharine and absurdly catchy musical tune!  

Master of the House . . . da, da-da, da-da.. .