The Kreepy Kristol Skull

Bill Kristol is disgusting:

Obama has selected Yale’s Elizabeth Alexander to compose and read a poem. I still remember watching Maya Angelou read “On the Pulse of Morning” at Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1993 — and thinking that American culture really was in a state of irreversible decline, as she indulged in that multicultural cataloguing of “the Asian, the Hispanic, the Jew,/ The African and Native American, the Sioux, / The Catholic, the Muslim, the French, the Greek,/ The Irish, the Rabbi, the Priest, the Sheikh,/ The Gay, the Straight, the Preacher,/ The privileged, the homeless, the teacher.”

Oh yeah, "multicultural cataloguing" is a definitive sign that our culture is in "irreversible decline."

In the same article, he also manages to call the left "intolerant."

The left may be many things - even, as Kristol says, "hysterical," but intolerant? In comparison to the "Jesus Is My Homeboy"/"Barack the Magic Negro" Republican Party? Please.

Merry Christmas!

(Hat tip: Huffington Post)

Warren Peace

Andrew Sullivan on the furor in some quarters over Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration:

One thing I'd say in defense of Obama. There were a few times in the campaign when my first reaction was that he had screwed up. In almost every case, he subsequently proved me wrong. And I think we need to take him seriously about a change in tone on these subjects. He's asking a lot from us. That doesn't mean we should not try to reciprocate.

I agree completely. Let's not spare all our energy on this - this is, I promise, part of a larger story that has yet to be written. And, in the end, it will favor gay equality.

Rick Warrin'

A lot of supporters of gay marriage and gay civil rights in general are furious that Rick Warren, who has said that gays marrying somehow infringes upon his civil rights, will deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration next month. This comes on the heels of some gay rights groups believing that Obama didn't do enough (he didn't do anything, actually) to help prevent the passage of Prop 8 and that he is dragging his feet a bit when it comes to implementing a policy agenda that favors gay equality (no timetable on repealing DADT, etc.).

What seems to me to be obvious is that this is a classic case of Obama being Obama, and not letting himself be beholden to any particular group of people. Clearly he is in favor of progress on gay civil rights - civil unions, getting rid of DADT, et. al. - but the choice of Warren to take part in such an important moment in his career and our country's history is clearly a signal that, yeah, he will be the president of even bigots and homophobes as well as the rest of us:

In his short political career, Obama has deftly manipulated political symbols to his advantage, but he's never been one to pay homage to one of the most sacred regulations of identity politics, which is that one must take care of one's own kind before turning outward. His mind operates differently. Obama does believe, as many of his supporters do, that there are uncrossable demarcation lines between the reasonable and the profane. But he doesn't believe that Warren, someone he admires for reaching outside his (Warren's) comfort zone on AIDS, is all that different from himself. Obama is simultaneously capable of admiring Warren while disdaining Warren's oogedy boogedy appraoch to gay relationships and his uninformed response to torture. Warren's views might be hurtful to gays; Obama does not think they are harmful.

While somewhat hard to swallow, this incident should not come as a surprise. Again, it's classic Obama. His whole thing all along has been let's come together, let's embrace each other despite our differences, and he's probably right in that regard. How can we ever get to some kind of working majority or legislative consensus on gay rights without bringing the other side - the ones who are against it - into the tent? This doesn't mean that Obama secretly condones Rick Warren's disgusting views; it's just that he sees farther down the road than, frankly, many of us regular folks do. Obama recognizes the importance of having Warren participate in such a big moment, and figures that maybe he can score some political capital with it and use that capital down the road - say, in 2010, when he decides the time is right to do away with DADT.

Ethanol, Shmethanol

If you like ethanol, you'll be pleased. The appointments have some high-profile ethanol opponents worried, while ethanol supporters appear optimistic:

“The worry is if the Cabinet gets too crowded with people who are drunk on ethanol, we won’t have the policy discussions we need,” said Ken Cook, the president of the Environmental Working Group. Cook’s group argues that the massive production of corn-based ethanol has damaged the environment, wasted tax dollars and contributed to high food prices earlier this year.

However, Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said Obama “has put together the right group of people” to move the country toward the stage where it will be producing ethanol from more than just corn.

“Renewable fuels also play a central role in stimulating the economy and creating green jobs,” said Hartwig, whose organization has floated ethanol-friendly ideas to Obama’s transition team for an upcoming stimulus package. “The team he’s put in place understands that.”

As I've stated previously, I am cautiously optimistic, though less so than I was on November 4th. I just really want Obama to be super-aggressive when it comes to healing our planet and cleaning our environment. His picks don't really signal any kind of massive change, though he himself did on the campaign trail. Like with any Cabinet, the change will have to come from the top. I just hope he's serious about this grave, grave threat to our nation and world.

Merry (Early) Christmas

University of Obama

In its annual Person of the Year segment (which - duh - features Obama), TIME has some very cool long-lost photos of the President-elect during his college years. A must-see.

Where's The Line?

The NYT explores whether or not the Blagojevich Senate seat scandal is really all that different from normal practices of political back-and-forth. It's perfectly legal, and common, for politicians to do things like "Well, I'll vote for your pet project, Bill A, if you vote for my pet project, Bill B. That way we both get one vote closer to passage." That kind of stuff happens all the time. The Blagojevich thing, however, seems to cut deeper. But where?

Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.

Then there's this interesting quote:

“You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”

Blago seemed so blatant, so open about it - while being wiretapped - that it seemed to cross the line into Unethical Land. Part of politics, though, is trading and favors. Coalitions would never be formed, and bills would never be signed into law, if there weren't some kind of deal-making taking place. So similar things to Blagogate happen pretty frequently.

I won't defend the insanely coiffed governor, but I do find it pretty disheartening that this incident appears to be not so much an isolated occurrence; it's just one of the few that gets caught. Just part of our politics, I guess.

Throw Your Own Shoe At Bush

Oh my god. Click on this link to check out this game right now. You won't regret it.

113-0

That was the vote in the Illinois legislature recommending impeachment proceedings begin against Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

113 yeas, zero nays.

Hey, you gotta admire the consistency!