So the Boston Pheonix has proclaimed 2008 to be the Year of the Nerd, citing the victory of Barack Obama as a salient proof:

Barack Obama is many things. Dedicated senator. Devoted husband and father. Adept orator. President-elect. Nerd.

They go on to elaborate his nerd credentials; he flashed the Vulcan sign to Leonard Nemoy. He collects Spider-Man comics. He has an “undisguised love of poetry.”

But wait a minute. Obama’s a nerd? What about Hip Hop legend and movie star Mos Def calling Obama a Rock Star? Or the McCain campaign cuing up Paris Hilton as they labeled him the biggest celebrity in the world? How is it that Obama can be all these things at one time? He’s black. He’s white. He’s a nerd. He’s a rock star. He’s progressive. He’s a darker-hued version of the Great Communicator. What is this?

Of all Obama’s talents, this ability to be everything to everyone has to be the gem in his crown. He at once appeals to almost every demographic, both political and non. It reminds me of Herbert Hoover’s comment on FDR, calling him a “chameleon on plaid.”

Hoover meant it as an insult, that FDR’s politics and ideolody were not fixed but rather adaptable to situation and circumstance. In the end, however, FDR came out as anything but a flip-flopper. Rather, he was able to play the role of pragmatic politician, able to earn more than 12 years in the White House, implement the New Deal, and almost seamlessly shift “Dr. New Deal to Dr. Win-the-War.” And all without sacrificing his underlying vision.

With luck, Obama will prove to be the same sort of president; popular, pragmatic, and able to build consensus with the American people through a combination of wide personal appeal and unwavering vision. At present, there’s little that signals otherwise. Let’s hope history bears it out.

It’s kind of funny how things can change.  Eight years ago, right wingers mocked Al Gore as a “sore loser” when he refused to concede an extremely close presidential election. Now that the shoe is (sort of) on the other foot, I’m surprised to see that right wingers have failed to counsel former Senator Norm Coleman to graciously concede now that a bipartisan state board has certified that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate recount.

Eight years ago, Rush Limbaugh was leading the howling pack of radicals who were screaming that Al Gore was trying to steal the election away from that man of destiny George W. Bush.  After all, Bush was leading, why didn’t Gore concede?  So, Limbaugh, that man of consistency, must be calling for Coleman to concede now that Franken has been certified as the winner, right?  Uh, not exactly.  Actually, he is repeating his utterly baseless accusations that, this time, the Democrat, Franken is trying to steal the election.  Funny how the Republicans are always on the side of light and truth.

It turns out this charge of “election stealer” is a very, very tired right wing tactic.  More than two years ago, Bob Cesca noted that, in election after election, Republicans repeat this baseless claim, facts be damned.

What does one make of Limbaugh’s shrill hypocrisy?  It turns out that Franken himself provides the appropriate response.  Limbaugh, you’re a big fat idiot.

Per our previous discussions on overcoming opposition to taxation, a quick point: Conservatives are willing to lie about taxes to make their point.

Here is Matt Drudge’s latest attempt to participate in the mindless anti-tax and anti-spending hysteria that is likely to dominate conservatism for the rest of… well, forever.

The second sentence in the article makes it clear that no tax dollars were involved:

The network has greenlit a new unscripted series called “Paranormal Cops,” about a group of Chicago police officers who moonlight as ghost chasers in their spare time.

Incompetent and dishonest. Nothing new from Drudge.

Today, those of us who work at Health Care for America Now - including myself - went down to Capitol Hill where the 111th Congress was being sworn in. We were down there to visit the 171 Members of Congress who support Health Care for America Now and President-elect Obama’s principles for health care reform.

The mood on the Hill was festive, with new Members having small gatherings of supporters in their offices and members of the public touring the halls and speaking with their Senators and Representatives. We walked into each office on our list and thanked the Member for their support, showing off the advertisement we placed in The Hill, Roll Call, and Politico this morning:

The first day of the 111th Congress comes with the news that health care spending’s growth slowed to the lowest rate in 9 years.

Following up on Lance’s pro-legalization piece, here’s something interesting from the Reddit comment thread:

Mekongcola: I just want to point out about 100years ago all of these substances were legal and we did just fine then. There is no reason they should be outlawed now…

neat stuff: One thing has changed. Teens probably have much greater disposable income at a point in their lives where they have much less personal responsibility. Back in the day, people were married with kids at a time where today they would just be finishing high school and getting ready to party in college.

That’s not an argument against legalization. But it would be interesting to see what kind of impact that would have on drug use if it were legalized today.

I think these are great and important points. I agree with the first redditor, but I also agree with the second.

It’s not a direct connection, but this discussion reminds me that proponents of outlawing marijuana in the 1930s often referred to “uppity negroes” as one problem that marijuana caused. As these two redditors imply, outlawing drugs has often been used as a way to control groups seen as deviant - black people testing the limits of segregation in the 1930s, white teenagers testing the limits of cultural acceptability in the 1960s (LSD was legal in California until the mid-1960s, let’s remember). Did the state permit drug use so long as it felt most drug users were white men who would not tamper with the social fabric?

And it’s interesting that the continuation of the drug war is always justified by how drugs will affect your teenager, as we’ve seen in so many ads, the DARE program etc.

Reuters argues that Pakistan is scoring a diplomatic victory over India by “obfuscating” the issues surrounding the Mumbai attacks:

India may be frustrated and even outwitted by Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks, after placing its faith in diplomacy and the support of the United States.

New Delhi has responded to the attacks on its soil with a determined diplomatic offensive, trusting Washington and ultimately Barack Obama to force Pakistan’s hand.

It could be disappointed, but is unlikely to vent its frustration through military action, analysts and diplomats say.

“Pakistan has been able to obfuscate the issue, which is testimony to its chutzpah,” said Indian security analyst Uday Bhaskar.

“It is also a reflection of the degree to which the major powers are complicit in allowing the Pakistani establishment to engage in this kind of double-speak.

“India will have to temper its own expectation of what the international community can deliver.”

Monday, India handed evidence to Pakistan and other countries which it said showed Pakistani militants carried out the November attack on Mumbai, and Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram will take the dossier to Washington this week.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh kept up pressure Tuesday, saying the attack must have had support from “official agencies” in Pakistan and accusing Islamabad of “whipping up war hysteria.”

But with Obama and the West depending on Pakistani support for a planned troop surge in Afghanistan, there are limits to how far the world will twist Islamabad’s arm.

Immediately after the attack, India won what it called “very, very heartening” international support, but Pakistan has since had some success in obfuscating the issue by raising the threat of Indian military retaliation.

I think this makes clear much the war in Afghanistan and our alliance with Pakistan limit our capacity to tackle the most serious problems in South Asia. I’m not saying India is right and Pakistan is wrong, but if we can’t approach the situation even-handedly we risk alienating India, and worse yet we risk the possibility of another attack by Pakistani militants on India. And with military conflicts escalating across the region while diplomatic and political initiatives falter, another attack could bring war.

Adam nails it:

The New Year began with a bang over at the Huffington Post: the explosion of a new poster with a diatribe meriting a solid 100 on the Inhofe scale.

As a reminder, thoughtful energy blogger Lou Grinzo (Cost of Energy) developed the concept of The Inhofe Scale.

The Inhofe Scale will be used to measure statements (but most definitely not the speakers who make them) that exhibit a noticeable and willing detachment from reality. The scale is calibrated so that 100 equals the detachment seen in Senator Inhofe calling global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Ameican people”, stating that polar bears “are overpopulated. Don’t worry about it: the polar bears are fine.” and having staff pass out material with the heading: “Mars has global warming despite absence of SUVs”., and Mars quotations. Extra consideration is given to positions espoused with an excessively cavalier attitude or downright meanness, and those from people or organizations that have a obligation to get it right.

Just to be clear, this is a measurement of detachment from widely accepted reality … And by “willful detachment from reality” I mean far more than simple ignorance.

On Saturday, Huffington Post published Harold Ambler’s Mr Gore: Apology Accepted which is notable in its breadth and audacity of disinformation, truthiness, and simply wrong-headedness. Literally books and hundreds (actually, thousands) of scientific studies and analyses have been written that provide the substance to prove Ambler’s words false. What is shameful, on top of this, is that this is not just the ‘false’ and misleading material, but its deceit in support of recklessly dangerous policy concepts that would hinder our ability to move forward to greater prosperity and a stronger American future.

This part of the explanation of the Inhofe scale is especially important: (emphasis mine)

Extra consideration is given to positions espoused with an excessively cavalier attitude or downright meanness, and those from people or organizations that have a[n] obligation to get it right.

That is what makes this episode especially egregious. As one of the most widely read liberal blogs, Huffington Post has an obligation to get climate science right. Providing a platform for the type of intentionally misleading propaganda Mr. Ambler pedals is unacceptable for any publication, but moreso for a site with the readership and reputation of Huffington Post.

Apparently the article was mistakenly posted by an intern over the weekend. This is no excuse. If posting this anti-science content was an honest mistake they should say so publicly and delete the post.

Note the glee conservative bloggers (and their readers) took in discovering climate science denial on a popular liberal blog:

Harold Ambler Debunks AGW

Debunking Global Warming at The Huffington Post

Two views of Global warming

WOW! HuffPo Publishes Gore Debunking

Are Liberals Getting Smarter? Let’s Hope So

A public apology from the editorial staff at Huffington Post is necessary for 2 reasons:

1. To protect the site’s credibility.
2. To make it clear to climate change deniers that their ideas are not gaining traction.

The apology should make it absolutely clear that they do not condone the widely discredited garbage Mr. Ambler offered in his piece.

As the nation continues to muddle through the bailout mess, a new idea is emerging for how to channel government funds directly to those in need: a bailout of the non-profit charitable organizations.  A non-profit rescue plan avoids many of the pitfalls of the corporate bailouts:

(1)  No greedy executives demanding $10 million bonuses or flying around on luxury private jets even as their companies go bankrupt.

(2)  No outlays of $450 million of taxpayer money to name baseball stadiums after failed corporations.

(3)  No questions of whether the bailout money is actually being used or is just being set aside as an investment.

As one non-profit expert puts it, let’s give the money to people that deserve it and that we know will do good things with it:

Nonprofits are now not only facing financial shortfalls … they are trying to deal with the increased demand for services in communities across the country.  These nonprofits are not in this financial position due to greed, bad management or poor investments.  Rather, they are part of the fallout of the current economic situation we all are suffering from today. 

It was reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy that “Independent Sector, a coalition of charities and foundations, is working on a proposal for a government revolving-loan fund to help cash-strapped nonprofit groups respond to growing caseloads as the economic crisis takes its toll.”

But as it appears that the economic crisis will get a lot worse before it gets any better, it seems that a bridge loan program will be insufficient.  Without direct cash handouts like the ones that have been made to the financial sector, many if not most non-profits will be looking at extinction in the coming months and years - especially the small, local charities that don’t have much in the way of endowments or cash reserves.

There are approximately 300,000 operating public charities in the United States.  $700 billion (the amount of the original bank bailout) divided among these would mean $2.3 million each.  More realistically, just $10 billion dedicated to a non-profit bailout could give a million dollars each to the 10,000 charities that need help the most - with a priority on those that meet basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, and clothing.  As the estimates of the total bailout figure reach $7 or 8 trillion, what could possibly be the objection to giving a very small fraction of that amount to help those who are suffering most from this crisis?

(cross-posted at Discipline for Justice)

If mainstream progressive sites like Kos are going to hire foreign policy front-pagers, do they have to make such strange and awkward arguments?

In the following I make three claims, which I will state upfront in exaggerated terms, both to get the point across and so my errors are more visible. (1) The United States (or factions in it) has more of a stake in the outcome in the Israel/Palestine conflict than Israel does. (2) Israel does not need the U.S. (3) Understanding (1) and (2) is key to resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Come on dog.

I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that a good deal of Kos readers (and netroots participants in general) don’t follow foreign affairs closely. So if a big site wants to introduce foreign affairs coverage, it should be accessible and coherent. It should also be truthful and historical. I’m not saying I always hit that standard myself, but at least I try.

Oh, and to take on the content: (1) is dubious, (2) is false - I’m pretty sure we helped out in 1967 and 1973, to say nothing of present military aid, and therefore (3) is meaningless. But the content isn’t even the point - the problem is the style and the approach. People won’t take interest in foreign affairs if writers continue to present it as murky and esoteric.

Alex has a great point:

I don’t even know that people inherently object to taxes - I think they object to taxes most when they feel they’re getting a bum deal.

…

But that doesn’t mean people always favor cutting taxes. If the government can create good jobs, provide decent healthcare, offer dependable pensions, and maintain high standards in infrastructure (trains, internet access, etc), people won’t demand tax cuts.

A couldn’t agree more. The anti-tax movement is a basic obstacle most progressive reforms must climb over to become reality. But, as Alex points out, most people, when shown the value of good government working for them, are more inclined to pay taxes.

So, how do we kill the anti-tax movement? I’d put forward that we do it by pushing Obama but not to the point of purity. More importantly, we do it by passing our reforms and letting the results speak for themselves (well, not for themselves, with a generous helping of PR).

I’ve seen some message testing Americans United For Change put out, and the results show public opinion is pretty split on the message of taxes. Specifically, when you ask people whether they’d rather “focus on public investment” or “reduce taxes,” 51% would rather reduce taxes. If you change up the messaging a bit and say “focus on public investment to create jobs” or “reduce taxes,” 61% are for job creation.

Either way, a majority or a large minority of the country wants to simply reduce taxes to fix our economic crisis. It’s a testament to how powerful and well-funded the broad anti-tax coalition is in this country.

Pushing Obama to do more investment and less tax cutting is a good message, especially when tied to job creation. But, coming into the battle over Obama’s economic recovery plan, I’m not going to howl if the eventual package includes some tax cuts, especially if they are the more progressive kind, like the Earned Income Tax Credit. The important thing is for Obama’s plan to pass, and for it to center on massive public investment focused on creating jobs.

Then, we can destroy the anti-tax movement after the plan does what it’s designed to do, create jobs and long term economic growth.