‘Kenny Boy’ Salazar and the ‘Most open administration in history’

‘Most open administration in history’ my a--

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, by refusing to take questions about wild horse roundup and possible slaughter, at a public event, even if it was Election Day, exemplifies just how much it is Just.Another.Politician.™ at the helm of the White House.

The issue in question starts at about the 4-minute mark.

Unfortunately, Obama’s not the best at being Just.Another.Politician.™ in some ways. On the plus side, maybe “Kenny Boy” could PLEASE teach Dear Leader to get some cojones like this?

Second, this shows Team Obama isn't all that “green,” really. So, don’t expect much change on global warming issues in his second term.

Third, the wild horse issue is convoluted (aside from Kenny Boy's seeming ethics lapse). Fourth, people have eaten horsemeat for millennia, folks. Unless you're a vegetarian, you've got no room to complain, IMO.

My personal take? If sterilizations aren’t working well enough, and not enough people are buying wild horses to keep, other people WILL buy them to slaughter. Isn’t it better to have them transported shorter distances to be slaughtered in better-inspected US slaughterhouses, rather than Mexican ones?

Is the Internet conscious?

Now, my philosophy has no problem with imputing consciousness to non-carbon beings or creatures. (We would, of course, call anything with consciousness a "being" or a "creature" and not just an "it.")

Well, Massimo Pigliucci has a good discussion of claims about the consciousness, or not, of the Internet, here.

I agree with him that today's Internet is not conscious, but that, at some unknown date, it may become so. I also agree with what I take as his tacit thought that the "unknown date" isn't happening in the next few years. Sit down, Ray Kurzweil.

That said, especially on issues like this, Massimo gets some ... "interesting" comments and commenters. Baron and Dave S, definitely, on issues like this.

Per Baron and some of his interests in other blogs and such, I riff on Hanns Johst (not Hermann Göring): "When I hear the word 'noetic,' I reach for my revolver!"

My thought? Without going down Kurzweil's road, or Michio Kaku's, but with taking Lynn Margulis' idea of "symbiosis" beyond just carbon-based life (sorry, Massimo, you're being too restrictive there), we might talk about a symbiosis for a new type of consciousness at some point.

But, even that, rather than just talk about conscious humans being helped by the Internet, is some point away. And, if that symbiosis does become conscious, it will surely eliminate for now and beyond, the idea of the Internet having a free-standing, non-symbiotic consciousness.

That said, like SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, our definition of "consciousness" may be too narrow. Or looking in the wrong corners.

But, the Internet is not currently conscious, or even close to it.

And, contra Baron and a few Jains, hammers sure as hell aren't conscious and never will be.

John Jay, the first US Secretary of State

John Jay, by Gilbert Stuart/From Wikipedia

Yes, you read that header correctly. Of course, that’s not reality.

But, in the next of my occasional series of posts on counterfactual history, and especially counterfactual political histories, he IS the first Secretary of State.

And, there’s solid actual history behind it.

In fact, George Washington offered John Jay the position first. Only after he turned it down did Washington look to Thomas Jefferson.

So, what might have turned out differently had Jay taken the offer rather than eventually accepting the Chief Justiceship at the Supreme Court.

First, I’ll say that Jay stays two full terms, ingratiates himself more with Washington, and, in the process, builds up a Middle Atlantic power base. Among the side results, John Adams gets more marginalized among possible Federalist successors to Washington. To some degree, Hamilton may. More on him below.

Jefferson certainly gets more marginalized, as well more radicalized by remaining in France during the Terror and making some impolitic statements about it.

As a result, accepting the truth that Washington won’t, and deciding he wants a national-level political future, Jay forms the first political alliance of America, before Jefferson, meeting with Henry Lee, aka “Light Horse Harry” Lee and suggesting him for the vice presidency in a “team.” It works.

Hamilton remains outside the new government, at least at first. However, he maintains more cordial relations with Jay than he did with Adams in reality. 

Like Adams did, Jay avoids war with France, but smartly vetoes Alien and Sedition Acts legislation.

Result? Jefferson looks for partners in 1800 and lays on Burr, as in reality. Both parties court Adams for a dignified version of an “endorsement,” but he passes.

Hamilton works to negate Burr in New York, get non-Adams Federalists in New England, and succeeds. He opts to remain, again, outside of government The country finds a need for a 12th Amendment as Jay and Lee tie. Lee gracefully persuades the House to elect Jay; Hamilton works to this end, too.

Lee runs in 1804 against Madison. Elbridge Gerry thinks Madison is not anti-federalist enough and runs on his own. The race goes to the House and Lee wins.

Hamilton, meanwhile, eventually decides to work to become president of the Bank of the United States, having generated less personal antagonism from Burr in 1800 than in reality. As the first Bank of the United States faces renewal issues ahead, and Hamilton is unsure of how “sound” Lee is, from his point of view, on the Bank, he looks for moderate anti-Federalists/Democratic-Republicans, as well as Federalists, with whom to deal. This includes “Federalist” collaborator James Madison.

At this point, I will break off the alternative history, as the degree of speculation grows.

But, had Jay, with hindsight, seen how little work the Supreme Court would do, seen how the Secretary of State position could become a “launching pad,” and decided he wanted to launch himself past Adams, all of this actually could have happened.

"Independents" who want "more respect" than Biden should be barred from voting

I am reposting this with some updated information in italics.

After the vice-presidential debate, I said that I was so tired of this bullshit claim that Joe Biden was too disrespectful, or whatever.

Especially when it comes from "independent" voters who have either never seen a GOP Congresscritter on C-SPAN, Jon Stewart or YouTube, or else are actually not independent, but GOPers in either conscious or unconscious drag.

Well, it turns out that most of those "independents" are actually Republicans in drag, as exit polling and other surveys show.

That, in turn, leads to another question. Why are more and more people who clearly identify politically with the GOP refusing to admit that that is who they are?

My answer? They're embarrassed to be associated with the frequent bits of covert racism or covert sexism, and occasional bits of overt comments, especially on sexism but occasionally on racism, that come too often out of too many Republican mouths. 

'll venture most of these "independents" are middle-class, middle-aged, reasonably educated white women in small, but not too small, towns and suburbs who grew up Republican. They still accept most Republican values but are embarrassed at what today's GOP — and perhaps including their own husbands in that — has become.

Most of the blast that follows I originally directed at the clueless, while making a nod to the GOP-lite, too. However, I now address it to these "skirt-hiders." Just like conservative but non-nutbar Christians who don't do more to call out nutbar Christians, until these women do more to call out their party (and being women, threaten a Lysistrata if necessary) they deserve the blast, the contempt, that follows.

"True" independents who think politics should be "more respectful" than Joe Biden allegedly wasn't last night ought to be barred from voting until they read some actual American history. They should still be barred for about five years after that, until we determine that they've actually learned what old-time politics was about, first, and that they don't have an IOKIYAR meme floating in their minds somewhere. The combination of stupidity, naivete and self-righteousness of swaths of the American electorate is staggering, and belies the claim that the US is the "cradle of democracy."

Fake independents ought to be forced to have Todd Akins and Robert Mourdocks win every GOP primary in their region and state until they speak up.

Oh, and can we ban David Brooks from pontificating, too? He claims to be talking about Ryan in this paragraph, but the last sentence is clearly directed at the wrong person:

He was strong on Obama’s economic failures, strong on the Libya debacle (though why do candidates always cram too many topics into their answers early in any debate), and he did have a few chances to highlight the Obama campaign’s crucial weaknesses: the relative absence of any positive agenda and the relative absence of any large plans for the next four years.

David, we all know that it's Ryan/Romney that has not a relative, but an absolute, "absense of large plans." Raddatz repeatedly asked Ryan for some and he refused to give any. I think you, not Joe Biden, has visited Neptune ... and left part of your brain there.

Seriously, have these "independents" read nothing of Jackson et al in the 1924 presidential race, or Lincoln, even more in 1864 than in 1860 at times? Or, with substance as well as rhetorical heat, Lincoln-Douglas?

Or .... Ronald Reagan's "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Breen"?

More seriously No. 2 — on the other hand, many Democrats, including Dear Leader, want to be post-partisan politicians. No LBJ cut off Obama's pecker; he did it to himself.

More seriously, was moderator Martha Raddatz "partisan"? This left liberal who isn't voting for either Ryan/Romney or Biden/Obama says no, at least not in "normal" ways. More below the fold, some of which will be expanded into a separate post about her bipartisan partisanship.

Looks like #Petraeus was doing some extra 'surging'!

David Petraeus
Photo from Yahoo

CIA director, former Iraq War "surge" "genius" and former Afghanistan commander David Petraeus can now add "former" before his CIA title. He's announced his resignation, allegedly over an extramarital affair. Guess that spartan Army discipline of cold showers, 4 hours of sleep and such didn't pay off in the end, eh?

Here's Team Obama's initial reaction:

CIA Director David Petraeus has resigned, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a written statement Friday. The former Army general, who rocketed to global prominence as the man in charge of the "surge" in Iraq, quit over an extramarital affair, MSNBC reported.

"Today, CIA Director David Petraeus submitted his letter of resignation to the President," Clapper wrote. "Dave's decision to step down represents the loss of one of our nation's most respected public servants.

"From his long, illustrious Army career to his leadership at the helm of CIA, Dave has redefined what it means to serve and sacrifice for one's country," continued Clapper, whose statement did not specify a reason for the decision.

Well, the White House didn't lay it on too thick.

The Guardian is doing a live feed of ongoing comment. Let's see what else is being said.

Other fallout? Obama will ask Leon Panetta to stay on a while at the Defense Department. Obama will look for somebody relatively young, highly "techie" and a fan of drones as Petraeus' replacement. MSNBC is saying Deputy Director Mike Morrell is a candidate for getting the job permanently. NBC broke the story and has Petraeus' resignation letter there.

And, I wonder how it found out. Interesting.

And, speaking of "surges," we obviously won't have a Petraeus for President push on the 2016 GOP side.

And, just maybe, his wife could look at those old MoveOn "Betrayus" ads?

Slate says it was his recent biographer that he was diddling. I've read "All In," and it was as gushing as hell. Now I know why. I did not know the title was literally true. And the subtitle of "The Education of David Petraeus" has some Lady Chatterly wink-wink to it, too.

It had long been rumored that something was going on between Petraeus and Broadwell. Her book, co-written with Vernon Loeb, is widely regarded as a valentine to the general. When she was embedded with him in Afghanistan, they went on frequent 5-mile runs together.

Hey, "embedded" gets a whole new meaning, too!

Meanwhile, at least one left-liberal I know on FB is saying he doesn't believe this "official story" of Petraeus' resigning as CIA director. Great. Another liberal conspiracy theory.

Look, as I said, I found "All In" very gushy six months ago, and now I know why.

Team Obama vs. Mitch McConnell, round two

Actually, per the photo above, it won’t be just Team Obama trying to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, aka the Turtle, during Obama’s second administration. The Wicked Warlock of the West, for this story line, will definitely impact the three gents in the picture, in large part through his promise to continue being an obstructionist.

First, Tin Man John Boehner. He’s got an even more radical GOP in the House of Representatives for the next Congress than he’s had the past two years. And, the only way he gets re-elected as Speaker is to suck up to them even more. Even if he wants to deal with Obama on a somewhat more moderate basis, and House rules don’t allow for a Speaker to be unelected, he is going to have a tough time finding compromise. That includes on the “sequester cliff” that is allegedly ahead, even though Obama’s own Catfood Commission idea is partially responsible.

A possible “silver lining” for Obama would be if he’s finally learned how to “work” Congress and can peel off moderate conservative Republicans (there are no truly moderate House Republicans) on some issues.

Arkansas Dorothy? I wasn’t totally joking. By the end of 2013, her public comments, and public interactions, will tell us more about whether or not she intends to seek the nomination in 2016, and if so, what her angle will be. Otherwise, the only woman I could think of to Photoshop was Nancy Pelosi, and couldn’t figure out a Mitch McConnell angle for her. In hindsight, Sen. Betty Crocker, Dianne Feinstein, would have been great. But, she’s not that recognizable.

But, since Nate Silver says Hispanic demographics and other things may give Dems a 3 percentage point advantage in popular vote split to winning 270 electoral votes, Hilary has to be entertaining sugar plum ideas about 2016.

Scarecrow Barry? Regular readers of my blog know my issues with him, and they start with him not having the gonads to stand up to Mitch the Turtle, on the one hand, and on the other, believing that he can charm birds out of the trees with his voice, messianic skills, etc. A sidebar to that issue is that I believe he’s overrated as an orator. Ironically, I think that is partially due to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” from following the oratorical disaster who first uttered those words, George W. Bush.

The Cowardly Reid? He raised Senate filibuster rules reform issues two years ago. Yes, it was partially old lions on his side of the aisle, as well as the GOP’s, who resisted. Fresh blood might go along. Some Democrats might say, “but what if we want to us it.” Problem is, you never have, not like the Turtle, and like junior Scarecrow Barrys, you never will.

Let’s see if he stands by his new promise to raise the issue.

Even Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute favors filibuster reform. He says start with requiring the minority party to have 40 warm bodies available to block cloture when they threaten filibuster would be a good starting point.