Damn it Senator! Don't you know the President doesn't have time for trivial things. He is as busy as busy can be on important matters of state such as, um, appearing on Oprah and going to fundraisers.

But fine, let's see what you think he should be doing instead of those important things.

Clearly, we should be on the side of the Syrian people longing for freedom and challenging the regime's corrupt and repressive rule. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's hesitancy to weigh in has been mistaken for indecision at best and indifference at worst. The president needs to speak directly to the Syrian people to communicate American support for their legitimate demands, condemn Assad's murderous campaign against innocent civilians, and sternly warn Assad and his cohorts that they cannot continue grossly violating human rights, supporting terrorism, and sowing instability among Syria's neighbors.

But his words must be backed by clear, firm actions. As ill-advised as it was to restore diplomatic relations with Syria by sending an American ambassador to Damascus last year, we should now sever ties and recall the ambassador at once. While Syria is already under heavy U.S. sanctions as a designated state sponsor of terror, we should expand sanctions to include persons identified as authorizing, planning, or participating in deplorable human rights violations against unarmed civilians. Our partners in Europe, Turkey, and the Arab Gulf share many of our interests in Syria and play a large role in that country, and the president must put the full diplomatic weight of the United States behind an effort to convince them to adopt meaningful economic and diplomatic sanctions targeting Assad and his enablers in the regime.

...This administration must stop sitting on the sidelines as innocent Syrian people are mowed down by the regime's tanks. At an early point in the Libyan struggle, when a clear U.S. policy could have achieved significant successes at lower costs, the president failed to act. Now in Syria, we are faced with a challenge requiring the United States to find its voice in defense of the Syrian people and to implement meaningful actions in the immediate term. The administration must stop dithering as innocent Syrians die at the hands of a merciless regime.

The Three Amigos, McCain, Lieberman and Graham are also calling on Obama to step up to the plate and get in the game.

As for the situation in Syria, estimates are 500 or more people have been killed in 6 weeks of protests and their repression.

Not surprisingly, the UN has taken a pass on saying or doing anything about Syria.

Ah the UN..."Unless it's about bashing Israel, leave your number and we'll get back to you".

Why anyone thinks the UN is some sort of barometer of moral legitimacy for action is beyond me.

The bottom line is we missed our chance to do anything about the Iranian regime back in the summer of 2009. Given the relationship between Iran and Syria, the current unrest is in some ways a second, albeit less satisfying, bite at that apple. And once again, this administration is simply invisible. I'm not saying we should be signing up for more military action but we need to be doing more economically, covertly (assuming we aren't already) and vocally to support the overthrow of this violent and despotic regime.
Unfortunately, it looks like President Present is taking another pass.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:27 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

This article seems to start with only a passel of suspicions and, unless I'm missing something, ends the same way -- with a passel of suspicions and nothing proved.

A pretty flirt represented herself as either a DoD or possibly CIA employee, and being female and flirty, garned attention from male defense/intelligence guys online.

The accusation made now -- not proven, unless I've missed something -- is that she's a "honey pot" or "honey trap," a comely woman used by a foreign power to compromise someone sexually, for purposes of coercion and digging out information.

More of an "interesting" and "worth watching" than a made case.

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

I see everyone's linking this. Okay, I'll play.

First of all, DC is careful to not tarnish the images of its core properties with politics. They're careful here too, looking for media hype, while not really damaging Superman as a liberal.

If you read his reasons for renouncing his citizenship, it doesn't cut any particular way politically. See if you can manage to find a consistent, standard politics here:

1. He was standing with, and in support of, Iranian protesters, who were, I guess, not being supported by the US government.

2. Iran, which we all know is bad, blamed the US government for Superman's appearance there, and construed it as an act of war.

3. Superman criticizes himself for not realizing that of course, as closely associated with America as he is, of course the Iranians would blame the US for that.

4. So to avoid complications for the US government, as well as for himself, he renounces his citizenship.

They played this game (smartly) with Iron Man, the movie, too, giving liberals a conclusion they might approve of while making the reasons for that conclusion muddled politically. Did Stark renounce weapons manufacture because weapons are bad, mmm'kay, or specifically because his own weapons were being secretly fed into the hands of terrorists by an unknown mole and being used against civilians and US troops, whom he loves?

Well, kind of the first one but circumstances suggest the second and the movie didn't clearly revolve whether this was a liberal ideological stance or a pragmatic non-ideological one.

It's a muddle. It probably should be a muddle, because when you're writing for a mass audience who doesn't really look to comic book stuff for their politics you probably just want to give the people what they want and not so much of what they don't want.

James Bond, sort of notoriously, went after SPECTRE in the movies because someone decided it must be too right-wing and jingoistic to go after SMERSH (the Soviets) as he had in most of the books.

Anyway, this seems to be a little attempt to grab some headlines, but they're cautious to not tarnish Superman with liberal politics any more than they already have (with the last failed reboot replacing "The American Way" with "and the other stuff" in the famous three-part code).

Is it an attempt to make Superman "politically relevant" in a way that is designed to appeal to liberal bien pensants? Yes, certainly.

But it's also contrived to the point of inauthenticity to not actually mean anything one way or another.

Meh.

The most interesting thing about Superman, Batman, and all the Disney characters, as far as politics, is how the government always extends copyright protection whenever these key corporate properties are going to lose IP protection.

Here's something else that's interesting. The creators of Superman have had a long, long legal argument with DC about who owns Superman, and if it was fair to pay Siegel and Shuster like $50 for Superman.

The Siegel family is still pressing an apparently neverending lawsuit against DC, and hopes to win the full rights to the character in 2013.

Now, if they get the character, they would presumably sell it for a huge pile of money, but to whom? Well, DC would obviously be interested in buying back their top (tied) property.

But then again, so would Disney, which now owns Marvel.

And Marvel could simply declare some kind of "reality shift" or "parallel universe collapse" and add Superman to the Marvel Universe, joining Spiderman and the rest as Marvel heroes.

Not sure what they'd do about Metropolis, since the Marvel Universe has avoided the Madeupopolis syndrome that was big at DC.

So, will Superman renounce DC? That's what I want to know.

Irony: DC famously sued Captain Marvel/Shazam! out of existence in like the 50s. And Captain Marvel was actually outselling his clear inspiration, Superman. Years later, DC bought the rights to the character whose career they had previously cut short via lawsuit and now he's in the DC stable. Sort of duplicating most of Superman's powers.

Anyway, DC (that last article I linked) is preparing for a possible departure of Superman, by creating fresh Kryptonian heroes who can fill in for Superman should he leave their stable.

But the oldest, best-known Superman-like character they have is Captain Marvel/Shazam!. He'd be the most obvious "new Superman."

So, if DC loses Superman to lawsuit, they'll replace him with a Superman knockoff they acquired via lawsuit.

Oh Wait: Captain Marvel is now non-infringing only because the same company owns the original character and the character a lawsuit found to be infringing.

If Superman and all rights thereto pass to the Siegel/Shuster families, that means... they could sue over Captain Marvel, alleging the same infringement DC once did. And DC would have to argue... Shazam was infringing when we had Superman but now that we don't he's not.

Eh. I am thinking way too much about this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 841 words, total size 5 kb.

Can the GOP remain firm in the face of displays such as this?

I don't know, my friends. I just don't know. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

So much to discuss here. Drew (who really wrote this post by providing the links and insight) notices right off the top, AP seems to have two types of stories on the economy:

* Numbers improved somewhat and that's due to the stimulus and Barack Obama's policies

* Numbers worsened yet again and that's due to weather and other Acts of God (but not Obama-God, the other God, the Old God)

The economy slowed sharply in the first three months of the year. High gas prices cut into consumer spending, bad weather delayed construction projects and the federal government slashed defense spending by the most in six years.

The 1.8 percent annual growth rate in the January-March quarter was weaker than the 3.1 percent growth in the previous quarter, the Commerce Department reported. And it was the worst showing since last spring when the European debt crisis slowed growth to a 1.7 percent pace.

1.8% is a recession in all but technical definition, as GDP is only barely keeping pace with natural population growth.

But, they want you to know, we're still forecast to average a still-weak 3.0% growth rate later this year.

Those wonderful, wondrous forecasts! If only we could live and work in that forecasted world.

Here's some good news: While the AP and other legacy media find no connection between Obama and bad economic news (unlike the case with past Republican presidents, whose names always popped up a few times in down economic stories), the public is capable of putting 2 and 2 together itself.

Registered voters nationally are not satisfied with how President Barack Obama is handling the nation’s economy. According to this McClatchy-Marist Poll, four in ten voters — 40% — approve of how the president is dealing with the country’s economy while nearly six in ten — 57% — disapprove. Only 3% are unsure. Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy is the lowest of his presidency. His previous low was last September when just 41% gave him a thumbs-up on the issue.

And that's registered voters, which should (according to Nate Silver) give the Democrats a +4% advantage as compared to likely voter sentiment.

It gets worse. Republican sentiment hardly matters as far as Obama, since we're not voting for him anyway. (Well, 10% of fake Republicans might.)

But what of swing independents? And what of the real killer -- swing Democrats?

There has been a change among Democrats and independents on this question. While 71% of Democrats approve of how the president is handling the economy, 27% disapprove. This is a 12 percentage point increase in the proportion of Democrats who disapprove since January. Among independent voters, 34% approve while more than six in ten — 63% — disapprove.

Monty sends an article noting, as many did, that right after Obama sniffed that he hasn't the time for this silliness, he jetted off to be stroked by Oprah.

And then back to work? You betcha. Immediately after he flew to New York City to appear at three Democratic fundraisers.

Guy's just got no time, no time at all. Spread thin and scattered to the four winds.

Can a man just eat his waffle?

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Rand Paul, being kinda funny.

aul, a Tea Party favorite, said it would serve the GOP better to get behind a candidate who has better conservative credentials.

“Let’s look to Republicans who not only talk the talk, but walk the walk,” he said. “If we find the right candidate, I see no reason why we can’t win in 2012.”

Of course Paul is supporting his dad, Ron Paul!!11!!, and the r3VO_|ution. Plus, he's annoyed that Trump said his dad had no shot to win at CPAC.

Still. Documents, please.

Posted by: Ace at 08:40 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Ryan, it is said, "hates politics."

That sounds like savvy politician-talk to me.

Priebus at least has to examine the conflict of interest problem because both he and Ryan are from Wisconsin and have history together. So the question is whether he could be impartial among the hopefuls, should Ryan be aboard.

I noted my second-hand scoop about this, relaying what I hear from those who've heard, on Saturday. The story goes Ryan's private talk isn't as determinedly anti-candidacy as his public pronouncements.

Posted by: Ace at 07:01 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

It has hard to overstate how much of world history and politics over the past 100 years is reflected in the fundamental debate between the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek. It is the great economic debate that is raging in Congress and across the nation (and world) right now. It is, in a nutshell, the State vs. the individual.

This video, like its predecessor, is a brilliant exposition of the fight that has been raging for decades.

[Update - Andy] Video tucked below the fold to help with site loading issues on browsers newer than Netscape Navigator 3.02. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:46 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: Death toll now 231 (11:49 EST)

Update: Death toll now over 200 (I've heard both 202 and 213)

Rdbrewer sends along a vid of a Tuscaloosa weatherman covering the tornado live as it hit the city. You might say he's a bit animated over events.

Reminder: Comments go down briefly whenever a post is updated and reappear when a new comment is added. So don't worry that they've all been deleted or something.

Added:It's been suggested in the thread that maybe there should be a separate disaster preparedness thread but The Big Guy would probably disagree. It's closely enough related to the main topic to keep them combined in one. Pixels cost money yannow. Besides, you guys are doing fine with the ones you've already added.

More Added: My 2 cents: Awhile back I was looking around at various disaster prep and survivalist sites (because the Zombie Apocalypse is nigh) and ran across this one called Secrets of Survival. It's run by a friendly "End of Days" sorta' guy and he offers tips for surviving all sorts of nasty things, including tornadoes. Also has tons of links to other handy sites and references. Most of his tornado advice was pretty sound but I felt he'd left a few things out and on others I completely disagreed with. So I sent him some suggested additions and corrections, which are available here.

What makes me Mr. Smarty McSmartpants on the subject? Well, I grew up here which experienced this in 1999 (F-5), this in 2003 (F-4) plus several others over the years. (Though I wasn't actually living there at the time the two Big Ones hit).

Original Post:

Currently the death toll is 173 or 178 depending upon the source. That will most certainly go higher as the sun is just now coming up in some of the hardest hit areas. Now the search and rescue (and sadly, recovery) efforts can get underway in earnest.

The Weather Channel has a sizeable number of videos of many of the tornadoes, including that monster that hit Tuscaloosa and Birmingham, AL. There's been some speculation that this particular tornado may vie with The Tri-State Tornado of 1925 in terms of the tornado with the longest continuous track (219 miles).

It'll take some time to determine that, along with the Enhanced Fujita Scale ratings as damage assesment teams from NSSL, among others, are able to get into the field.

More severe weather is expected today (and in fact is already occurring in places) but the hope is that the atmospheric conditions aren't quite as "ripe" for tornadoes as they were yesterday. If nothing else, the system has a lot less ground to chew up before it heads out to sea. Then again, it'll pass through some heavily populated areas along the coast so that's probably of little comfort, especially if you live in one of those areas.

Updates and additional links to follow and I'll bump this post in case NWS issues any Tornado Emergencies.

Below the fold are the resource links I had tacked on to yesterday's tornado thread:

more...

Posted by: Genghis at 04:25 AM | Comments (196)
Post contains 658 words, total size 5 kb.

Integrative Complexity means never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by: andy at 02:41 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.