perfidy

Sez Dean Esmay, the funny thing about the press and Bush is " the fact that so many in the mainstream press keep talking about Bush as this "hard right wing" guy may have some perverse consequences."

This is an idea with some merit. I know from experience that what people think of you can be very liberating in just this way.

Can any of my readers tell me something about Belgian beer?

I'm a big beer guy. Hell, I'm a big rot guy in general. I want nothing in this world more than a big house with a big basement where I can brew the beer, keep the sourdough starter, pickle the homegrown vegetables, keep the sauerkraut crock, ferment the wine, and age the cheese. If it can rot and taste delicious, I'm a maniac for it (except nuoc mam and related putrid-fish sauce-type affairs. I need to work on that).

Which brings me to Belgian beer. Having never visited the land of paperwork and hovercraft, I've never tasted a Belgian beer in its natural habitat. All the Bb's I can find in the USA, from the decently reputed Duvel up to the made-by-blind-monks-in-secret $10/bottle treasures, as well as Belgian-style dark American made beers, taste funny to me. I don't think it's a function of the spicing (I can tell my coriander from my nutmeg from my burnt barley) or of the yeasting, but of the malting. All Belgian beers I've tried, apart from the light summer wheat stuff, are incredibly malty, almost syrupy. This is kind of gross and throws the whole flavor profile out of balance, unless I'm trying to taste for the wrong things.

The question is this: are imported Belgians just not good examples of the genre, much like Guinness in those old-style squat bottles tastes horrid next to even a widget can of the same stuff, or do I just not get Belgian beer?

I think this means something-- I'm just not sure what.

My former classmate and history heavyweight Brdgt attributes the similiarities to historical attitudes toward race. I'm not so sure. Although as an historian of racial identity in the USA I am convinced that almost everything in American history can be related, albeit tangentially, to race, I am inclined to read this map differently. I see a map describing the boundary between a tightly federal America and America's last frontier where the states-rights people live. Naturally, 'states rights' is code for slavery when we're talking about 1860-odd, but that's not the only thing going on.

Interesting.

[wik] Good discussion in the comments. I should clarify. Please read the last sentence of the original post in the following spirit, which is as I intended it: Naturally, 'states rights' is code for slavery when we're talking about 1860-odd [but it is devoid of that meaning today when uttered by serious people], but [that historical reading of the top map is] not the only [one, or even the interesting one].

To turn one of the Ministry's pet slogans on its head, we Ministers may be vile and vicious, but fate is downright cruel.

Let's everyone wish Elizabeth Edwards a speedy recovery from breast cancer, with which she was diagnosed on Wednesday, the day the two Johns' Presidential bid gave up the ghost.

Indeed, they live next door.

This noxious red state/blue state bullshit is poisoning the country. The press and punditry, in search of a quick and easy way to nutshell our convictions, sell papers, grab eyeballs, and dumb down reality to a level their fumbling little minds can handle have made this idea into received truth: Liberals live in Blue States, conservatives live in Red States, and never the twain shall meet. In fact, when the twain do meet, it's usually some cardigan-wearing Yuppie spilling his white wine and running right out of his boat shoes as he flees in terror from a band of unshaven, camo'd Good Ol' Boys shootin' at him with squirrel guns out of the back of a giant pickup truck.

Moreover, as anyone can clearly see, the Republicans are by far the majority party, as clearly demonstrated by a glance at the Big Electoral Map of Unquestioned Assumptions Presented As Pure-D Truth And Don't You Forget It.

Right?

Let's go to the maps!
Here's a by-county winner-take-all look at the nation on Tuesday. Pretty clear, huh? The US of A is Bush Country!

For those of us who live in blue states, this map is telling us to feel like we're being backed into a corner! The entire country hates gays and loves freedom, which we hate.

But what's that directly below the Red-Blue map? That is a map of population density in the USA. In-teresting. Bush country is largely devoid of populace, though parts are teeming with cattle. Is it possible that perhaps the Red-Blue split is nothing more than the old urban-rural thing dressed up in spiffy new colorful clothes? No! No way! That would render it almost meaningless!

Finally, here's a map with Tuesday's by-county voting results, shaded red-to-blue depending on which candidate carried the county, and by how much. 100% BusHitler = Red. 100% that Liberal Fakey Fake Flip Flopping Frenchy = Blue. A 51-49 victory lands right in the middle between blue and red.

Well shit. What's right in the middle between blue and red??

The United States of America!

(special thanks to Crooked Timber for letting me steal the maps they found.)

[wik] Finally... here's the same view of the country from the 2000 election, missing parts of New England thanks to data porting issues and with one county in the west partially green (implying a strong showing in the area for Kodos).

[alsø wik] Why, oh why, do I hate our freedom?

Matthew's got it right. United States of Canada! Jesusland!

I think it can work.

Recently Lady Lethal and I went to a "full auto shoot", an event where bona-fide machine guns were made available to the public.

The atmosphere was perfect: light fog, misty with occasional drizzle, low cloud cover, no sun, and about 50F. Good training weather! As we approached the site I heard the first burst- something lighter, maybe Chinese or East Bloc. I started grinning and looked over at the fairer Lethal, one eyebrow raised and the sounds of full auto mayhem growing as the range heated up. Oh yes. Within minutes we signed a release, paid our dough, put on our hearing protection, and went into the site.

There were actually three ranges going. The heaviest stuff was at the range closest to the entrance: several 30 cals were about, one 50 cal ("ma deuce"), at least 2 of these miniguns, and literally dozens of lighter weapons, in US, German, and Commie flavors.

The targets were primarily pumpkins, empty propane tanks, pumpkins, a couple of cars (some sort of Chrysler product by the look of them) and someone's old boat thrown in- well, thrown OUT, I guess- and pumpkins for good measure. Within about, oh 30 seconds there was pumpkin mush spattered and smeared downrange. If the idea were to send an unsubtle warning to the pumpkin-American community, I think it worked.

As for the crowd, most were men. All of the owners of the weapons were men, but many had their wives there and helping. All told, there were more women and fewer creepy militia types around than I expected to see. Two good points there.

Anyway, it was kinda cool- some pics beneath the fold.

[wik] Forgot to mention that while it sounded like sick, sustained end of the world firefights far and wide as these ranges were rocking, every minute or so was this huge BOOM that drowned out everything else and I could feel in my nuts. Took me a minute to figger it out, but soon found there was a lane for Buckethead's varmint rifle of choice.

Firepower demo: local police chief empties a reproduction commie PPsH into level II vest. I recommend the level III vest.

Firearms instructor and "Tales of the Gun" commentator demonstrates a suppressed Sten with subsonic, anti-pumpkin munition:

Lady Lethal holds fast in a hasty fighting position, throwing lead into a charging line of gourdish infantry:

Random shot of a dude with a Thompson and something Germanic on the tripod. Maybe an MG42 or MG3 on the blue tarp:

One lone Pinzgauer in the rain:

I have several hours worth of negative commentary on yesterday's test for gravity, but I'll condense it. There doesn't seem to be much point in exploring facts or numbers or doing realistic extrapolations. I guess I held a foolish hope that, to some extent, the American political system was self-correcting. I was wrong.

At least the popular vote broke for Bush, this time. He has legitimacy he did not, after 2000. It also appears that the election was clean, this time. I don't know how many black "felons" were denied an opportunity to vote in Florida; let's hope it isn't the 45,000 that we saw last time. Bush's margin in Florida is several hundred thousand, which puts him safely (and legitimately) in the lead.

It's not that John Kerry was a great candidate; he wasn't. But Bush represents the certainty of an economic death spiral, the affirmation of xenophobia (and just about every other phobia, including homo-), and the sunsetting of liberty. He's got a four year track record to prove it. At least with Kerry there was a chance for fiscal discipline and for cooperation on the international level; no such chance exists now.

So I sit here, perplexed. All the graphs and charts and analysis I've done, countless discussions conveying the facts, everything written and done and said...it all means pretty much nothing. I think that it means that my focus has to change; I think it means that there simply isn't any point in trying to work and hope for change that is good for everyone. It turns out they're not interested.

The ironic thing is that Bush's policies are fine, or even good, for me personally. His tax cuts go to people like me. The crash and burn of the medical system doesn't affect me; I can afford it, whatever happens. Expensive oil? Doesn't bother me. The forthcoming rise in social security taxation rates (to "fix" social security) won't be much of a factor for me; my income extends past the social security range. All these things are going to screw over the average 30k/year guy in America; that guy just voted for Bush, so my sympathies are limited.

We're really entering a new era, now. If you're a smart, wealth-producing, socially liberal, fiscally conservative person, you need to start thinking about protecting yourself and your family from this lunacy, and you need to start doing it right now. The bible-wielding welfare-staters are coming for us. They want to spend our tax dollars on things we don't agree about, like stupid wars. They want to force everyone to hate gays. They want to take away a woman's right to choose. They do not believe the environment should be protected. They want to swagger around the playground, declaring that the opinions of those who live elsewhere in the world don't matter. They talk financial discipline, but implement the largest discretionary spending increases in modern times. They hand huge breaks to the buddies of the people in charge of their "party", and they hand the bill to us, and to the next generation.

So how do you protected yourself and your family against this lunacy? I don't know yet. I'm trying to figure it out. I'm not sure it's possible; at least, not in America.

The baby boomers start retiring in five years. Demand for treasury bonds is dropping dramatically. America's position in the world is the weakest it has been in modern times. The federal government is running 6% of GDP deficits and is two years away from the highest percentage-of-GDP deficits ever recorded (exceeding the record set after World War II). Dislike and distaste for America is causing increases to trade deficits. Oil prices are likely to double (from their current record-high levels) over the next two years, which will have a massive ripple effect on America's remaining, highly dispersed manufacturing infrastructure.

The very idea of trying to deal with a longer-term problem, like global warming, is foolish.

Is this who you are?

Rationality has prevailed, and GOP Party Officials in Ohio have told challengers to observe, rather than actively challenge voters on the spot. Since I criticized the decision to challenge, it's only fair that I mention their decision to observe. Nobody has a problem with observation. It was the active process of challenging voters in the act of voting that was highly problematic.

Long ago my feelings on folk music hardened from simple animadversion into open contempt. Consequently, I am inclined to not give a chance to even the best of the classic folkies. Tim Buckley: pussy! Phil Ochs: pinko! If I had a hammer, I'd hammer Peter Paul and Mary all day long! Nick Drake gets a pass because he's English and a genius, but it's a close call since his legions of pathetic hack followers haunt my every step. Because I have such a hard time with folk music and folk musicians in general, it is a real pleasure when I find one who can actually deliver the goods. Richard Buckner, come on down!

Austin native (and Brooklyn resident) Richard Buckner is the owner of a ridiculously burnished voice, the kind of weathered rasp that invites overbaked comparisons to old leather, mellow whiskey and open prairie afternoons. At a whisper, darker tones invite hushed intimacy; when he cuts loose, the weariness in his voice turns to an ache that Springsteen would kill to have the use of for a single day. In the past, he has sometimes had trouble finding songs good enough to go with his voice. Buckner's instincts are not rock instincts, nor are they quite country; he doesn't go in for drama or the big finish. Indeed, even dressed up with steel guitars and uptempo kit drumming, Richard Buckner pretty much writes folk songs in the metaphorical-confessional mode, and I just can't find it in myself to hold it against him. He’s too cool, too rumpled. Too real.

One problem with modern folk music is that it requires a measured subtlety that too often presents as sleepiness, and Buckner isn't completely innocent in this regard. On 2002's Impasse, all the album's songs melted together into a lukewarm puddle of mildly depressing soul-searching. That album was a big letdown in comparison to his debut, Bloomed (that album's "Rainsquall" is one of my favorite happy-sad songs), and his mid-90s offerings Since and Devotion+Doubt which (I confess) reliable sources close to me say are great. On Impasse, the claustrophobic atmosphere may have been in part thanks to Richard's own increasing reliance on playing all his own instruments. With nobody to act as a foil, he seems to withdraw into a hermetic space that might be pleasing to him but doesn't invite listeners in.

On the new Dents and Shells (Merge) Buckner seems to have unclenched quite a bit. Leaving the bulk of the playing to a crack team of hired sidemen, Buckner offers a solid set of ten songs that make the most of his way with a yearning melody and a laid-back vibe. Operating in the same general territory as Townes van Zandt, the Jayhawks (but softer and more messy) and early Steve Earle (without the snarl and the drugs), he seems to have figured out how to write songs that let the listener in. In particular, the shimmery guitar and piano of the opening “A Chance Counsel” and “Her” sit beautifully among the naked melancholy of “Firsts” and “And The Waves Will Always Roll,” making Dents and Shells the first Richard Buckner album to do everything right with his considerable talents. Highly recommended, even (especially?) for non-fans of folk music.

Also posted to blogcritics.org, which you will now go and read.