Terror in America?

Sometimes, things get so insane that you actually hope the guilty party is one of your allies. That statement, of course, will require some explanation. Let’s start with the story out of Seattle; Dan Savage posted today at Slog:

Eleven gay bars in Seattle received letters today addressed to the “Owner/Manager” from someone claiming to be in the possession of ricin, a deadly poison. “Your establishment has been targeted,” the letter begins. “I have in my possession approximately 67 grams of ricin with which I will indiscriminately target at least five of your clients” ….

…. According to the CDC’s website, someone who has ingested “a significant amount” will develop vomiting and diarrhea within the first 6-12 hours; other symptoms of ricin poisoning include hallucinations, seizures, and blood in the urine. There is no antidote for ricin but ricin exposure is not invariably fatal ….

…. A letter also arrived in The Stranger’s offices, addressed to the attention of “Obituaries.” The letter’s author said the paper should “be prepared to announce the deaths of approximately 55 individuals all of whom were patrons of the following establishments on a Saturday in January.” The listed bars are: the Elite, Neighbours, Wild Rose, the Cuff, Purr, the Eagle, R Place, Re-bar, CC’s, Madison Pub, and the Crescent. “I could take this moment to launch into a diatribe about my indignation towards the gay community,” the letter concludes, “however, I think the deaths will speak for themselves.”

Quite obviously, stay tuned. Perhaps suspects or bodies will start turning up in the near future. To the other, we can only hope that Roland, who manages the Madison Pub, is correct when he says, “I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.”

That is not to say the threatened establishments are not taking precautions. At the Eagle, a sign has been posted advising customers to remain vigilant. But nobody’s going to close their doors over this, and local promoters and DJs are discussing a pub crawl as a show of solidarity with the bars.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Times reports that Savage told them the lack of religious references makes him wonder whether the author is an embittered homosexual. And, indeed, we come back to the point made at the outset.

I would, in fact, prefer that this is the outcome. Or maybe even a cynical ploy by bar owners or employees to increase business during a period of reduced custom by rallying the community around a political cause. This I can better deal with. Hell, I’d take a disaffected teenager with a warped sense of humor. The thought that the letters are genuine? I would hate to believe the situation has really come to this.

Obama and expectation

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman brings us, with his latest column, an assessment of Senator Barack Obama, considering the Democratic presidential candidate in the context of two other elections, those of 1980 and 1992:

It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton? ….

…. Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda. And he had enormous success in getting that agenda implemented. He had his failures, most notably on Social Security, which he tried to dismantle but ended up strengthening. But America at the end of the Reagan years was not the same country it was when he took office.

Bill Clinton also ran as a candidate of change, but it was much less clear what kind of change he was offering. He portrayed himself as someone who transcended the traditional liberal-conservative divide, proposing “a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement.” The economic plan he announced during the campaign was something of a hodgepodge: higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes for the middle class, public investment in things like high-speed rail, health care reform without specifics.

We all know what happened next. The Clinton administration achieved a number of significant successes, from the revitalization of veterans’ health care and federal emergency management to the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and health insurance for children. But the big picture is summed up by the title of a new book by the historian Sean Wilentz: “The Age of Reagan: A history, 1974-2008.”

While there are also fundamental differences in the context of the circumstances under which the Reagan and Clinton presidencies occurred, Krugman—who during the primary often criticized Obama—is not without a valid point. Having achieved the nomination, Obama has followed a trend disturbing to American liberals, one that suggests a transformation of the candidate into a different kind of political creature. His withdrawal from public financing, while understandable in a political context, is disappointing, to say the least, for liberals hopeful of a president of principles. And his support of the recent FISA “compromise” ranges into the realm of the frustrating.

Good faith, and what the hell is going on here?

While some of our politically conservative neighbors in these United States might be mourning what they perceive as the death of marriage—a lament we should expect to hear many times in the future, wondering just how many times an idea can die—it seems almost ironic that we cannot say the same of the concept of good faith, largely because the patient’s condition is classified.

Michael Abramowitz last weekend brought us the front-page story of how the White House ignored legal advice that its detention policy for terror suspects was untenable. We should not be surprised that at least one lawyer would be willing to state the point clearly: “I can virtually guarantee you,” wrote John B. Bellinger III, in August, 2006, “without a legislative basis, federal courts are not going to be willing to uphold the indefinite detention of unlawful combatants”.

Quote of the Week — Conway on illegal wiretapping

Sean Conway on illegal wiretapping:

And the House has just simply said, we’re not going to accept this, because we want to have, you know, terrorists be able to sue phone companies if they’re listening to our conversations.

Colorado MediaMatters also has audio from Conway’s recent appearance on KFKA (1310 AM) radio. Mr. Conway is chief of staff for Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado).

(A tip o’the hat to Glenn Greenwald.)

Taco Tuesday? Somebody stop them!

So, anyway, Taco Bell is back with one of their absurd bets. This time, however, instead of waiting for a spaceship to crash into a target in the middle of the ocean, they’re just staking their tacos on stolen bases.

“Millions and millions of people will be watching the Series and hopefully tuning in to see when they are going to get their taco,” said Taco Bell spokesman Rob Poetsch.

There has been at least one stolen base in every World Series matchup since 1990. When the first base is stolen, the unit of Yum Brands Inc, will announce a Tuesday afternoon when consumers will be able to walk into the chain’s participating 5,800 outlets and ask for a free taco. Anyone who walks into a participating outlet during the give-away period would be eligible for a free taco.

Despite the promotion’s name, stealing the taco will not be required.

This won’t go well.

Don’t get me wrong, I do eat Taco Bell from time to time. It’s cheaper than buying laxatives.

I can’t believe Jose Padilla is in prison.