Public school students in Texas, for their part, are more even-keeled. One student at a Dallas High School was quoted as saying, “Whatever. You know what I’m sayin’?”

Um … no. We have no idea what people in Texas are saying.

The recent murders of an American doctor in his church, and of an American security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC stand out as two examples, although depending on who you listen to, they’re seen as examples of different things.

One camp says that these are tragic examples of crazed and depraved lone gunmen. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of violence that could not have been prevented since there’s no way to fathom the depths of the mind of someone bent on murder. In this view, the killings were isolated instances, each occurring because of the design of a single perpetrator, in the absence of any broader social or political context save for that which each of these murderers made up to justify their horrific acts.

The other camp claims that these are tragic examples of domestic terrorism. In this line of argument, the murders are acts of politically-motivated violence that could possibly have been prevented since the social forces that allow some fringe groups to justify murder are reasonably well understood. In this view, the killings are connected to a broader social context in which the election of the nations first African American president, and a broader acceptance of more socially liberal policies and norms is threatening to some of our American brothers and sisters – and with adequate provocation – some of them will act out in order to make a political statement.

I wonder if just one of these lines of argument is correct, or even if there are alternative ways to view these violent acts. More than that, I wonder if our description of them would be different if these were not examples of American on American violence, or if we didn’t have a double standard when it comes to blaming the victim. If James von Brunn, the white supremacist who is accused of murdering Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum had been a Saudi, Iranian, or Palestinian, headlines across the country would have been splashed with the word “Terrorism” in bold type and accompanying exclamation points. It doesn’t matter that Scott Roeder believed that his murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified because doctor Tiller performed abortions – because Roeder’s goal wasn’t just to kill Tiller – it was to send a message to all Americans that people like him will try to kill you if you have the misfortune to require or provide legal abortions – so you better stop.

Daniel D. Novotny said, “An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.”

I think we have to look very closely at ourselves in the mirror – because I suspect some of us will see terrorists staring back.

Now, Bristol Palin is back, doing the talk show circuit with her new baby in tow. She’s still and unwed teen mother, and that’s nothing to praise or condemn. Teen pregnancy is certainly an important social issue. Bristol is speaking out as a teen mother about the importance of the GOP solution to teen pregnancy: abstinence.

Never mind the fact that, as public health and education policy, abstinence-only education is a demonstrable failure. Teens that participate in such programs are sexually active at about the same rates as teens who participate in sex education classes that also include information about condom use. The problems appear when you examine pregnancy and STD rates among teens in abstinence only programs. Many teens in these programs don’t abstain, and they don’t use condoms effectively either. This actually puts them at increased risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Just like Bristol Palin, who gave birth on Dec 29, 2008 at the age of 18.

Regardless of the epic failure of abstinence-only education, I have to question the wisdom of selecting someone who rejected abstinence as the GOP Abstinence Ambassador. No – Bristol Palin isn’t the right person to tout the benefits of abstinence since she has no verified abstinence experience.

That would be equivalent to selecting this person as the GOP Fashion and Fitness Ambassador:

According to the Federation of American Sciences website, the American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding a meeting about the possibility of reinstating the OTA.

The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment provided rigorous, bipartisan, scientific and technological advice to Congress for nearly two decades before being eliminated in 1995. This session will focus on how to effectively place scientific and technical information into a policy context, analyze it, and communicate it to policy makers and the public.

It’s about damn time.

Do you want Congress to keep making decisions about evolution, climate change, stem cell research, alternate energy programs – or any other scientific area without a fair and impartial assessment of the scientific issues involved? If so, then you deserve whatever crap happens to you as a result of your majestic and profound idiocy.

Welcome 2009. I thought I’d comment on something that doesn’t seem to be getting a great deal of play in the media just now.

During the landmark 2008 US Presidential Campaign, Republicans across the US took a strong, wrong-headed stand on energy. What was their proposed solution to soaring gas prices? Simple – open previously off-limits areas around the US coastline to oil exploration and drilling. They even had a three syllable catch phrase that started at the GOP convention and was repeated at rallies across the country as the general campaign wore on. “Drill baby, drill”, they chanted, with the same wild-eyed conviction that a mob chasing the Frankenstein monster might have as it cried, “Kill, kill, kill.”

But then the bottom fell out of the US economy as the sub-prime mortgage bubble burst and investment firms on Wall Street lost billions in the blink of an eye. What may end up being the worst financial crisis in US history began. The US Treasury was granted enormous power as a $700 Billion (that’s $700,000,000,000.00 if you’re interested) bailout of various corners of the financial world was passed in congress. But within this turbulent storm of a fiscal meltdown, there was, to me at least, one interesting thing.

The price of oil began to fall.

And fall.

And fall.

In July and August 2008, one of the biggest features of the US consumer economy was an ever-increasing domestic demand for oil, combined with the fact that we import over 40% of that oil from foreign sources. By October and November, the economic pain Americans felt translated into cost cutting, and we began starting to drive and fly less often. By mid December, unleaded gas fell to $1.50 per gallon in some areas of the country. Cheap gas was here at last.

Interestingly, it wasn’t an increase in domestic supply that caused the worldwide oil price drop. Similarly, the difference wasn’t the “signal” that Republicans had wanted to send to the countries that “don’t like us very much” of our intent to drill off the outer continental shelf, and thereby increase domestic supplies.

Nope, in that crazy dance of energy supply and demand, the current economic crisis has shown us one thing most clearly: Demand drives energy prices at least as much as supply. Americans on a large scale were forced to conserve due to tough economic times, and oil prices plummeted to compensate for the decreased demand. Now that gas is cheap, Americans are starting to buy more. In response, the prices have begun to creep up again.

Drill Baby, Drill? That may be something to consider once the supply of oil begins to dwindle, but in late 2008, we saw what can happen when we conserve instead. The main problem is, however, that mobs don’t get wild-eyed over responsibility and clunky slogans like, “Conserve Baby, Conserve.”

Thanks to Matt for the heads up!

The difference between these two sets of negative attacks is that Obama’s attack on McCain is factually true. McCain’s attacks are not.

Over the past weeks and months, we have seen a John McCain all over the map as he tries to regain the lead in a race that is largely going badly for him. His faux suspension of his campaign for two days before the first debate was seen as a desperate hail-mary attempt to shift the focus to his leadership and willingness to put America first in a time of unprecedented economic crisis. When the economic deal his campaign needed didn’t materialize, he claimed victory and restarted his campaign with a “surprise” visit to the first presidential debate. This occurred after McCain’s previous hail-mary selection of a feckless governor of America’s least populated state as his running mate in an attempt to put the conservative Republican base at ease with his candidacy. That’s largely worked, but it hasn’t won him the accolades from women’s groups that he expected, nor has it swayed many Hillary Clinton supporters since many of them vote principles over gender.

For Obama to attack McCain for trotting out weirder and weirder ideas (taxing employee health benefits, anyone?), or flip-flopping on key issues (the fundamentals of the economy are strong one day and the sky’s falling the next) isn’t going negative. It’s calling things how they are.

I often wonder what might have happened if John McCain had successfully grasped his proper moment in history – if he had defeated George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican Primary. McCain was the right Republican for the job eight years ago.

He isn’t anymore.

This made us chuckle.

We’re glad that John’s handling the economic crisis with the intensity of a psychopathic astronaut.

Yesterday, GOP nominee John McCain suspended his campaign, saying he wants to lead a bi-partisan effort to solve the current financial crisis. At stake for McCain is the presidency, which seems to be slipping from his grasp with each new revelation about how the chickens released following years of deregulation and lax policing of financial markets – policies long supported by McCain – have now come home to roost.

So rather than face the tough questions about this situation, McCain hides behind a flimsy call for bi-partisan leadership on the issue. Never mind the fact that a deal is already nearing completion without McCain’s special brand of leadership. Never mind the fact that McCain, if he has his way, might be able to avoid debating Barak Obama. Never mind that McCain has admitted to being not particularly strong on economic theory. Never mind that McCain is a Bush Republican – which as we have all experienced – is many times worse than being a Tax and Spend liberal. These are the Bomb, Borrow, and Bail-out Republicans – and they preach a “small-government” line while putting taxpayers on the hook for their miserably failed policies again and again.

With McCain’s call to cancel the debate, he could well deprive the entire nation the opportunity to see how both candidates plan to deal with this crisis in the coming months. He’s apparently ok with keeping us from kicking the tires on the presidency he want to sell us. Interestingly, if he’s able to cancel or reschedule the presidential debate, then there’s another thing that the GOP will be able to keep hidden: Sarah Palin.

Beyond McCain’s irresponsible and politically calculated selection of an apparently know-nothing governor, the legitimate issue many have with Palin is that we know next to nothing about her. And if the McCain/Palin Campaign has its way, things will remain that way up to Nov 4, when you’re asked to buy a Republican bag of goods. What we do know is that Palin was added to the ticket to placate the religious right, as the lipstick on the pig of McCain’s not too conservative candidacy. We also know that McCain doesn’t have a plan, not for the economy, not for the wars, not for education or health care or job training or social security or anything. He doesn’t need one, because he’s cribbing from Bush.

But he doesn’t want any sunlight cast on that now, does he?

Edit – here are some David Letterman outtakes after McCain cancelled his interview to race back to Washington.