Oatmeal stout isn't a meal, after all

Here's a sobering headline for New Year's Eve. The Russian government now classifies beer as alcohol, not food.

Before you laugh, consider this: If I had to cope with the bleak Russian winter, I'd probably turn to ale as a form of sustenance, too.

Indeed, the head of the Union of Russian Brewers doesn't seem to view imbibing as a choice:

So [now] you have to stock at home. And stocking beer is more problematic than stocking vodka. It's bulky, it's big and there's no room for it in small homes. It's much easier to buy two bottles of vodka and manage for your instant need for alcohol.

To understand their plight, I may have to toast 2013 with a Russian imperial stout.

Happy New Year to all.

Toxic, dogmatic forces drive America toward precipice

This guy faces a near-impossible predicament: saving face
for his political party, while dealing with its most
irrational, recalcitrant members.

As we inexcusably careen toward the upcoming fiscal cliff on Tuesday, the Onion, in its characteristically satirical but brutally honest way, neatly sums up why we're here in the first place. (Spoiler alert: Republicans.)

Meanwhile, Nate Silver at the New York Times provides a more sober assessment of the situation, with some keen insight as to why the GOP seems perfectly prepared to drive this country deep into another economic crisis, even though they know they'll rightfully take the blame for it.

It stands to reason that Republicans in both the House and Senate would work together to avoid doing anything that would cost their party dearly (like, you know, plunging us into another recession). But the Republican Party is no longer ruled by reason. It's ruled by sharp ideological purity and blind loyalty to special interests.

As Silver notes, congressional GOP members from solidly conservative districts have little incentive to compromise for the sake of the national party — and the nation — when their biggest concern is not being ousted by a Democrat, but being ousted by primary challengers who are even more extreme than they are.

That's why House Speaker John Boehner recently faced the humiliation of his own conference rejecting a compromise bill that would extend current tax rates on all Americans who earn less than $1 million annually. Of course, this isn't even close to what the president wants. But the rank-and-file House members know that signing on to any tax increase of any kind — however meaningless or insignificant — will invariably trigger a vicious attack from the right flank.

So here we are, on the verge of an economic disaster for which Republicans are resigned to taking the blame — all because they've allowed themselves to be hijacked by political forces that make no allowance whatsoever for rationality, compromise, or deference to the greater good.

And Democrats, however attuned they are to the gravity of the situation, are relatively powerless to do anything about it. Few of them are known for their backbone or ability to influence, even under the best of circumstances.

Ironically, the people who will pay the highest price for this pathetic dysfunction are the ones who voted into office the perpetrators of it.

Wake up, America. Please, wake up.

Did the NRA just shoot itself in the foot? Here's hoping.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president, National Rifle Association.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia)

The NRA response to the school shooting in Connecticut is awful, but not surprising. After all, this is just another group that has no incentive to moderate its positions or offer any conciliatory gestures, even in the wake of such a horrible tragedy.

In fact, it can't. If it does, its influence wanes, and its relevance and survival are both threatened.

As I've indicated already, corporations and special-interest groups don't exist to help shape reasonable policy that serves public safety or welfare. They exist solely to achieve a very specific, self-serving, profitable goal — however extreme or outrageous it may be.

So while we may be repulsed by the NRA's brash, defiant, heartless tone, we shouldn't be surprised. If, in the interest of self-preservation, this organization's leaders have to double down on the senseless gun policies that facilitate atrocities like what happened in Newtown, Connecticut, you'd better believe they will.

And if they have to insist on so-called solutions that border on the delusional and sound more like headlines from The Onion than serious ideas, you'd better believe they'll do that, too. (Progressive media outlets like the Daily Kos blog have been quick to point out that sites of previous shootings, such as Columbine High School in Colorado, did have armed guards, to little avail.)

If we must resurrect the archaic argument that more guns will make us safer — that, in fact, this sort of thing wouldn't happen if we simply became a militaristic society — then let's be careful not to omit any critical details.

Finding light amid intense darkness

My soul has been heavy for the past several days, thinking about what happened in Connecticut last week.

I'm sure I join many, many others — Christians and non-Christians alike — in posing the questions that inevitably follow a tragedy of such epic proportions: Where is God when something like this happens?

And how can an all-powerful, loving God allow it to happen?

We can't answer that question, and I won't try. But we can seek hope even when circumstances seem irredeemably bleak.

Sometimes, words are simply inadequate…

An ideology dependent on its own delusion of superiority

If only we could all be as clean-shaven as this guy, who depends on the
government for nothing — except for his salary, his insurance, his
pension, a humble place to live, and hopefully his deodorant, if he lifts
his arms as frequently as is shown in this image.

Editor's note: The author of this blog — who shall continue to remain nameless, except for those who have already figured it out — was feeling particularly obstinate and obnoxious today, so please forgive him (or her) in advance for the acrimonious tone of this post.

In case you somehow haven't heard, mainstream Republicans now tend to think that anyone who didn't vote for them is a responsibility-shirking, government-leeching, bottom-feeding, idle, parasitic, destitute bum who exists solely to suck off the teat of public programs and exploit the productivity of those who contribute something to society (read: rich people and Republican voters).

Mitt Romney made this explicitly clear several months back. He then went on to win 47 percent of the popular vote in November. (Poetic justice? Damn straight.) And if anyone was confused as to whether he meant exactly what he said, he essentially repeated it after he lost the election.

So did John Sununu, former New Hampshire governor who has never been at a loss for ideas on how to humiliate his entire political party.

So did Dennis Daugaard, current governor of South Dakota who apparently wanted to make a name for himself (no, I'd never heard of him, either) by suggesting that "able-bodied" adult Medicaid beneficiaries should get off their lazy asses.

So has Scott Walker, current nasally-voiced governor of Wisconsin who apparently thinks even the voters in his own state advocate for this approach: "The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs."

Christmas in the air

I made it up to the Cascades this weekend for a stay at a cozy mountain chalet — complete with a wood-burning stove and outdoor hot tub — and some snowshoeing on a snowy winter afternoon.

The only point I really wanted to make in this post is that the sight of fresh snow on the branches of evergreen trees is probably one of the most beautiful displays that nature has to offer. Here's a picture of the road to the chalet. Does this look like a scene from a Robert Frost poem?

The woods are lovely, dark and deep…

Here's one more reason why we need to fight global warming — in the event that the survival of humanity and stuff like that isn't sufficiently compelling.

By the way, if you've never installed tire chains on your vehicle, I don't recommend it. It sucks. Fortunately, I was able to make it there and back alive without needing to do so, but I practiced at home before I left just in case, and it's really not fun.

Ignoring the warning signs of a global malady

The symptoms of human-driven global warming are a bit like the symptoms of a serious medical condition.

If you ignore them — or pretend that they aren't indicative of something severe — you're setting the stage for a precipitous, irreversible, catastrophic outcome.

I fear that that's exactly what we're doing as the planet's temperature rises and humanity bears idle witness to the signs of a major environmental disease.

Just like with a physical ailment of the human body, the symptoms may start off as mild or sporadic, but grow in frequency and intensity as the condition worsens.

Familiar cliffs and quandaries

This guy may not be pretty to look at, but he
sure does have a fat head.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia)

Now that November 6 has come and gone, the Republican Party finds itself caught in the midst of several political quandaries, which is exactly why the American people are once again staring down the same so-called "fiscal cliff" we already know too well.

For starters, the implications of the election results seem to be lost entirely on the key players in this fight. Either that, or they simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Apparently, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell implied in a private phone call that he doesn't have to make any tax concessions to the president, because Obama lost his home state of Kentucky. (Them blue states be damned, right, Mitchy? What matters is how they vote in good ol' Paducah.)

That's quandary #1. The GOP knows they lost. But they're still unwilling to change course — partially because they can't (as I'll explain below), and partially because they've already made clear that the verdict of the voters doesn't matter all that much to them.

Then, we heard familiar words last week from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, echoing the sentiments of his friend, the House Speaker from Ohio: "We take the position that raising tax rates is absolutely not something that helps get people back to work. We don't want to increase tax rates; we're not going to increase tax rates, and we want to do something about the spending problem."

Of course, this argument — that we can't raise taxes on millionaire "job creators" because it's bad for the economy — isn't new, and it's no less absurd than when it was first uttered. (Unsurprisingly, Boehner and Company are trying to paint their political opposition as the ones who are, in fact, being absurd.)