Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Obama in the rain, animated version.
"But God, Sir, in Your manner of teaching us about life's consequential nature, isn't death a bit ... um ... extreme, pedagogically speaking?"
"I know the lesson that we're studying is difficult. But dying is more homework than I was counting on."
Writes P.J. O'Rourke, who will -- in all likelihood -- survive his "inglorious" cancer.
Perhaps one of your body parts is lying in wait and will, one day, rise up and drag you to your doom. If it has to be one body part, what body part would you want it to be? Surely not that one.
Writes P.J. O'Rourke, who will -- in all likelihood -- survive his "inglorious" cancer.
Perhaps one of your body parts is lying in wait and will, one day, rise up and drag you to your doom. If it has to be one body part, what body part would you want it to be? Surely not that one.
McCain and Obama address the financial crisis, each in his own way.
Today's ads. From McCain:
From Obama:
...
Nothing yet. O is kind of the silent type.
ADDED: I am looking at Obama's YouTube page. If he has something, he needs to put it there. Don't tell me I'm missing something if it isn't there. You can tell me why he doesn't put it there. That might be interesting.
AND: Some people are pointing at this, which is on YouTube, but does not appear (where I can see it) on Obama's YouTube subscription page, even though it was put up yesterday. Note that it only has 209 views at this point. Is he trying to hide it?
In any case, it's not what I went looking for when I constructed this post and wanted to have comparable ads from the 2 candidates. For one thing, it went up yesterday, not today. But that's not important. It's just not about the current financial crisis. It's a general overview of Obama's economic plan. He does say at one point -- 0:28 -- "I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis, but not by going down the very same path." He then proceeds to tell us the same things he's said all along about who should be taxed and so forth. There is nothing new or specific about the current bailout plan. Does he have one idea about it... other than to act aloof?
UPDATE: Obama in Reno:
From Obama:
...
Nothing yet. O is kind of the silent type.
ADDED: I am looking at Obama's YouTube page. If he has something, he needs to put it there. Don't tell me I'm missing something if it isn't there. You can tell me why he doesn't put it there. That might be interesting.
AND: Some people are pointing at this, which is on YouTube, but does not appear (where I can see it) on Obama's YouTube subscription page, even though it was put up yesterday. Note that it only has 209 views at this point. Is he trying to hide it?
In any case, it's not what I went looking for when I constructed this post and wanted to have comparable ads from the 2 candidates. For one thing, it went up yesterday, not today. But that's not important. It's just not about the current financial crisis. It's a general overview of Obama's economic plan. He does say at one point -- 0:28 -- "I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis, but not by going down the very same path." He then proceeds to tell us the same things he's said all along about who should be taxed and so forth. There is nothing new or specific about the current bailout plan. Does he have one idea about it... other than to act aloof?
UPDATE: Obama in Reno:
"This is no longer just a Wall Street crisis. It's an American crisis, and it's the American economy that needs this rescue plan"...Do what's right. Can't argue with that. I take it he supports the plan that was voted down yesterday, not that he is helping people understand why it is the right plan. It's hard to see how he will change any minds. Unlike McCain (and Nancy Pelosi), he's not assigning blame, which might be helpful in getting something passed.
Obama said Congress should put aside politics — he didn't mention GOP rival John McCain by name during his remarks — and should act on the legislation quickly.
"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say: Step up to the plate and do what's right for this country"...
Our leaders "have failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority."
Says David Brooks.
So they not only fail to lead, they fail to look like they are leading. Clowns on all sides.
So they not only fail to lead, they fail to look like they are leading. Clowns on all sides.
George W. Bush is completely out of juice, having squandered his influence with Republicans as well as Democrats. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is a smart moneyman, but an inept legislator. He was told time and time again that House Republicans would not support his bill, and his response was to get down on bended knee before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
House leaders of both parties got wrapped up in their own negotiations, but did it occur to any of them that it might be hard to pass a bill fairly described as a bailout to Wall Street? Was the media darling Barney Frank too busy to notice the 95 Democrats who opposed his bill? Pelosi’s fiery speech at the crucial moment didn’t actually kill this bill, but did she have to act like a Democratic fund-raiser at the most important moment of her career?
And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists...
So Tom Brokaw is fretting about criticism that NBC shows favoritism toward Obama.
On Sunday, I commented on how odd it was that Tom Brokaw ended a "Meet the Press" interview with Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod by saying -- seemingly out of nowhere -- that "in fairness to everybody here" he should tell us about a poll showing that, 53 to 42 percent, Americans think McCain is better suited to be commander in chief. That made me suspect that "Inside NBC, they are fretting about criticism that they show favoritism toward Obama, so Brokaw thought it might help to lob out a glaring hunk of McCain favoritism."
So I was very interested in this-behind-the-scenes report:
This is good too -- Brokaw showing his exasperation with Schmidt and Axelrod:
So I was very interested in this-behind-the-scenes report:
In an interview here after Sunday’s ["Meet the Press"] broadcast, Mr. Brokaw said that over the summer he had “advocated” within the executive suite of NBC News to modify the anchor duties of the MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election night and on nights when there were presidential debates....I was right.
Mr. Brokaw said he had also conducted some shuttle diplomacy in recent weeks between NBC and the McCain campaign. His mission, he said, was to assure the candidate’s aides that — despite some negative on-air commentary by Mr. Olbermann in particular — Mr. McCain could still get a fair shake from NBC News. Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates — until his name was invoked.
“One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, ‘If it’s an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won’t go,’ ” Mr. Brokaw said. “My name came up, and they said, ‘Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it’s going to be Brokaw.’ ”
***
This is good too -- Brokaw showing his exasperation with Schmidt and Axelrod:
“They didn’t come very prepared on the economy,” he said. “They’re both trying to give the impression they’re involved, but plainly they’re not.”Absolutely right.
“I was interested in how the two of them stuck by their budget programs,” he said. “There was nothing that Obama has proposed that he’s willing to cut. McCain insisted he could balance a budget with spending cuts. Give me” — and here he paused for emphasis — “a break. Nobody believes that, in either case.”
In France, Muslims prefer Catholic school.
The NYT reports:
“There is respect for our religion here,” said Nadia Oualane, 14, a student of Algerian descent who wears her hair hidden under a black head scarf. “In the public school,” she added, gesturing at nearby buildings, “I would not be allowed to wear a veil.”The ban on head scarves probably strikes most Americans as a terribly harsh and unnecessarily strict approach to the separation of church and state.
In France, which has only four Muslim schools, some of the country’s 8,847 Roman Catholic schools have become refuges for Muslims seeking what an overburdened, secularist public sector often lacks: spirituality, an environment in which good manners count alongside mathematics, and higher academic standards.
“The head scarf is a sexist sign, and discrimination between the sexes has no place in the republican school,” France’s minister of national education, Xavier Darcos, said in a telephone interview. “That is the fundamental reason why we are against it.”Oddly, France is much more lenient than we are about about giving tax money to religious schools.
In return for the schools’ teaching the national curriculum and being open to students of all faiths, the government pays teachers’ salaries and a per-student subsidy.This makes tuition relatively low, encouraging parents to take this option.
In France’s highly centralized education system, the national curriculum proscribes religious instruction beyond general examination of religious tenets and faiths as it occurs in history lessons. Religious instruction, like Catholic catechism, is voluntary.So the tax money is used to make the religious schools less religious. It furthers the government agenda of secularization.
"Our last number will be the issue dated September 30, the first day of Rosh Hashanah."
Goodbye to the New York Sun.
It's sad to see a newspaper die, and the New York Sun occupied a special niche. I visited the Sun about a year ago, and was perfectly charmed by the stunningly retro environment...
... and all the wonderful, dedicated people there.
It's sad to see a newspaper die, and the New York Sun occupied a special niche. I visited the Sun about a year ago, and was perfectly charmed by the stunningly retro environment...
... and all the wonderful, dedicated people there.
"Dinosaur-human relations are not, to the best of my knowledge, part of the bailout debate and its partisanship..."
"... otherwise known as the subjects of this thread."
Said Freeman Hunt, in that thread yesterday that went awry.
Thanks to Palladian for the LOLdino.
Now, did Sarah Palin say that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time"? I don't know, but it's such a charming, distracting controversy, compared to the -- what is it? -- impending depression.
ADDED: A little theme music:
(Suggested by Pogo.)
Said Freeman Hunt, in that thread yesterday that went awry.
Thanks to Palladian for the LOLdino.
Now, did Sarah Palin say that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time"? I don't know, but it's such a charming, distracting controversy, compared to the -- what is it? -- impending depression.
ADDED: A little theme music:
(Suggested by Pogo.)
Monday, September 29, 2008
"Every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true."
Do you believe this? I do. Unfortunately. Tragic, the loss of professionalism.
"Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill."
The McCain blames Obama. But does Obama blame McCain?
AND: The House Republicans blame Pelosi. She "struck the tone of partisanship," they say, striking the tone of partisanship.
AND: The House Republicans blame Pelosi. She "struck the tone of partisanship," they say, striking the tone of partisanship.
Here's how ABC ends a blogpost about Obama standing in the pouring rain to give a speech.
On an ominous note:
Yikes.
Drudge has a cool photo:
Then there's this:
That's not what I heard.
Astute students of history have noted, weather is not something politicians should take lightly. The presidency of William Henry Harrison, indeed Harrison's life lasted a mere month after after he caught a cold at his inauguration, which was held outside on a chilly Washington morning.
Yikes.
Drudge has a cool photo:
Then there's this:
As the rain began to pour harder, Obama noticed his running mate’s stool close to the edge of the slippery stage.
"I'm gonna ask Joe to move that stool up because I don't want to have to choose another vice-president," Obama joked. "I don't want him slipping over, toppling over there."
That's not what I heard.
Let's look at the photos the NYT uses to illustrate a piece titled "On Bailout, Candidates Were Surely Themselves."
Here's the arty and cool but distorted and disturbing picture of McCain.
And here's the elegant and eminently presidential Mr. Obama.
Journalistic bias? Well, maybe the article -- a Patrick Healy "Political Memo" -- supports it:
I happen to like Healy's analysis. I've called Obama phlegmatic. I wonder how he keeps going and how he inspires when he seems so low energy. But there's something subtly amirable in that stolid stability.
Remember when Obama promoted himself as having "the right temperament for the presidency"? He said: "I don't get too high when I'm high, and I don't get too low when I'm low."
Does that seem like a good idea about now?
And here's the elegant and eminently presidential Mr. Obama.
Journalistic bias? Well, maybe the article -- a Patrick Healy "Political Memo" -- supports it:
It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes....So the choice of pictures is absolutely appropriate. You may question Healy's analysis, but the pictures perfectly illustrate it.
As Mr. McCain appeared as a man in motion last week, Mr. Obama’s cautious side was on clear display....
Mr. McCain, meanwhile, thrives in the fray....
Mr. Obama does not tend to take fiery or partisan swipes just for the sake of them....
Voters list the economy as a priority, and Mr. Obama’s placid public approach may not mesh with the anger that many of them feel. But Democrats say that in the long run, Mr. Obama’s approach will appear as an appealing alternative to President Bush and his choice as a successor, Mr. McCain.
I happen to like Healy's analysis. I've called Obama phlegmatic. I wonder how he keeps going and how he inspires when he seems so low energy. But there's something subtly amirable in that stolid stability.
Remember when Obama promoted himself as having "the right temperament for the presidency"? He said: "I don't get too high when I'm high, and I don't get too low when I'm low."
Does that seem like a good idea about now?
"You are also a paid astrotroller."
A comment on the "Brokaw's bizarre" post that got me wondering.
I know what an astrotroll/astrotroller is (and it hasn't even got an Urban Dictionary definition, which makes me feel very in-the-know). It's a commenter engaged in astroturfing.
Wikipedia says:
The real AstroTurf™ is green, not orange. The real Althouse astrotroll should be offbeat, funny, and smart -- with a memorable pseudonym and some personal details. Up your game if you're getting paid.
IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O. quotes my questions -- "Wouldn't the campaign hire someone competent who would blend in with the style of the blog comments section, seem like a real person, and slip in strong pithy arguments?" -- and says "You miss Titus, don't you?" Well, let me ask you people:
I know what an astrotroll/astrotroller is (and it hasn't even got an Urban Dictionary definition, which makes me feel very in-the-know). It's a commenter engaged in astroturfing.
Wikipedia says:
Astroturfing in American English is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.Does anyone really think that some of the commenters here are paid representatives of any political campaign or cause? It seems to me that there are many self-appointed boosters of one candidate or another, willing to put in a lot of effort for no pay. I've seen the comments of the particular individual who was accused of astrotrolling, but I can't believe a campaign would pay someone just to post numerous boring/abusive comments. Wouldn't the campaign hire someone competent who would blend in with the style of the blog comments section, seem like a real person, and slip in strong pithy arguments?
The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event.
The real AstroTurf™ is green, not orange. The real Althouse astrotroll should be offbeat, funny, and smart -- with a memorable pseudonym and some personal details. Up your game if you're getting paid.
IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O. quotes my questions -- "Wouldn't the campaign hire someone competent who would blend in with the style of the blog comments section, seem like a real person, and slip in strong pithy arguments?" -- and says "You miss Titus, don't you?" Well, let me ask you people:
"Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan... would have won a third term easily and still could (even though Reagan is dead)."
That's not the first thing that amused me this morning, just the first thing that amused me enough to blog. It's from this Stanley Fish piece about how people don't much like George Bush now, but we'll probably like him when he's not President anymore.
I was previously amused this morning by this collection of commercials from 1986, especially the "Hot Topper," one of those minor and strangely specific countertop appliances of the era, and "I'm ready to... participate." The 80s seemed to be more about sensuously drizzly liquids than the 00s are.
I was previously amused this morning by this collection of commercials from 1986, especially the "Hot Topper," one of those minor and strangely specific countertop appliances of the era, and "I'm ready to... participate." The 80s seemed to be more about sensuously drizzly liquids than the 00s are.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"The RenGen is a psychographic more than a demographic..."
It's the "renaissance generation":
[T]hey are eco-conscious; they take their cues from nature so they are willing to accept products that are flawed but authentic rather than slickly produced and inauthentic.... They want to make a difference. They want to live many lives. They don’t want to be told, "You can’t be an architect and a poet. They are sensualists. Because they are both idealistic and cynical at the same time...Ha ha. Are they real? They sound scarily like boomers...
Tom Brokaw's bizarre idea of what fairness required.
Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod were on "Meet the Press" this morning, and they spewed talking points and evaded the questions asked by Tom Brokaw. Here's the best example of that:
I'm skipping all the other blah blah blah, which you can read at the link. It's about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, al Qaeda, etc. Then Brokaw ends the interview like this:
Brokaw began the discussion by saying "We're not going to get into this business about who won and lost the debate." He made a point of not presenting Schmidt and Axelrod with poll numbers on that subject. And none of his other questions were based on polls, nor did Schmidt and Axelrod bring up any polls. So why did Brokaw end like that?
My guess? Inside NBC, they are fretting about criticism that they show favoritism toward Obama, so Brokaw thought it might help to lob out a glaring hunk of McCain favoritism. Sorry! That just looked really weird. Consequently, it reinforced the perception that NBC favors Obama.
UPDATE: I was right!
MR. BROKAW: Let me just share with you what The Wall Street Journal had to say about the opening statements of your two candidates at the debate the other night.Translation: The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right! The candidates have no real insight about our financial market issues and no political courage in offering a solution.
"The debate took place amid the backdrop of the financial crisis, and perhaps most disappointing was how neither man seemed to have anything useful to say about it. ... What neither man showed was any real insight about our financial market issues, or any political courage in offering a solution."
Are you going to have to go back and replate [sic] your economic program, Mr. Axelrod, going forward, because of the changed conditions that result--as a result of this bailout program?
MR. AXELROD: Well, first of all, I don't accept the premise of the Journal piece. The fact is that Senator Obama's been warning for a year and a half about this crisis--about the possibility of such a crisis because of the lack of oversight and greed on Wall Street... But the decisions we make are to prioritize, and this is what Senator Obama said that night, are to prioritize the middle class. What was phenomenal about that debate was that in 40 minutes on the economy, Senator McCain never once mentioned the middle class, never talked about the struggles people are going through. We need to create an economic recovery plan that puts at its core the middle class in this country.
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, Tom, you know, this was a debate about national security, about foreign policy. You never heard the word victory from Senator Obama when it came to wars this country's fighting. But we did talk about the middle class.....
I'm skipping all the other blah blah blah, which you can read at the link. It's about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, al Qaeda, etc. Then Brokaw ends the interview like this:
MR. BROKAW: In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note, and that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be commander in chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.What? Why was it a matter of "fairness to everybody here" to end the debate with a thudding, unanswered poll result? At the end of a discussion in which both candidates were perfectly well represented by their mouthpieces, Brokaw thought fairness required him to say, essentially, "Well, the American people still think McCain is much better on these questions."
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I wish we could spend the rest of the day talking about these issues. But you're invited back, and I hope you'll make your second appearance right here on MEET THE PRESS.
Brokaw began the discussion by saying "We're not going to get into this business about who won and lost the debate." He made a point of not presenting Schmidt and Axelrod with poll numbers on that subject. And none of his other questions were based on polls, nor did Schmidt and Axelrod bring up any polls. So why did Brokaw end like that?
My guess? Inside NBC, they are fretting about criticism that they show favoritism toward Obama, so Brokaw thought it might help to lob out a glaring hunk of McCain favoritism. Sorry! That just looked really weird. Consequently, it reinforced the perception that NBC favors Obama.
UPDATE: I was right!
"The polar bear and the tiger cannot fight."
Freud, from a book of aphorisms that I've been reading, very slowly, for years. Collected and categorized by W.H. Auden (and some other guy). Look, the whole thing is on line here.
I love aphorisms. I wish I could blog entirely in aphorisms...
I love aphorisms. I wish I could blog entirely in aphorisms...
We boil at different degrees...
On the heights it is warmer than those in the valley imagine...
"No solution to a problem can be more elegant than the problem itself."
"We are dealing with a very difficult problem. Given the dimensions of the problem, I believe we have done a good job. It includes genuine compromises."
Barney Frank, in praise of the financial bailout deal, spouts some abstract political philosophy. I'm glad they've settled it, if they've settled it, and I hope it works.
But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions? Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?
Barney Frank, in praise of the financial bailout deal, spouts some abstract political philosophy. I'm glad they've settled it, if they've settled it, and I hope it works.
But is it true that complicated problems require complicated solutions? Is it true that compromises are the mark of a good plan?
Fashionistas in the rain.
Great slideshow.
What do you do when there's nowhere to step but puddles and your shoes cost $400+?
How can clothing be perceived as beautiful if it ceases to function in the event of the most predictable and trivial misfortune? Or do you think impracticality makes some things more beautiful?
Remember when feminists critiqued fashion as intended to debilitate women? I do. They used to get mad at the evil designers, but now, it's just women themselves, knowingly taking the risks and frequently and comically caught in a jam.
What do you do when there's nowhere to step but puddles and your shoes cost $400+?
How can clothing be perceived as beautiful if it ceases to function in the event of the most predictable and trivial misfortune? Or do you think impracticality makes some things more beautiful?
Remember when feminists critiqued fashion as intended to debilitate women? I do. They used to get mad at the evil designers, but now, it's just women themselves, knowingly taking the risks and frequently and comically caught in a jam.
You judge the new Tina Fey skit spoofing Sarah Palin.
I clicked it off at 1:29 even though I wanted to blog about it. I thought it was too dumb and boring to watch. Waiting all those long seconds with Amy Poehler nodding while the audience got and whooped about an old joke. Presumably, the writers load up the front end of a sketch with some of the good stuff, but all they had was old crap about out-of-towners coming to New York.
You know, Palin-haters, New York's electoral votes will go to Obama. It's people in other states who will decide this thing. Portraying non-New Yorkers as rubes is not only a weak comedy idea. It's a weak political idea. And tip to you comedy writers who imagine yourselves at all sophisticated: If you have a Bush = pubic hair joke, you don't have a final draft.
But, as I said, I clicked off at 1:29. So form your own opinion.
Did Eisenhower advise his son to commit suicide?
John S.D. Eisenhower has a NYT op-ed opining that presidential sons should not be permitted to serve in combat duty. He recounts his own experience, as a soldier assigned to combat duty in Korea in 1952, as his father was about to win the presidency:
Perhaps you would flesh out the Blackstone Hotel scenario differently. Meanwhile, John Eisenhower, who actually knows what was said, pads out his op-ed with material about how the President's son might increase the danger to those who serve alongside him, but this is a matter for military authorities to weigh (as was done in the case of Prince Harry, who mentioned in the article). Eisenhower has no expertise about about these risks and how the military authorities handle them today in Iraq and Afghanistan. His expertise is only about the mind of a one President, over half a century ago, whose relationship to his son is left opaque.
Eisenhower concludes:
I want the President to have the strength of mind to think of all of them as valuable in the same way their own offspring are valuable. Let the President worry about their fate. If having his actual son fighting makes him reweigh the cost of war, perhaps he lacks the competence to govern. And this is certainly not to say that Dwight Eisenhower lacked the competence to govern. Look closely at that Blackstone Hotel story. It doesn't say that Ike thought his judgment would be skewed. The implication is that Ike worried that his credibility would be questioned, and only in the blackmail situation.
And what, if anything, do John Eisenhower -- and the NYT -- mean to imply about John McCain, who was taken prisoner when his father was a military commander and who considered but rejected suicide?
As the time for my deployment approached, I discussed my intentions with my father. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.Conciliatory in giving me such permission. There's a phrase. Did Eisenhower advise his son to commit suicide? I'm trying to flesh out that conversation. Ike said he'd have to resign the presidency if his son John were captured and the Chinese Communists or North Koreans threatened blackmail, and John said that since he'd never advance in the military if he turned down a combat assignment, he would promise that if he were ever about to taken prisoner, he would kill himself first. And Ike's response was not, no, you would become a prisoner, with a life no more valuable that that of any other prisoners, but, because the American people will not know whether my love for you is affecting my judgment, I will need to resign the presidency. No, Ike said something like: Okay, then, suit yourself, go to combat, advance your career, but I have the ultimate career advancement here, son, the presidency, and I'm not letting you screw that up for me. You are on the hook, you little bastard. You promised to commit suicide. Don't forget!
On looking back through the years, however, I now feel that I was being unfair and selfish and that my father was being far too conciliatory in giving me such permission. On the other hand, I don’t think that the Army should ever have given me an option in the matter.
Perhaps you would flesh out the Blackstone Hotel scenario differently. Meanwhile, John Eisenhower, who actually knows what was said, pads out his op-ed with material about how the President's son might increase the danger to those who serve alongside him, but this is a matter for military authorities to weigh (as was done in the case of Prince Harry, who mentioned in the article). Eisenhower has no expertise about about these risks and how the military authorities handle them today in Iraq and Afghanistan. His expertise is only about the mind of a one President, over half a century ago, whose relationship to his son is left opaque.
Eisenhower concludes:
No matter what the young person’s desires or career needs are, they are of little importance compared with ensuring that our leaders are able to stay focused on the important business of the nation — and not worrying about the fate of a child a world away.The fate of a child? We don't send children to war. They are men and women, and all of them -- almost all of them -- have people who love them.
I want the President to have the strength of mind to think of all of them as valuable in the same way their own offspring are valuable. Let the President worry about their fate. If having his actual son fighting makes him reweigh the cost of war, perhaps he lacks the competence to govern. And this is certainly not to say that Dwight Eisenhower lacked the competence to govern. Look closely at that Blackstone Hotel story. It doesn't say that Ike thought his judgment would be skewed. The implication is that Ike worried that his credibility would be questioned, and only in the blackmail situation.
And what, if anything, do John Eisenhower -- and the NYT -- mean to imply about John McCain, who was taken prisoner when his father was a military commander and who considered but rejected suicide?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tea time.
I said I was green-tea blogging -- not drunk-blogging -- the debate last night, and Ricardo asked: "What kind of green tea was it? Enquiring minds need to know. Life is in the details." Okay, then. It was Tazo Zen Tea. If you want to drink the tea I usually drink, however, the #1 choice is Twinings Lapsang Souchong, which has been my favorite tea since I first tasted it more than a quarter century ago.
The smack in the face.
A teaser for a forthcoming diavlog.
What do you think we're talking about?
ADDED: Glenn Kenny guesses "Chinatown," meaning this:
Is there more famous slapping in the movies? Well, there's Cher slapping Nick Cage in "Moonstruck":
This isn't really slapping:
Nor is this:
Now, this is slapping, but it's not movies, just TV:
But then, I said a "smack in the face." Is that different from a "slap"? Isn't it odd that a "smack" can be a slap or a kiss?
***
There's also this.
AND: Commenter Peano notices something disconcerting:
Let's compare the candidates' post-debate ads.
Here's Barack Obama's:
Here's McCain's:
Okay, McCain's ad is way funnier. It's clever, though it's not really fair. If you look at the transcript, you'll see that every time Obama began with an acknowledgment of agreement with McCain -- which shows generosity and willingness to reach across the aisle -- he proceeded to distinguish his opinions from McCain's. For example:
And what's with that brown and gold radiating background they've put behind Obama? It looked like some combination of the Japanese war flag and a religious icon and a hypnosis pattern. Is that fair? It's fair enough.
Now, Obama's ad is simple, but a little boring. Is it a good gotcha? Ha ha, you forgot to say "middle class." We have a buzz word. A shibboleth. And Obama said it -- ta da! -- 3 times! Yay!!! He cares about the middle class!
I love the lame class warfare of the middle class. Does anyone care about the poor? Obama never said "poor" or "poverty." Nor did he say "working class."
Anyway, those are the ads these characters came up with.
Here's McCain's:
Okay, McCain's ad is way funnier. It's clever, though it's not really fair. If you look at the transcript, you'll see that every time Obama began with an acknowledgment of agreement with McCain -- which shows generosity and willingness to reach across the aisle -- he proceeded to distinguish his opinions from McCain's. For example:
Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.
And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.
And what's with that brown and gold radiating background they've put behind Obama? It looked like some combination of the Japanese war flag and a religious icon and a hypnosis pattern. Is that fair? It's fair enough.
Now, Obama's ad is simple, but a little boring. Is it a good gotcha? Ha ha, you forgot to say "middle class." We have a buzz word. A shibboleth. And Obama said it -- ta da! -- 3 times! Yay!!! He cares about the middle class!
I love the lame class warfare of the middle class. Does anyone care about the poor? Obama never said "poor" or "poverty." Nor did he say "working class."
Anyway, those are the ads these characters came up with.
What are some irrational things that's intelligent, educated people believe in?
For example, I know law professors who believe in astrology.
Paul Newman has died.
We knew he was dying, but it is sad to know he's gone. I'll have more in a few minutes, but here's a press report. Please talk about your favorite Paul Newman movies.
ADDED: To tell you the truth, Paul Newman is an actor whose movies I often avoided, for some reason. Even though I was a very frequent movie-goer during his heyday, I never saw "The Sting" or "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." I never saw "The Color of Money" or "The Hustler." Despite my law career, I never saw "The Verdict" or "Absence of Malice" or "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean." Reading over his list of movies, it seems as though I have been going out of my way to avoid Newman's movies. I don't know why. I thought he was an excellent actor, and he was certainly as good-looking as a human being can be. Perhaps it's that when I was quite young, I saw "Hud" and "Harper" and just didn't understand the point.
I've seen "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge," "Sweet Bird of Youth," "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," and "Cool Hand Luke." When I think of Paul Newman movies, that's the one I think of first, the emblematic Paul Newman movie, "Cool Hand Luke":
"I've got the words of Mary, assuring me that I won't go to Hell."
IN THE COMMENTS: Ruth Anne Adams asks: "Is your misquote an Episcopalian mondegreen?" Misquote? Oh, yes, it's "Virgin Mary," not "words of Mary." Episcopalian? More likely, Beatles.
ADDED: To tell you the truth, Paul Newman is an actor whose movies I often avoided, for some reason. Even though I was a very frequent movie-goer during his heyday, I never saw "The Sting" or "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." I never saw "The Color of Money" or "The Hustler." Despite my law career, I never saw "The Verdict" or "Absence of Malice" or "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean." Reading over his list of movies, it seems as though I have been going out of my way to avoid Newman's movies. I don't know why. I thought he was an excellent actor, and he was certainly as good-looking as a human being can be. Perhaps it's that when I was quite young, I saw "Hud" and "Harper" and just didn't understand the point.
I've seen "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge," "Sweet Bird of Youth," "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," and "Cool Hand Luke." When I think of Paul Newman movies, that's the one I think of first, the emblematic Paul Newman movie, "Cool Hand Luke":
"I've got the words of Mary, assuring me that I won't go to Hell."
IN THE COMMENTS: Ruth Anne Adams asks: "Is your misquote an Episcopalian mondegreen?" Misquote? Oh, yes, it's "Virgin Mary," not "words of Mary." Episcopalian? More likely, Beatles.
McCain "needs to make an opponent an enemy in his mind to kind of get up for this. He personalizes conflict..."
That's WaPo's Eugene Robinson, responding to Chris Matthews, who's fulminating about McCain's supposed contempt for Obama:
I was watching the debate on a channel that mainly had a split screen of the 2 men head on, so it was hard for me to discern the level of interaction. But I do think McCain had a strategy of intimidating Obama and making him feel small and inexperienced.
And, frankly, Robinson is right! McCain does personalize conflict. He has such a dramatic and profound personal story, and he's made it the foundation of his rhetoric. He uses it to reinforce his credibility and to add weight to all his opinions. It's not surprising that when he came to face Obama in person that he thought he could make the other man doubt himself. Who am I to stand next to this man?
Or -- whatever he could make Obama think -- at least he could make us see him as the greater man, but he risked the kind of criticism Robinson and Matthews dished out.
Josh Marshall quotes a reader:
(Hey, do you know the difference between a tactic and a strategy? "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy." If you don't, you're not fit to stand on the stage next to John McCain, who's been through tactics and strategies all over the world over half a century.)
Marshall quotes another reader:
I was watching the debate on a channel that mainly had a split screen of the 2 men head on, so it was hard for me to discern the level of interaction. But I do think McCain had a strategy of intimidating Obama and making him feel small and inexperienced.
And, frankly, Robinson is right! McCain does personalize conflict. He has such a dramatic and profound personal story, and he's made it the foundation of his rhetoric. He uses it to reinforce his credibility and to add weight to all his opinions. It's not surprising that when he came to face Obama in person that he thought he could make the other man doubt himself. Who am I to stand next to this man?
Or -- whatever he could make Obama think -- at least he could make us see him as the greater man, but he risked the kind of criticism Robinson and Matthews dished out.
Josh Marshall quotes a reader:
As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.He also knows his opponent would like to get him to display anger and confirm the theory that he's angry man and he's defending against that tactic.
I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.
(Hey, do you know the difference between a tactic and a strategy? "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy." If you don't, you're not fit to stand on the stage next to John McCain, who's been through tactics and strategies all over the world over half a century.)
Marshall quotes another reader:
I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear -- look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior -- low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.Dan Drezner says:
Ah, the perceived slights. Josh Marshall highlights McCain’s unwillingness to make eye contact with Obama. I would say that McCain evinced some disregard for Obama — but I’m not buying the “low-ranking monkey” hypothesis (seriously, I can’t believe Josh posted this). McCain was not afraid of Obama — he just doesn’t like him.Indeed. We are animals, with animal instincts worth noting, but it is a rule of polite discourse that when racial difference is anywhere in the picture, you don't compare human beings to apes or monkeys.
The morning after the debate.
It's tempting to go back into the live-blog, when it's become the dead-blog, and punch it up with sober observations, quotes from the transcript, and links to the things other bloggers were saying in real time when I was too busy listening and writing to read much of anything (even to proofread myself).
But I'll resist that temptation. New writing needs to be in today. Why it's almost 9. Central.
What was I sleeping about all this time? It's not as if I spent last night drunk-blogging, like some people -- "I’m going to miss some stuff now, while I go shake another martini" -- or playing drinking games, despite joking about them. I was green-tea blogging.
Did all the other live-bloggers suddenly decide to put the newest entries on top within a single post? Should I switch to that? I don't really like scrolling down and then back up, but the question is: Do you want to favor the readers who are doing a lot of page-refreshing and return-visiting? Top-to-bottom within a single, frequently updated post is easier for someone who joins you late or who stops by only once.
Which reminds me, dear return visitors, I need to put some fresh things here for you, but feel free to use this post as a place to get started talking about anything you like.
But I'll resist that temptation. New writing needs to be in today. Why it's almost 9. Central.
What was I sleeping about all this time? It's not as if I spent last night drunk-blogging, like some people -- "I’m going to miss some stuff now, while I go shake another martini" -- or playing drinking games, despite joking about them. I was green-tea blogging.
***
Did all the other live-bloggers suddenly decide to put the newest entries on top within a single post? Should I switch to that? I don't really like scrolling down and then back up, but the question is: Do you want to favor the readers who are doing a lot of page-refreshing and return-visiting? Top-to-bottom within a single, frequently updated post is easier for someone who joins you late or who stops by only once.
Which reminds me, dear return visitors, I need to put some fresh things here for you, but feel free to use this post as a place to get started talking about anything you like.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Live-blogging the big debate.
7:22 Central Time: Yes, I'm here, ready to go. Eager. This is big!
7:58: In the comments, we're setting the terms for the drinking game: I said:
8:04: Obama: "Move swiftly... and wisely... have oversight...." Don't pad the bank accounts of the rich. The whole problem is the fault of the other party. McCain: He begins with "thoughts and prayers" for "the lion of the Senate," Ted Kennedy, who's in the hospital now. He emphasizes that Republicans and Democrats are working together in dealing with the crisis.
8:08: Lehrer pushes them to take a position on the plan. Obama says he hasn't seen it. Ooh, I just saw Jon Stewart savage McCain last night for saying he hadn't read it. Obama's not taking a position. Come on! Take a position! He doesn't. McCain says "sure," he'll vote for it but immediately veers into an anecdote about Eisenhower and railing against greed. "Greed is rewarded." Both candidates look fresh and sharply outlined on the HDTV.
8:13: Lehrer wants them to talk to each other, but they don't much seem to want to. Next question: Are there fundamental differences between what McCain and Obama would do about the economy? McCain says we need to get spending under control... "earmarking as a gateway drug." Obama's a big spender. Obama said earmarks are abused, but earmarks are only $18 billion of the budget and McCain wants $300 billion in tax cuts. So the difference (in what they promise) is clear: McCain would cut spending and Obama would collect more taxes. McCain says those earmarks corrupt people, and Obama is proposing $800 million in new spending. Obama looks annoyed. He doesn't know where that number comes from. McCain looks a little pleased, I think, because he knows he's gotten to Obama.
8:20: McCain says pork-barrel spending is "rife," it's appalling. We see Obama raising a finger. He wants to be called on. Lots of arguing back and forth about who supported what.
8:26: Lehrer asks what sacrifices will be required. Obama mainly talks about things he wants to spend on. McCain says we've let government get out of control. He'd cut ethanol subsidies. (Good!) He'd eliminate cost-plus contracts. He speaks of saving $6 billion on one deal. Lehrer presses them, and Obama starts talking about spending again. (By the way, he is not saying "uh.") Lehrer gets excited about doing something different to deal with the current crises. McCain mentions a spending freeze. Obama objects and mentions another thing he'd like to spend on (early childhood education). Lehrer reasks the question: What difference will the crisis make? Obama talks about values. McCain talks about spending cuts. Obama questions McCain's record. McCain says, for a second time, that he wasn't elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate. (Should have put that in the drinking game.)
8:39: What have they learned from Iraq? McCain says we've learned how to fight the right way and to avoid defeat. Obama thinks we've learned we shouldn't have started the war in the first place.
Whoops. I've been calling Lehrer MacNeil... corrected.
8:44: McCain excoriates Obama for failing to support victory and for not acknowledging victory. Obama says the difference in opinion was only about whether there was a timetable or not. There's a hot dispute here. McCain gesticulates and smiles. Obama looks a little pissed off and interrupts a few times with the muttered phrase "That's not true."
8:51: Obama calls Pakistan "Pah-ki-stahn." Repeatedly.
8:52: McCain is not prepared to threaten Pakistan. You don't aim a gun if you aren't prepared to pull the trigger.
8:54: Obama denies that he talked about attacking Pahkistahn. He's just ready to "take out" al Qaeda if we know they are in there. He teases McCain about singing "bomb bomb Iran."
9:00: McCain stresses his empathy for soldiers. He's got a bracelet. Obama's got a bracelet too. He cares too. Jac writes (he's live-blogging too):
9:15: We get a "my friend" out of McCain as he says Obama is "parsing words" about "preconditions, and he emphasizes how long he's been friends with Henry Kissinger. (Obama had cited Kissinger for the proposition that we ought to speak to everyone.)
9:18: The subject is Russia. McCain accuses Obama of naivete. He says: "I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw three letters, a K, a G, and a B." McCain is reeling off names of people and places in Georgia and Ukraine. He's got a strategy of displaying experience and making Obama seem green. Obama's given a chance and he mainly says he agrees.
9:25: Much crossfire over nuclear waste.
9:26: The last question is about terrorism. The main distinction here is that Obama views Iraq as a distraction and McCain thinks it's central.
9:31: Both men have been sharp and clear, and I haven't noticed mistakes. As expected, McCain is more passionate, but he never crossed the line into irascibility. Obama is cooler, but he never fell into that professorial mode that he uses sometimes. He certainly didn't stumble and babble incoherently, which is what his opponents say he does.
9:48: They didn't much go for that idea of talking directly to each other, did they? I mean, other than Obama's frequent assertion that McCain was getting something wrong.
9:54: In the end, I'd say, McCain made more good points and got in more punches, but Obama stood his ground and maintained his stature on stage next to McCain, even as McCain repeatedly tried to portray him as a lightweight. I should add that McCain never seemed too old, short, or lacking in vigor, even on HDTV. Obama looked fine too, and I never saw that upturned face, with the eyes gazing downward, that made him seem supercilious in those old debates with Hillary Clinton.
7:58: In the comments, we're setting the terms for the drinking game: I said:
Take a sip if McCain says "my friends" or if Obama says "uh."Palladian said:
Dear God, woman, are you trying to kill people? Alcohol is poisonous in large quantities!8:03: May the best man win. Jim Lehrer sounds stern! First question: take a position on the finance crisis.
8:04: Obama: "Move swiftly... and wisely... have oversight...." Don't pad the bank accounts of the rich. The whole problem is the fault of the other party. McCain: He begins with "thoughts and prayers" for "the lion of the Senate," Ted Kennedy, who's in the hospital now. He emphasizes that Republicans and Democrats are working together in dealing with the crisis.
8:08: Lehrer pushes them to take a position on the plan. Obama says he hasn't seen it. Ooh, I just saw Jon Stewart savage McCain last night for saying he hadn't read it. Obama's not taking a position. Come on! Take a position! He doesn't. McCain says "sure," he'll vote for it but immediately veers into an anecdote about Eisenhower and railing against greed. "Greed is rewarded." Both candidates look fresh and sharply outlined on the HDTV.
8:13: Lehrer wants them to talk to each other, but they don't much seem to want to. Next question: Are there fundamental differences between what McCain and Obama would do about the economy? McCain says we need to get spending under control... "earmarking as a gateway drug." Obama's a big spender. Obama said earmarks are abused, but earmarks are only $18 billion of the budget and McCain wants $300 billion in tax cuts. So the difference (in what they promise) is clear: McCain would cut spending and Obama would collect more taxes. McCain says those earmarks corrupt people, and Obama is proposing $800 million in new spending. Obama looks annoyed. He doesn't know where that number comes from. McCain looks a little pleased, I think, because he knows he's gotten to Obama.
8:20: McCain says pork-barrel spending is "rife," it's appalling. We see Obama raising a finger. He wants to be called on. Lots of arguing back and forth about who supported what.
8:26: Lehrer asks what sacrifices will be required. Obama mainly talks about things he wants to spend on. McCain says we've let government get out of control. He'd cut ethanol subsidies. (Good!) He'd eliminate cost-plus contracts. He speaks of saving $6 billion on one deal. Lehrer presses them, and Obama starts talking about spending again. (By the way, he is not saying "uh.") Lehrer gets excited about doing something different to deal with the current crises. McCain mentions a spending freeze. Obama objects and mentions another thing he'd like to spend on (early childhood education). Lehrer reasks the question: What difference will the crisis make? Obama talks about values. McCain talks about spending cuts. Obama questions McCain's record. McCain says, for a second time, that he wasn't elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate. (Should have put that in the drinking game.)
8:39: What have they learned from Iraq? McCain says we've learned how to fight the right way and to avoid defeat. Obama thinks we've learned we shouldn't have started the war in the first place.
Whoops. I've been calling Lehrer MacNeil... corrected.
8:44: McCain excoriates Obama for failing to support victory and for not acknowledging victory. Obama says the difference in opinion was only about whether there was a timetable or not. There's a hot dispute here. McCain gesticulates and smiles. Obama looks a little pissed off and interrupts a few times with the muttered phrase "That's not true."
8:51: Obama calls Pakistan "Pah-ki-stahn." Repeatedly.
8:52: McCain is not prepared to threaten Pakistan. You don't aim a gun if you aren't prepared to pull the trigger.
8:54: Obama denies that he talked about attacking Pahkistahn. He's just ready to "take out" al Qaeda if we know they are in there. He teases McCain about singing "bomb bomb Iran."
9:00: McCain stresses his empathy for soldiers. He's got a bracelet. Obama's got a bracelet too. He cares too. Jac writes (he's live-blogging too):
"I've got a bracelet." "I've got a bracelet too!" Are these serious adults running for president, or is this summer camp?9:04: McCain gets fired up talking about Obama's willingness to talk without precondition with Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is talking about exterminating Israel, he exclaims. McCain stumbles over the name Ahmadinejad a bit, and I'm not sure if he's expressing genuine hatred for the man or is just getting fired up about a strong line of attack against Obama. Obama doesn't seem that irritated. He laughs a little. When he gets his turn, Obama needles him about, among other things, Spain. McCain inserts what must be a prepared barb: "I don't even have a seal yet."
9:15: We get a "my friend" out of McCain as he says Obama is "parsing words" about "preconditions, and he emphasizes how long he's been friends with Henry Kissinger. (Obama had cited Kissinger for the proposition that we ought to speak to everyone.)
9:18: The subject is Russia. McCain accuses Obama of naivete. He says: "I looked into Putin's eyes and I saw three letters, a K, a G, and a B." McCain is reeling off names of people and places in Georgia and Ukraine. He's got a strategy of displaying experience and making Obama seem green. Obama's given a chance and he mainly says he agrees.
9:25: Much crossfire over nuclear waste.
9:26: The last question is about terrorism. The main distinction here is that Obama views Iraq as a distraction and McCain thinks it's central.
9:31: Both men have been sharp and clear, and I haven't noticed mistakes. As expected, McCain is more passionate, but he never crossed the line into irascibility. Obama is cooler, but he never fell into that professorial mode that he uses sometimes. He certainly didn't stumble and babble incoherently, which is what his opponents say he does.
9:48: They didn't much go for that idea of talking directly to each other, did they? I mean, other than Obama's frequent assertion that McCain was getting something wrong.
9:54: In the end, I'd say, McCain made more good points and got in more punches, but Obama stood his ground and maintained his stature on stage next to McCain, even as McCain repeatedly tried to portray him as a lightweight. I should add that McCain never seemed too old, short, or lacking in vigor, even on HDTV. Obama looked fine too, and I never saw that upturned face, with the eyes gazing downward, that made him seem supercilious in those old debates with Hillary Clinton.
"Has the McCain Campaign Broken Sarah Palin?"
Asks Christopher Orr:
[H]er preppers and coddlers and protectors in the campaign [must be giving her the message]: You're not ready. We don't trust you. You have no idea what you're talking about....I don't know if I buy the assumption that it's the McCain campaign's fault. She's been through a lot. She may be running out of emotional resources. A lot of people are trying to destroy her (and her family), using anything they can. Of course, she's got to be tough, and I'm sure she thinks she is. But, my God, she's a human being.
When I compare Palin's performance with Gibson to her performance with Couric, the biggest difference I see is confidence.
Briefly displayed: a video of Sarah Palin, in her Miss Alaska bathing suit, was a brief internet sensation.
I missed it, but I see Andrew Sullivan had it along with Huffpo, both without significant comment. Hot Air has it with the comment: "Fun and humanizing for most of us, fun and humiliating for media types already given to comparing her to Miss Teen South Carolina."
"Humiliating for media types" is ambiguous, and I realize that Hot Air means that those media types think she is being humiliated, but when I first read that I thought he meant that the media type were humiliating themselves, which is what I would say. Do these people seriously want to suggest that all of the young women who participate in beauty pageants are being humiliated? What snobbery! What prudery! And I bet they look like hell in a bathing suit.
Really, what is the point of thinking this old video means anything at all?
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan posts "Fighting The Power: An alternative version of the pageant video. As often as they try to remove it, the people will replace it." Does Sullivan have any feeling for how creepy it seems for him to exult over his power to continue spying at the woman's body? I would like to hear him explain the point of this.
"Humiliating for media types" is ambiguous, and I realize that Hot Air means that those media types think she is being humiliated, but when I first read that I thought he meant that the media type were humiliating themselves, which is what I would say. Do these people seriously want to suggest that all of the young women who participate in beauty pageants are being humiliated? What snobbery! What prudery! And I bet they look like hell in a bathing suit.
Really, what is the point of thinking this old video means anything at all?
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan posts "Fighting The Power: An alternative version of the pageant video. As often as they try to remove it, the people will replace it." Does Sullivan have any feeling for how creepy it seems for him to exult over his power to continue spying at the woman's body? I would like to hear him explain the point of this.
"You're a racist! We're a racist! Everybody's a racist! But you can overcome your racism in the face of an imminently exploding car..."
"Crash" is #3 on New York's list of "Ten Liberal Movies So Lame They Make Even Democrats Want to Vote Republican."
I'm especially pleased to see "Bob Roberts" on the list. (#10.) That movie got the kind of reviews that made me feel like I had to see it, and I was a big liberal at the time and predisposed to enjoy the politics, but it was incredibly stupid and -- I agree -- "eye-roll-inducing in its obviousness." [AND: I walked out on it after half an hour, and that was back when I almost never walked out on anything.[
Speaking of the relationship between my free-flowing movement along the political spectrum and my ability to appreciate political comedy, in the last 24 hours, I've noticed that "The Daily Show" got way funnier.
I'm especially pleased to see "Bob Roberts" on the list. (#10.) That movie got the kind of reviews that made me feel like I had to see it, and I was a big liberal at the time and predisposed to enjoy the politics, but it was incredibly stupid and -- I agree -- "eye-roll-inducing in its obviousness." [AND: I walked out on it after half an hour, and that was back when I almost never walked out on anything.[
Speaking of the relationship between my free-flowing movement along the political spectrum and my ability to appreciate political comedy, in the last 24 hours, I've noticed that "The Daily Show" got way funnier.
McCain will debate.
Good call.
He needs a graceful explanation to go with that, but it would have been awful not to show.
Advance warning: I'll live-blog.
He needs a graceful explanation to go with that, but it would have been awful not to show.
Advance warning: I'll live-blog.
How Sarah Palin could give a better interview.
Some advice. She really does need to do better, but she's under an inconceivable amount of pressure to perform. I don't see how it's possible to become seasoned under the present circumstances, especially since much of the press seems to want to take her down. One of the items of advice at the link is "relax." Yeah. Do that.
Justice Alito opts out of the cert. pool.
He's rejecting the efficiency of the system of shared law clerks in which clerk writes a memo relied on by Justices using the pool to decide whether to grant the petition to the Supreme Court to hear a case.
A petition accepted that must later be dismissed as “improvidently granted” is a significant embarrassment to the clerk in question. On the other hand, it is hard to get into trouble, [Pepperdine School of Law dean Kenneth] Starr said, by recommending a denial. “The prevailing spirit among the 25-year-old legal savants, whose life experience is necessarily limited in scope, is to seek out and destroy undeserving petitions,” he wrote.Starr's theory implies that they are related, and Alito's statement was made last year. Perhaps he's changed his mind.
The justices decided 67 cases last term, about half the number in an average year two decades ago. But Justice Alito has said the rise of the pool and the size of the docket are unrelated.
Can they do a poll to learn what kind of people hang up on pollsters?
It's kind of a problem.
But this also means that only 25% of people go through with polls these days. So the polls only reflect what these strange people think. Who are they? Why do they lag behind the big national trend of nonresponsiveness? Who cares what they think?
Is there a certain type of person likely to refuse the probing calls? And does that affect polling numbers?Oh, so if the polls show Obama winning and then he doesn't, it's because racism correlates with the tendency to hang up on pollsters?
In a January op-ed in The New York Times, Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, warned that the disparity between polls and the outcome in the New Hampshire Democratic primary--Clinton beat Obama despite polls showing him with an advantageous margin--could have been due, in part, to the fact that less affluent whites are more likely to hang up on pollsters. "These whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews," Kohut wrote.
Several pollsters I [Seyward Darby] spoke to this week said there isn't a notable disparity between the types of people who answer questions and those who do not. John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, told me that over the past few decades, there has been a "democratization of refusals" and that there is a 95-percent confidence rate in polls' accuracy.Whew.
But this also means that only 25% of people go through with polls these days. So the polls only reflect what these strange people think. Who are they? Why do they lag behind the big national trend of nonresponsiveness? Who cares what they think?
"And I gotta say Survivor in HD is awesome. Except for the bug bites and whatever is all over Danny's back."
"My husband said they looked like stab wounds but pausing the DVR didn't offer many clues."
So are you watching "Survivor: Gabon"? In HDTV? Bug-bitten, everyone looks like they have acne. All these young people who, in their regular lives, are unusually attractive, are now seeing how gruesome they look in the wild. And this was only the first episode.
ADDED: There are some older people too, but they can't be vain, can they?
So are you watching "Survivor: Gabon"? In HDTV? Bug-bitten, everyone looks like they have acne. All these young people who, in their regular lives, are unusually attractive, are now seeing how gruesome they look in the wild. And this was only the first episode.
ADDED: There are some older people too, but they can't be vain, can they?
Does McCain now wish he'd taken the Obama-style low-profile approach to the bailout?
The NYT reports on yesterday's meeting at the White House, where the supposedly worked-out bailout plan broke down. Was it that John McCain came to town to show off his leadership, and he couldn't be allowed to get credit for the plan? Or was it that "once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan"?
Why did McCain arrive showily, as if he was the man to close the deal, and then not do anything? Has McCain said one word about whether he thinks now is the time to build a bulwark against socialism? And can John McCain explain why government insurance as opposed to government asset-purchasing is the key to saving us from socialism?
Unless McCain talks about some of these things, I don't see the point of his swooping onto the scene to be the leader. Was he just betting that it would look good? But why should he have counted on Democrats allowing him to look good? And, insanely, it seems that Republicans have undercut him.
Belatedly, he must realize that it would have been better to take a low profile and let his congressional colleagues steer their deal to a conclusion -- which is what Barack Obama did.
And then there's the debate. Obama will be there, winning by forfeiture, unless McCain's ultimatum -- he can't debate unless the deal is closed -- was a bluff.
After spending Thursday morning behind closed doors, senior lawmakers from both parties emerged shortly before 1 p.m. in the ornate painted corridors on the first floor of the Capitol to herald their agreement on the broad outlines of a deal....And McCain "declined to take a stand."
But a few blocks away, a senior House Republican lawmaker was at a luncheon with reporters, saying his caucus would never go along with the deal. This Republican said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy whip, was circulating an alternative course that would rely on government-backed insurance, not taxpayer-financed purchase of mortgage assets....
House Republicans have spent days expressing their unease about a huge government intervention, which they regard as a step down the path to socialism.
Why did McCain arrive showily, as if he was the man to close the deal, and then not do anything? Has McCain said one word about whether he thinks now is the time to build a bulwark against socialism? And can John McCain explain why government insurance as opposed to government asset-purchasing is the key to saving us from socialism?
Unless McCain talks about some of these things, I don't see the point of his swooping onto the scene to be the leader. Was he just betting that it would look good? But why should he have counted on Democrats allowing him to look good? And, insanely, it seems that Republicans have undercut him.
Belatedly, he must realize that it would have been better to take a low profile and let his congressional colleagues steer their deal to a conclusion -- which is what Barack Obama did.
And then there's the debate. Obama will be there, winning by forfeiture, unless McCain's ultimatum -- he can't debate unless the deal is closed -- was a bluff.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The bailout agreement.
WSJ reports:
UPDATE: Uh oh:
After a three-hour meeting, lawmakers agreed to legislative principles that would approve Treasury's request for the funds, but would break it into installments, according to people familiar with the matter. Treasury would have access to $250 billion immediately, with another $100 billion to follow if needed. Congress would be able to block the last installment through a vote if it was unhappy with the program.It sounds rational to me, but I'm no expert. What do you think?
The agreement could require all companies participating in the program to agree to limits on executive pay—such as restrictions on "golden parachutes." It is also likely to give the government equity warrants in all participating companies.
Still unresolved is whether or not to include changes to bankruptcy law that would give judges the right to change the terms of mortgages. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois made a plea for it to be included, even though many lawmakers and the White House are hotly opposed.
UPDATE: Uh oh:
But after the [White House] meeting broke up about an hour later, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who strongly opposes the bailout, told reporters, "I don't believe we have an agreement."...
Sens. McCain (Ariz.) and Obama (Ill.) left the White House after the meeting without speaking to reporters.
A visibly irritated Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, later said on CNN that the meeting was thrown off when Republicans brought up "some new core agreement" that supposedly had been floated by McCain and was being considered by the Treasury Department.
"What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain," Dodd fumed. "This is a sad day for the country." He said he still hopes that a deal can be struck but that the Republicans "need to get their act together and decide what they're for."
"I thought the 'vomit' tag was a joke, but you actually have dozens of posts tagged 'vomit." Was 'bodily fluids' too generic?"
Asked Michiel, in the comments to this post. And indeed, the answer is yes. There's a limit to how many posts Blogger will show on the front page when you click a tag, so I've been working on subdividing some of the bigger tags, and "bodily fluids" was one of the oversized categories. The first subcategory I broke out was vomit, because I knew there was some good stuff in there, including the time when I went out of my way to vomit-blog.
And actually, there are too many in the "vomit" category now, so one of the best ones wasn't appearing: the vomit miracle. I need to subdivide "vomit"! That's disturbing.
Now, with Michiel's prodding I did 3 more subcategories.
1. Saliva... because I got my original mainstream-media recognition when I debate-blogged back in 2004 and noticed a little something.
2. Blood... because blood is the greatest bodily fluid. It's #1. I mean, if you were on "Family Feud" and the question was "Name a bodily fluid," you'd say "blood." Blood has murder, menstruation, art, rage, law ... everything. Go ahead, click.
3. Urine... because ... well, I knew it would amuse Trooper York. (And that's another thing about tags. I'm gradually making tags for my favorite commenters.)
IN THE EMAIL:
I'm afraid to look! You look.
AND: Please, don't be making video clips for urine tag and sending them to me.
And actually, there are too many in the "vomit" category now, so one of the best ones wasn't appearing: the vomit miracle. I need to subdivide "vomit"! That's disturbing.
Now, with Michiel's prodding I did 3 more subcategories.
1. Saliva... because I got my original mainstream-media recognition when I debate-blogged back in 2004 and noticed a little something.
2. Blood... because blood is the greatest bodily fluid. It's #1. I mean, if you were on "Family Feud" and the question was "Name a bodily fluid," you'd say "blood." Blood has murder, menstruation, art, rage, law ... everything. Go ahead, click.
3. Urine... because ... well, I knew it would amuse Trooper York. (And that's another thing about tags. I'm gradually making tags for my favorite commenters.)
IN THE EMAIL:
In case you'd like to see a 60-second clip titled "Vomit Tag!", here's a comedy video me and my friends made. It's the outdoor fun time activity that's taking America by storm.
I'm afraid to look! You look.
AND: Please, don't be making video clips for urine tag and sending them to me.
Is Bill Clinton deliberately undermining Obama?
There's this.
And Rush, on the radio, is saying that Clinton is "dropping neutron bombs all over the place" on Obama.
ADDED: Getty Images picture on the front page of the WaPo -- with the caption: "Sen. John McCain, shown this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative, will take part in an extraordinary White House summit with his rival, Sen. Barack Obama, and legislative leaders":
And Rush, on the radio, is saying that Clinton is "dropping neutron bombs all over the place" on Obama.
ADDED: Getty Images picture on the front page of the WaPo -- with the caption: "Sen. John McCain, shown this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative, will take part in an extraordinary White House summit with his rival, Sen. Barack Obama, and legislative leaders":
"No convention today!... OK, it's on!... The economy's sound... No, wait, it's going to fall apart unless I go to Washington tomorrow!... "
"We need a commission!... We need to fire somebody!... Get me Andrew Cuomo!... I want ten more debates!... But let's postpone the one we've scheduled!... Do you get the impression a McCain presidency would be a bit exhausting?..."
Mickey mocks McCain.
Mickey mocks McCain.
"Crossword puzzles heavily favor Democrats."
LOL. And those dastardly puzzlers also betray an evil fondness for Arab cities, the Spanish language, Hindu royalty, Hawaiian fowl, and these dreadful things:
ADDED: A poll!
ADDED: A poll!
"You are going to be working with an enzyme that bonds protein. You are made of protein."
"Unless you want to glue your lungs together or glue your eyelids to your eyeballs, you absolutely must follow these safety rules."
Art project you don't even want to think about doing. Or, really, the art project is not the final bacon tiara -- is it? -- but the deeply disturbing webpage showing the directions. Just thinking about this picture or even this makes me want to vomit.
Art project you don't even want to think about doing. Or, really, the art project is not the final bacon tiara -- is it? -- but the deeply disturbing webpage showing the directions. Just thinking about this picture or even this makes me want to vomit.
Sarah Palin will be answering questions later.
Here she is, on the spot, not responding to Katie Couric:
"I'll try to find you some [examples], and I'll bring them to you."
And that, the night before we hear that the McCain campaign is trying to rearrange the debates so that Palin would not be up next Friday.
Painful. Terrible.
ADDED: Some people think my comment is too terse or too vague. Sorry, but I thought Palin's response Couric was painfully awkward. (I really don't care about Couric's problems.) Palin had a substantial knowledge gap, and she didn't know how to hide it. It felt too much like the possibly forgivable "In what respect, Charlie?" And when combined with the news that the campaign seemed to be finagling to move the VP debate to a later time, it made her look they way her opponents have been trying to paint her: unprepared and weak. It's really not good enough.
"I'll try to find you some [examples], and I'll bring them to you."
And that, the night before we hear that the McCain campaign is trying to rearrange the debates so that Palin would not be up next Friday.
Painful. Terrible.
ADDED: Some people think my comment is too terse or too vague. Sorry, but I thought Palin's response Couric was painfully awkward. (I really don't care about Couric's problems.) Palin had a substantial knowledge gap, and she didn't know how to hide it. It felt too much like the possibly forgivable "In what respect, Charlie?" And when combined with the news that the campaign seemed to be finagling to move the VP debate to a later time, it made her look they way her opponents have been trying to paint her: unprepared and weak. It's really not good enough.
When Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart met Entertainment Weekly.
They made a great cover! If you're looking for the old posts about the great, hotly controversial New Yorker cover by Barry Blitt, they're here and here.
The EW interview:
STEWART: I keep hearing that [Sarah Palin is] ''like us.'' There's this idea that people who hunt and have ''good'' values are somehow this mythological American; I don't know who ''this'' person is, I've never met them. She is no more typical ''us'' than I am, than Obama is, than McCain is, than Mr. T is. If there is something quintessentially or authentically American about her, I sort of feel like, you know what? You ''good values people'' have had the country for eight years, and done an unbelievably s---ty job. Let's find some bad values people and give them a shot, maybe they'll have a better take on it.....More at the link.
There are a lot of issues in this election. The biggest one right now is the economy.
STEWART: We were in this huge credit crisis, out of money. Then the Fed goes, We'll give you a trillion dollars, and all of a sudden Wall Street is like, ''I can't believe we got away with it!'' Can you imagine if someone said, ''I shouldn't have bought that sports car because it means I can't have my house,'' and the bank just said, ''All right, you can have your house. And you know what? Keep the car.'' [He throws up his arms joyfully and shouts] ''Yeaaaaah, I get to keep the car! Wait, do I have to give the money back?'' ''No, it doesn't matter.'' ''Yeah, I'm gonna get another car! I'm gonna do the same thing the same way, except twice as f---ed up!''
COLBERT: The idea that Lehman Brothers doesn't get any money and AIG does reminds me very much of ''Iran is a mortal enemy because they have not achieved a nuclear weapon. But North Korea is a country we can work with, because they have a nuclear weapon.'' The idea is, Get big or go home. How big can you f--- up? Can you f--- up so bad that you would ruin the world economy? If it's just 15,000 who are out of jobs, no. You have to actually be a global f---up to get any help....
"I heard that Wall Street traders will treat us like liberators."
Comment by Peter Hoh on last night's post about the Bush speech that made me laugh the saddest possible half-laugh.
Aerosmith's Steven Tyler is suing unknown bloggers who've impersonated him.
I'll be watching this, since I have a problem with a prominent blog allowing commenters to comment in my name. I've asked the blogger to remove those comments and he has pointedly refused. (The blogger who denied my requests asserts that anyone reading the comments would know it's fake, but this is self-serving and out-of-touch with the way people click around on the web and are not necessarily familiar with a particular blog's humor.)
"The tattoo community sees them as posers. It’s like going out in the 1960s to buy a Beatles wig."
Said Bob Baxter, the editor of the tattoo journal Skin & Ink, of people who get hand or neck tattoos before they've inked up the rest of their bodies.
Why I love this quote:
1. Everything's a "community" these days. There's no escape. The tattoo community. The rugged individualist community. The loner community.
2. Who knew you had to earn your neck tattoo? I'd have thought getting a neck tattoo as opposed to, say, one of those peeping-over-the-pantyline tattoos was a real demonstration of commitment. Ten (or more) years ago I stood in line at the University Bookstore behind a pretty young woman who had a tattoo on her neck of an old-fashioned, claw-footed bathtub -- complete with the extended pipe and shower-head. "Poseur" is not the word that crossed my mind.
3. The simile. It's so inapt! The whole point of a wig is that you don't have to have the hair. It's the equivalent of a fake tattoo. But in another respect, a wig is out there. What man dares to wear a wig? Look at all the men who, balding, shave their heads. They miss their hair, but they still won't wear a wig. In the 60s, guys who wanted the Beatle look but needed a professional style some of the time would comb the front part down as well as they could and not go so long that they couldn't comb it up and over.
4. When I think of an actual wig, I think of Andy Warhol -- look at him here. He was doing something men still won't do. I know there are men who dress up like women and use lady's wigs for that, and there are plenty of women who rely on wigs, but where is the men in men's wigs community, eh?
Why I love this quote:
1. Everything's a "community" these days. There's no escape. The tattoo community. The rugged individualist community. The loner community.
2. Who knew you had to earn your neck tattoo? I'd have thought getting a neck tattoo as opposed to, say, one of those peeping-over-the-pantyline tattoos was a real demonstration of commitment. Ten (or more) years ago I stood in line at the University Bookstore behind a pretty young woman who had a tattoo on her neck of an old-fashioned, claw-footed bathtub -- complete with the extended pipe and shower-head. "Poseur" is not the word that crossed my mind.
3. The simile. It's so inapt! The whole point of a wig is that you don't have to have the hair. It's the equivalent of a fake tattoo. But in another respect, a wig is out there. What man dares to wear a wig? Look at all the men who, balding, shave their heads. They miss their hair, but they still won't wear a wig. In the 60s, guys who wanted the Beatle look but needed a professional style some of the time would comb the front part down as well as they could and not go so long that they couldn't comb it up and over.
4. When I think of an actual wig, I think of Andy Warhol -- look at him here. He was doing something men still won't do. I know there are men who dress up like women and use lady's wigs for that, and there are plenty of women who rely on wigs, but where is the men in men's wigs community, eh?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Bush speaks.
At 9 ET.
Comment here.
UPDATE: I do wish he'd been able to sell us on the plan with an explanation of how we'd be taking advantage of the market and probably making a profit in the end. (If that's the case!)
IN THE COMMENTS: peter hoh said:
AND: I made a new post out of Peter's great great comment, so if you want to comment on that or just get a fresh start in comments on the Bush speech, go there. Also, in the WSJ Andy Kessler makes the argument I wanted to hear Bush make, that we can make money by taking advantage of the market.
Now, why didn't Bush say that? Well, he kind of hinted at it. But maybe he didn't want to say it for reasons embodied in Peter's great great comment.
Comment here.
UPDATE: I do wish he'd been able to sell us on the plan with an explanation of how we'd be taking advantage of the market and probably making a profit in the end. (If that's the case!)
IN THE COMMENTS: peter hoh said:
I heard that Wall Street traders will treat us like liberators.
AND: I made a new post out of Peter's great great comment, so if you want to comment on that or just get a fresh start in comments on the Bush speech, go there. Also, in the WSJ Andy Kessler makes the argument I wanted to hear Bush make, that we can make money by taking advantage of the market.
Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than $2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion.
Now, why didn't Bush say that? Well, he kind of hinted at it. But maybe he didn't want to say it for reasons embodied in Peter's great great comment.
"I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress," says McCain.
This is, I think, a smart demonstration of leadership. McCain is suspending his campaign and seeking a postponement of the debate that is scheduled for this Friday.
Meanwhile, speaking of leadership, where's our incredible shrinking president, Mr. Bush?
UPDATE: Obama says that "there are times for politics and there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right," but now is not the time to cancel the debate. "This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates." And: "Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once. In my mind it’s more important than ever."
I suppose Obama couldn't very well follow McCain's lead. In fact, if McCain had really been serious about this, he should have worked it out with Obama in private, so that the two men could make a joint announcement. McCain went for political theatrics, and I guess he can use it against Obama now, which was probably the point, but Obama's reaction was so predictable that McCain's show of statesmanship was entirely bogus, so I will be impervious to that rhetoric.
Meanwhile, speaking of leadership, where's our incredible shrinking president, Mr. Bush?
UPDATE: Obama says that "there are times for politics and there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right," but now is not the time to cancel the debate. "This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates." And: "Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once. In my mind it’s more important than ever."
I suppose Obama couldn't very well follow McCain's lead. In fact, if McCain had really been serious about this, he should have worked it out with Obama in private, so that the two men could make a joint announcement. McCain went for political theatrics, and I guess he can use it against Obama now, which was probably the point, but Obama's reaction was so predictable that McCain's show of statesmanship was entirely bogus, so I will be impervious to that rhetoric.
Flea at USC.
He's a freshman, studying music:
But no, Flea (Michael Balzary) says he's mad about the Brontes, and he's going to college, so I'll assume it's about the books, not how insanely beautiful Elizabeth Taylor is in that movie.
Here's Flea playing the bass:
He's studying trumpet (and music theory and composition) at USC.
AND: No, a men in shorts tag is not called for!
The Chili Peppers [created tension] in our song structures but all based on emotion and intuition as opposed to knowing the math and academics of it. Knowing the structure is really fun.He's also working on a solo album:
I’ve been making a record at home and it’s nearly done. It’s mostly instrumental stuff but I have Patti Smith singing on it and the choir from the school but mostly it’s an instrumental record. I’m not sure how to describe it but a lot of people have described it as cinematic, like soundtrack music. It’s not really a commercial enterprise, it’s not going to be on rock radio or anything. The record is based on the character Helen Burns from "Jane Eyre." I love Charlotte Bronte and all of the Bronte sisters.That "Jane Eyre" stuff sound really nerdy, but if you've ever seen the Orson Welles movie version, you know that Helen Burns is the most stunning beautiful child ever seen in a film:
But no, Flea (Michael Balzary) says he's mad about the Brontes, and he's going to college, so I'll assume it's about the books, not how insanely beautiful Elizabeth Taylor is in that movie.
Here's Flea playing the bass:
He's studying trumpet (and music theory and composition) at USC.
AND: No, a men in shorts tag is not called for!
"John McCain truly believes, truly believes that you are corporate America's problem. And thank God you are."
Said Joe Biden to the trial lawyers:
"There are two people -- you've heard me say it before -- two groups that stand between us and the barbarians at the gate," Biden said. "It's you and organized labor. That's it. That is it. So, mark my words, mark my words, if we lose this election, you are going to continue to see a continuation of the onslaught on everything we care about. For real. For real. So, I'm not only thanking you for your help. I would think you're all absolutely brain-dead if you didn't help. And I mean it."Speaking of brain...
"She seems nice. She seems smart. She likes hockey."
Fake Sarah Palin.
Getting Kristy Webb ready for the part:
(And real Sarah Palin was in NYC too.)
Getting Kristy Webb ready for the part:
10:45 a.m. - Hairstylist Nathalie Quedru teases Webb's hair in three different sections to perfect the Palin bun. Quedru says she hasn't done that hairstyle since 1986, when she was first getting her license.Ooh. Catty.
(And real Sarah Palin was in NYC too.)
The University of Illinois tells all its employees they can't wear political buttons or attend political rallies on campus.
And if their cars have political bumper stickers, they can't park them in campus lots!
ADDED: I understand the focus on bumper stickers. Too much transparency if the faculty parking lot has rows and rows of Obama stickers.
ADDED: I understand the focus on bumper stickers. Too much transparency if the faculty parking lot has rows and rows of Obama stickers.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I sort of love the results of this Larry King/Ahmadinejad "blingee" contest.
But if I look at it for more than a few seconds, I get nauseated and on the verge of a seizure, so I don't know what to think of this new form of visual humor. Seriously, now, just thinking of looking at that page again makes me ill.
I love funny things, but is it worth it?
I love funny things, but is it worth it?
"A new Operation Chaos, it's called SOB, Save Our Biden, Operation Sling Blade."
"We need to keep this guy on the campaign."
Is it really this bad? Check out the amazing gush of Biden gaffes at that link. (Warning: It's Rush Limbaugh, but you need to read the evidence.)
You know, when I hear all that, it almost makes me think that Biden is screwing up on purpose to set up an Eagleton move.
You may have noticed the big internet rumor, but I'd like to claim credit for starting that meme, here, recorded on September 5th:
I was yanking Jane Hamsher's chain, but these things take on a life of their own.
IN THE COMMENTS: JMH notes that Jim Geraghty predicted on August 29th that Biden would withdraw:
But why would Hillary accept it? Also in the comments is Dust Bunny Queen:
Is it really this bad? Check out the amazing gush of Biden gaffes at that link. (Warning: It's Rush Limbaugh, but you need to read the evidence.)
You know, when I hear all that, it almost makes me think that Biden is screwing up on purpose to set up an Eagleton move.
You may have noticed the big internet rumor, but I'd like to claim credit for starting that meme, here, recorded on September 5th:
I was yanking Jane Hamsher's chain, but these things take on a life of their own.
IN THE COMMENTS: JMH notes that Jim Geraghty predicted on August 29th that Biden would withdraw:
Picture this scenario...
One month from now, the Palin pick has proven a bonanza for the McCain campaign. A large chunk of Hillary's 18 million voters have been won over. Conservatives are unified and energized, and the previously-undiscovered "Maxim magazine vote" is suddenly giving McCain large margins among young males.
Joe Biden will disappear from the campaign trail, and we will later learn it was to see a doctor. A previously-undiscovered, vaguely ominous health issue will be discovered, and Biden will sadly announce that he cannot continue as Obama's running mate. With a sudden need for a new one, Obama will turn... to Hillary Clinton.
Call it the Torricelli gambit.
But why would Hillary accept it? Also in the comments is Dust Bunny Queen:
Why in the world would Hillary allow herself to be put on the ticket at THIS point? Seriously. If Obama kicks Biden to the curb, doesn't this bring up several troubling issues.
1. When the going gets tough, Obama throws people under the bus. Grandmother, Rev Wright, Biden.
2. What kind of decision making does this indicate on the part of Obama. Can't he get anything right? Does he have such poor judgement that he has to continually make excuses and blame other people. Does Obama have ANY loyalty to anyone besides himself? Evidently not.
If I were Hillary, and NOW you want my help after kicking me in the teeth, I would say "thanks but no thanks" a la Sarah Palin and gleefully watch Obama melt down. I don't think he would have a snowball's chance if he made this sudden switch.
If she runs on his losing ticket it will just brand her as a loser. If she stays above the fray and then runs again in 2012 she has a fighting chance. Basically she should tell Obama "fat chance loser."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
