Sunday, September 30, 2012
Why is Obama postponing a trip to Columbus, Ohio to come to Madison, Wisconsin the day after the first debate?
Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, says: "Obama naturally would want to be on friendly turf after the debate, and he may think he'll draw a bigger turnout here than in Columbus... Columbus is mixed politically... Madison is heavily Democratic." And: "He may want to declare victory in the debate right there in Ryan's backyard."
Ben Sparks, spokesman for the Romney campaign in Wisconsin says: "He's finally acknowledging he has a Wisconsin problem."
Charles Franklin, director of political polling at Marquette University, flips that analysis around: Maybe Obama thinks he doesn't have an Ohio problem.
Ben Sparks, spokesman for the Romney campaign in Wisconsin says: "He's finally acknowledging he has a Wisconsin problem."
Charles Franklin, director of political polling at Marquette University, flips that analysis around: Maybe Obama thinks he doesn't have an Ohio problem.
There's always next year.
"The Brewers finally are eliminated from the race for the second wild-card berth in the National League, and they go out with a whimper, getting routed by the worst team in the majors."
Meadhouse is now free to devote full allegiance to the Reds.
Meadhouse is now free to devote full allegiance to the Reds.
"If the ascent of women has been much exaggerated, so has the descent of men."
Asserts Stephanie Coontz:
I'm extracting the Coontz bits that interest me, so here's another (shorn of its connection to that other one, which you can click on the link to read):
Men’s irresponsibility and bad behavior is now a stock theme in popular culture. But there has always been a subset of men who engage in crude, coercive and exploitative behavior. What’s different today is that it’s harder for men to get away with such behavior in long-term relationships. Women no longer feel compelled to put up with it and the legal system no longer condones it. The result is that many guys who would have been obnoxious husbands, behaving badly behind closed doors, are now obnoxious singles, trumpeting their bad behavior on YouTube.In the old days — which social conservatives would like to continue — women locked men into marriage and did what they could to tame them and tie them to a socially and economically useful way of life for the benefit of all of us. (This is why the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman" is so deeply meaningful and important.)
I'm extracting the Coontz bits that interest me, so here's another (shorn of its connection to that other one, which you can click on the link to read):
One thing standing in the way of further progress for many men is the same obstacle that held women back for so long: overinvestment in their gender identity instead of their individual personhood....
Just as the feminine mystique discouraged women in the 1950s and 1960s from improving their education or job prospects, on the assumption that a man would always provide for them, the masculine mystique encourages men to neglect their own self-improvement on the assumption that sooner or later their “manliness” will be rewarded....
Now men need to liberate themselves from the pressure to prove their masculinity.If you wouldn't be so much of a man, you wouldn't suffer so much from The Decline of Man. Women are on the upswing, but you can join us, be with us, but you're going to have to shed that manliness and become... An Individual... like Us the Women... who have ascended.
"I am saddened by my daughter’s ongoing disappointment because we could not afford to send her to her dream college."
"Instead, we are paying for her education at half the price (but still over $26,000 a year) at an in-state school," writes some mother to advice columnist Amy Dickinson.
This takes me back to my teenage years, in the 1960s, when my parents told me they couldn't send me to a private school (after my French teacher talked up Middlebury College to me). I didn't consider it an option to complain, though I felt bad about it.
My parents paid all my college expenses, and the notion of taking loans to make up the difference never came up. It was a different culture back then, at least at my house. You understood that you bought what you could afford, and it showed bad character to mope about it, and you didn't want to be ungrateful or selfish. And if I had crossed the line into a display of such bad character traits, my parents would never have considered writing to an advice columnist about what to do about their complaining, ungrateful daughter who won't value what is good about the college we are able to pay for.
Ask Amy says: "Your daughter needs to learn a lesson tougher than any course she will take in college: that she is responsible for her own success and happiness, now and beyond," and maybe she should transfer somewhere she likes better and, along the way, figure out how to cover whatever expenses exceed the part her parents can pay. That's good advice for the daughter. But I prefer advice columnists who go straight for the letter-writer's problem when the letter-writer is saying somebody else is a problem. There are always implied problems belonging to the letter-writer, beginning with the problem of lacking your own ideas of how to extricate yourself from your problems.
What did you do to raise a daughter who would put on a display of complaining like that? At the same time, I look to myself and wonder why I accepted the limitation, imposed by my parents, of attending a big state school and had no idea of how to explore the option of going somewhere else.
The culture has truly tipped, with everyone feeling entitled to things they can't pay for and assuming somebody else over there will pay somehow, some time, and I shouldn't have to think about them.
This takes me back to my teenage years, in the 1960s, when my parents told me they couldn't send me to a private school (after my French teacher talked up Middlebury College to me). I didn't consider it an option to complain, though I felt bad about it.
My parents paid all my college expenses, and the notion of taking loans to make up the difference never came up. It was a different culture back then, at least at my house. You understood that you bought what you could afford, and it showed bad character to mope about it, and you didn't want to be ungrateful or selfish. And if I had crossed the line into a display of such bad character traits, my parents would never have considered writing to an advice columnist about what to do about their complaining, ungrateful daughter who won't value what is good about the college we are able to pay for.
Ask Amy says: "Your daughter needs to learn a lesson tougher than any course she will take in college: that she is responsible for her own success and happiness, now and beyond," and maybe she should transfer somewhere she likes better and, along the way, figure out how to cover whatever expenses exceed the part her parents can pay. That's good advice for the daughter. But I prefer advice columnists who go straight for the letter-writer's problem when the letter-writer is saying somebody else is a problem. There are always implied problems belonging to the letter-writer, beginning with the problem of lacking your own ideas of how to extricate yourself from your problems.
What did you do to raise a daughter who would put on a display of complaining like that? At the same time, I look to myself and wonder why I accepted the limitation, imposed by my parents, of attending a big state school and had no idea of how to explore the option of going somewhere else.
The culture has truly tipped, with everyone feeling entitled to things they can't pay for and assuming somebody else over there will pay somehow, some time, and I shouldn't have to think about them.
NYT columnist Frank Bruni muses about why Obama and Romney won't say the word "sacrifice."
Here's the pithiest line:
No, I won't! It was a great question, and I have my own trust issues that would be lessened considerably if you wouldn't put a sign in front of us saying only lazy/cynical people ask it. I could just as well say that it's the cynical, easy way out to say that it's the cynical, easy way out to ask that question. That is the question!
... why sacrifice in ways that plump federal coffers or reduce federal obligations when Washington can’t be trusted to make anything better or get anything right?I think Bruni disturbed himself when he coughed up that argument for the other side. He had to distance himself with this introductory phrase:
And cynicism about the intentions of politicians and the effectiveness of government has become an easy out: ...Oh, so only cynics and intellectually lazy characters go with that question? All right then. I'll ignore it and move on to your other musings about "[your] own trust issues," which could be "lessened considerably" if only some candidate would say that "pain is a precursor to healing; and that it’s time to take our medicine."
No, I won't! It was a great question, and I have my own trust issues that would be lessened considerably if you wouldn't put a sign in front of us saying only lazy/cynical people ask it. I could just as well say that it's the cynical, easy way out to say that it's the cynical, easy way out to ask that question. That is the question!
"I came to live in the States as an adult (if you can call 18 adult) because of the goodness of a person who died today."
My colleague Nina Camic wrote yesterday, about Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the long-time publisher and CEO of the NYT.
I was an au pair to his little girl. I learned through him and his wife how to transition from Warsaw to New York again. I came with barely a flight bag full of clothes and possessions and joined a household that had a staff of helpers and an extended family of cousins, aunts, nephews -- all intensely close, bonded in ways that history sometimes bonds people because of unusual circumstances.... After dinner, he and I would clean up in the kitchen and if I learned how to wipe down every last inch of counterspace it was because he taught me well. He was too kind for words and his little girl was just like him, making my au pair duties about the easiest that could be.
Just how much liberal bias is there in the Washington Post news and opinion?
Asks the WaPot ombudsman Patrick B. Pexton. He talks about the bias people see in the new articles and then moves on to the columnists:
One aspect of The Post that particularly irks conservatives is the columnists who appear in print and online in news positions (as opposed to those on the editorial and op-ed pages and the online Opinions section). With the exception of Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, who cover politics in a nonpartisan way, the news columnists almost to a person write from left of center.Balz and Cillizza are nonpartisan? That assertion screams liberal bias.
Is it any wonder that if you’re a conservative looking for unbiased news — and they do; they don’t want only Sean Hannity’s interpretation of the news...They. That's telling.
... that you might feel unwelcome, or dissed or slighted, by the printed Post or the online version? And might you distrust the news when it’s wrapped in so much liberal commentary?Yeah, they need to get a lot of conservative columnists if they want to get away with doing the news liberal-style. Isn't that the Wall Street Journal method?
Swing state tracking poll: Obama 48%, Romney 44%.
Rasmussen says. The regular tracking poll has Obama at 48% and Romney at 46%.
Will the Supreme Court affirmative action case force the presidential candidates to talk about...
... a subject both of them would prefer to avoid? The oral argument is October 10th.
“I’ve got to believe at this point in the campaign neither the president or Governor Romney is going to want to give a quote on any of this,” said Richard Taylor, a business diversity advocate and former Massachusetts transportation secretary under Romney. “If I was preparing either candidate for the debate, this would be on the checklist, … but I don’t think either campaign will be anxious to talk about it.”...
“It took three long years to pull [a federal government policy statement on the use of race in education] out of the Obama administration. It was only after we pestered and cajoled them that they finally got it out,” John Brittain, a civil rights activist and law professor at the University of the District of Columbia, said in an interview soon after the document was released. “The administration had a paralysis of analysis. …. Overall, the Obama administration just has a reluctance to take on race and equality, and when they do so everything is so carefully sanitized and scrubbed to make sure it’s the least offensive thing possible.”
There’s almost no chance that Romney would take a strong stance against affirmative action, according to Stuart Taylor, a veteran legal commentator and author of a new book on the policy.
... “No major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. It’s kind of remarkable. The Republicans who during the ’90s for a while were seeing some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls, don’t do it anymore.”So both candidates — like many Americans — exhibit a bland, uncommitted acceptance of the long-term practice of affirmative action, and they don't want to have to talk about it in crisp, clear terms, looking at all the arguments for and against, and scrutinizing the constitutional texts and precedents. But that's exactly what the Supreme Court must do and will do on October 10th.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
"[W]hen libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion..."
"... less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals."
They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed "effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks" more than others do.
The researchers found that libertarians had the most "masculine" psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which "may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women."
CBS distorts what Ann Romney said about Mitt Romney's "mental well-being."
The headline at CBS is:
Ann Romney: If elected, "mental well-being" Mitt's biggest challengeShe was asked what her "biggest worry is if her husband does in fact become President." I got the quote from the video here at 6:14, where you can see that the inquiry is about Ann Romney's feelings. She answers:
"I think my biggest concern, obviously, would just be for his mental well-being. I have all the confidence in the world in his ability, in his decisiveness and his leadership skills, in his understanding of the economy, in his understanding of what's missing right now in the economy - you know, the pieces that are missing to get this jump-started.... So for me I think it would just be the emotional part of it."She was asked about her worry, not what his biggest challenge would be. She didn't say he was mentally challenged. She expressed confidence in his ability to do everything, and then characterized herself as caring for his emotions, which is the traditional wifely role. To present that as some sort of secret revelation of emotional problems is just wrong.
Did you watch the Tammy and Tommy debate?
I did, and one of the things I said out loud while watching it was: "I'm glad I didn't blog that I was going to live-blog this." I had, however, blogged to predict that it would be boring, which it mostly was.
We did get some laughs, especially when Tommy said "I built Wisconsin," which he later modifed to "We built Wisconsin." I lost count of the number of times he said he was governor "for 14 years," which was nearly always followed by the statement that he lowered "taxes 91 times," which tied to Tammy having no "record to run on" and being "a taxer and a spender." Those were his talking points.
Tommy was all about how we here in Wisconsin already know him. He's Tommy — call me Tommy — and she's Tammy — you don't know her, but let me tell you she's the biggest liberal in the House, ranked #1 biggest taxer/spender, and that's not an easy achievement, to actually be #1.
Christian Schneider writes:
We did get some laughs, especially when Tommy said "I built Wisconsin," which he later modifed to "We built Wisconsin." I lost count of the number of times he said he was governor "for 14 years," which was nearly always followed by the statement that he lowered "taxes 91 times," which tied to Tammy having no "record to run on" and being "a taxer and a spender." Those were his talking points.
Tommy was all about how we here in Wisconsin already know him. He's Tommy — call me Tommy — and she's Tammy — you don't know her, but let me tell you she's the biggest liberal in the House, ranked #1 biggest taxer/spender, and that's not an easy achievement, to actually be #1.
Christian Schneider writes:
Tommy was, well, Tommy. He, too, jumbled a few sentences, but Wisconsin has been bearing witness to his sporadic malapropisms for decades.Hilarious video of Tommy at the 1997 Super Bowl embedded.
But Tommy seemed comfortable and confident. When he got rolling, he seemed fiery and knowledgeable. While Baldwin tried to wade through the weeds of issues, Thompson spoke over the moderators and to the eight people watching at home, using broader themes and more hopeful language.Toad?! I used that word out loud while watching the debate last night. I said Tommy looked like a toad. He's not a pretty man. (Wisconsin rejected the pretty man — Eric Hovde — in the primary.) But everyone looked awful in the lighting at that public-TV studio. Tammy has a shot at looking so much better than Tommy, but Wisconsin was getting its first long look at her in an extremely unflattering light, and that cut Tommy a break.
The best part of the debate, however, was when the topics moved to foreign affairs. When I realized Thompson was going to attempt to say the name "Ahmadinejad," I squealed with joy like a little girl. It was a remarkable feat of courage - like the sprinter with no legs who made it to the Olympics. What came out of his mouth sounded more like an ancient spell than the Iranian leader's name - I had to check to see that I hadn't turned into a toad.
Also entertaining was watching Tommy answer a question about gay marriage. At one point during his answer, he paused for a good five seconds to navigate all the land mines that were likely lodged in his mind. It was evident he had a vision of Tammy Baldwin dancing with Wonder Woman floating around in his head and needed a quiet moment to suppress it.Yeah, she made a reference to some bill she had co-sponsored with Scott Walker back when she was a state legislator. She smiled primly, but said nothing of the subject matter of the bill, and Meade made up some title for the most uncontroversial and inconsequential piece of legislation ever, something like proclaiming Wauwatosa High School Marching Band the High School Marching Band of the Week.
But Baldwin really disappointed. At one point, she preposterously tried to paint herself as "bipartisan," which is like a cheetah trying to pass itself off as a vegetarian.
"We don't begrudge Ms. Warren's handsome earnings or her stands on legal principle..."
"... even if those principles do happen to underscore the complex nature of both the law and modern economy."
But when she talks about "the millionaires and billionaires" who supposedly "wrecked our economy" and "still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them"—as she put it at the Charlotte convention—perhaps she ought to recall her own legal strutting.
By the way, Harvard requires its professors to report any extracurricular consulting activities, but Ms. Warren is refusing to disclose this list so voters can decide for themselves if she's really a handmaid to the plutocrats disguised as Robin Hood through November 6. It would be instructive to learn what other corporations, and maybe even a billionaire, have had her on their payrolls.
"Ban all performative weddings, ban all crazy expenditures... Ban the marriage pages in The New York Times."
"Ban those things that turn otherwise sensible people to start buying into that fantasy," says Virginia Rutter — great name — a professor of — take a guess — sociology, quoted in a NYT "Fashion and Style" piece, written by Matt Richtel, who's mostly airing his own "whimsical" notion that marriage could be a 20-year renewable contract.
Richtel quotes another a professor of — take a guess — sociology, Pepper Schwartz — great name — saying, “We’re remarkably not innovative about marriage even though almost all the environmental conditions, writ large, have changed... We haven’t scrutinized it. We’ve been picking at it like a scab, and it’s not going to heal that way.”
But wouldn't being innovative be picking at it? What's Pepper planning to do to this scab? Sociology professors... can we just pick at them?
As to Professor Rutter and her objection to "performative weddings"... well, I'm more concerned about her attraction to the word "ban"... she decries emotionality while sounding utterly emotional. And who are these "otherwise sensible people"? Human beings get involved in all sorts of ideas and practices entailing love and beauty and religion and hope and sex and money. There's no stripping away of all that. It is humanity itself, not a fantasy (or a scab!).
Richtel quotes another a professor of — take a guess — sociology, Pepper Schwartz — great name — saying, “We’re remarkably not innovative about marriage even though almost all the environmental conditions, writ large, have changed... We haven’t scrutinized it. We’ve been picking at it like a scab, and it’s not going to heal that way.”
But wouldn't being innovative be picking at it? What's Pepper planning to do to this scab? Sociology professors... can we just pick at them?
As to Professor Rutter and her objection to "performative weddings"... well, I'm more concerned about her attraction to the word "ban"... she decries emotionality while sounding utterly emotional. And who are these "otherwise sensible people"? Human beings get involved in all sorts of ideas and practices entailing love and beauty and religion and hope and sex and money. There's no stripping away of all that. It is humanity itself, not a fantasy (or a scab!).
"Why are you making this about race?"
Elspeth Reeve answers a question she's been asked after her "How Racist Is the Obama Phone Video?," which I linked, approvingly, yesterday.
This is a he-who-smelt-it-dealt-it argument. Or, as Stephen Colbert's persona likes to say, "I don't see race." This line of argument wants to change the subject to something, anything other than race. Hey, what about free phones?! Patterico at Patterico's Pontifications tried defending the video, saying, "The above video is hilarious. It is representative of a group of Obama voters who feel entitled to handouts from government. It does not matter what the color of the speaker is. It’s news... Conservatives should not have to shy away from such amusing examples of entitlement mentality simply because the particular proponent of that mentality happens to be black." This is intellectually dishonest, at best. We await Patterico delving into the minutiae of the Universal Service Fund. Until then, it's just "hilarious." Specifically, it's hilarious because it uses one person to portray a huge group of people in a negative way is. The point of the video -- and the reason Drudge and Limbaugh hyped it -- is to say, this is what Obama voters look like: black, poor, stupid, and after your money. The video's subject wasn't picked out because she "happens to be black," she was picked out because she is black. Lee Atwater, strategist for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, explained how this works way back in 1981 -- better to talk about cutting taxes and bussing, because it's "a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Ni***r, ni***r.'" Of course, this Internet meme isn't all that abstract.If it's insufficiently abstract, it won't work. Our conscious anti-racism filters may keep the material from reaching us. In fact, as I said in my post yesterday, what I feel happening to me emotionally — and what I'm guessing may happen to other middle-of-the-road types like me — is repulsion away from the Romney side. It's not Romney's fault, he can't control what his supporters say in their efforts to promote him, but he needs to be a more dominant figure in his own campaign. Voters need to associate him with a clear and compelling message that doesn't feel connected to this racial material coming from other sources.
"Reading that Althouse thing about the 'fear' of black people, I mean, who 'fears' black people because of that phone clip?"
"Who 'fears' black folks, period? Or gays? Everything you hear these days is about fears and phobia and hate. I usually dismiss it as rhetoric, but I am starting to wonder if that isn’t what is motivating a great deal of the citizens of this country. Maybe they really are afraid of their own shadow and hate the things that scare them."
So says commenter B Moe over in the comments to an open thread at Protein Wisdom — which I noticed because I saw traffic coming from there because, unlike the Freepers, at least they open up the pathway so readers can see the object of their criticism for themselves.
And then McGehee says:
all the wingers cringe, "'Just How Racist Is the "Obama Phone" Video?'" Well, you men have only yourselves to blame. We didn't have the power to vote for the right to vote. You men gave it to us.
And then some commenter named Car, whose icon is a baby — McGhee is an old cowboy and B Moe looks like the Disney Br'er Bear — Car says:
Car says:
So says commenter B Moe over in the comments to an open thread at Protein Wisdom — which I noticed because I saw traffic coming from there because, unlike the Freepers, at least they open up the pathway so readers can see the object of their criticism for themselves.
And then McGehee says:
Althouse typifies a new hyphenation: the Hormonal-American. If only we could bring a bunch of state legislators up to today from 1920 or slightly before, to see what these Hormonal-Americans have done to the country, maybe they’d return to their own time and just repeal Prohibition a decade early.The old joke — women shouldn't have been given the right to vote because they're emotional. I was making that joke myself, making that joke as a joke, as I was out biking and conversing with Meade about the very material that would later take the form of the post that's made
And then some commenter named Car, whose icon is a baby — McGhee is an old cowboy and B Moe looks like the Disney Br'er Bear — Car says:
Can we all stop reading Althouse now? Can we get Glenn to give her up?This is a classic theme in anti-Althousiana: jealousy that I have readers and, especially, that I get Instapundit links. (Hey, I'm a guestblogger on Instapundit right now. If I wanted, I could go over there myself and write a post lambasting Rush Limbaugh for playing and replaying that racial-fear-stimulating video over and over. But I'm keeping it here, in this cozier place, where I let commenters in. And there are 600+ shots at me in the "How Racist?" comments thread.)
Car says:
And, please, when was the last time Althouse was IN a city? Women like the one Rush played, over and over, you SHOULD fear them- or the segment of society who they represent. She’s not there for the upwardly mobile, educated black. She was there shouting her membership as one of the failures of black society- the takers.Well, thank you, Car. You're proving my point. You do have a highly emotive mental picture of those terrible black people, the very brain zone Rush was stimulating.
Our cities, and it’s [sic] denizens, are going down like the mutherfocking bootleg fireworks. A cop came into our shop and said whole areas are basically lawless, and that people need to protect themselves. And Ann just wants to turn the other cheek and pretends it’s not happening, because it’s not happening in her line of sight.See?
And it’s not a function of color. The cities just HAPPEN to be populated by folks that could look like Obama’s son.I think "it’s not a function of color" is intended sarcastically. He's saying I should look at the reality he knows, and it's full of terrible black people.
And they also just happen to be represented by race pimps who don’t care what happens to “their people” as long as they get their own filthy lucre as they pretend to fight the power.So he's reinforcing my point! That video stands for a large group of people who really are the problem and voters ought to wake up and get scared!
But, you know, I’d like Ann to head to Detroit, get our of her car on the East side – you know, near Kelly and Gratiot, and use her rational mind to get to know those folks. Don’t fear those folks, Ann. VOTE for Obama.
Put your head back in the sand, Ann. Rush probably made that woman up.
"I used to enjoy reading Althouse's blog because she wrote about some interesting topics, but this blatant display of Liberal emotionalism, racism..."
"... and lack of self-awareness combined with a sickening display of sanctimony is disturbing. It's as if you found out a good friend is secretly a child molester."
There's a denouncement of me over at Free Republic, talking about my post "Just How Racist Is the 'Obama Phone' Video?," notably not linking to my post, just characterizing it, as they curl up into to their people-who-see-racism-are-racists cocoon.
There's a denouncement of me over at Free Republic, talking about my post "Just How Racist Is the 'Obama Phone' Video?," notably not linking to my post, just characterizing it, as they curl up into to their people-who-see-racism-are-racists cocoon.
Obama 48%, Romney 46%.
Rasmussen tracking poll. With "leaners": Obama 49%, Romney 47%.
Swing state tracking poll: Obama 47%, Romney 45%.
Swing state tracking poll: Obama 47%, Romney 45%.
Friday, September 28, 2012
"Just How Racist Is the 'Obama Phone' Video?"
Elspeth Reeve has good analysis at the Atlantic Wire. I had a big problem with Rush Limbaugh playing this clip over and over on his show yesterday. There's some kind of political point to be be made about they way some people become dependent on government or unrealistic about what government can or should do, but there's an emotional level, below the rational mind, that this video/audio can reach, and when someone repeatedly plays it, as Rush did, it seems as though he's trying to stir up racial fears.
Decent people whose rational minds would reject explicit racial material can be emotionally manipulated. They get their fears stirred up. If this is what Romney supporters think they need to do to get their man elected, I hope they fail. And, frankly, I think they will fail. If people in the middle — like me — get the impression that fear of black people is supposed to be the reason to vote for Romney, we're going to vote for Obama. That's the America I believe in. I think I'm right about that.
Decent people whose rational minds would reject explicit racial material can be emotionally manipulated. They get their fears stirred up. If this is what Romney supporters think they need to do to get their man elected, I hope they fail. And, frankly, I think they will fail. If people in the middle — like me — get the impression that fear of black people is supposed to be the reason to vote for Romney, we're going to vote for Obama. That's the America I believe in. I think I'm right about that.
"We really messed up, and we are all really sorry. That didn’t belong on TV."
Shep Smith, after Fox News shows a man shoot himself in the head.
"Sometimes we see a lot of things that we don’t let get to you – because it’s not time appropriate, it’s insensitive, and it’s just wrong. And that was wrong."
Back!
Sorry about the downage. But I got some fabulous help and we are back.
Talk about anything you want in the comments... including how desperate you felt when the blog was semi-inaccessible and how cool it is for things to flow smoothly. On the blog, I mean. And everywhere!
Talk about anything you want in the comments... including how desperate you felt when the blog was semi-inaccessible and how cool it is for things to flow smoothly. On the blog, I mean. And everywhere!
Andrew Sullivan denies that there was any anti-Semitic meaning...
... when he wrote:
The usual would-be policeman of Washington's discourse on all things to do with Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg, takes a break from the Jewish holidays to consign yet another member of the thinking classes to the ranks of "something much darker."... which Goldberg called a "low blow" 8 days ago. Today, Sullivan is all "apologies if I was misunderstood." And he denies membership in "the thought-police" while maintaining the presumption that Goldberg belongs:
... I will occasionally note homophobia - but usually of the obvious, fanatical, religious kind, not parsing metaphors of fellow columnists for "dog-whistles" and "code". And I have a long record of exactly the same for anti-Semitism....By the way, Goldberg calls himself "Goldblog," so that's not a dog-whistle (or telling typo).
...I have long, relentlessly lambasted the main gay rights lobby, HRC, while Goldblog is always anti-anti-AIPAC, just as he is always anti-anti-settlements.
... Let me just say that when Goldblog treats John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Kenneth Waltz, Phil Weiss, or Daniel Larison in the same way I treat my opponents on the issue of marriage rights, I will agree that he is not a member of the thought-police....
Tammy vs. Tommy.
Debate tonight. 8 Central Time.
The first of 3 debates. I don't know if we can take it. I expect it to be boring, but you never know.
The first of 3 debates. I don't know if we can take it. I expect it to be boring, but you never know.
"With Republicans everywhere wondering what has happened to the Mitt Romney campaign..."
"... people who know the candidate personally and professionally offer a simple explanation: It’s the candidate himself."
ADDED: The mainstream media are using a tactic reminiscent of grade school, alpha kids spreading the idea nobody likes this one kid. Not even for any particular reason. Just: Ew, nobody likes him. Hoping to influence the beta kids. Probably succeeding!
ADDED: The mainstream media are using a tactic reminiscent of grade school, alpha kids spreading the idea nobody likes this one kid. Not even for any particular reason. Just: Ew, nobody likes him. Hoping to influence the beta kids. Probably succeeding!
Professor Jacobson drops a "bombshell" on Elizabeth Warren.
And I'm only quoting the word "bombshell" because it's from someone who's been defending Warren from Jacobson's attack: "With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak."
"If you don't think becoming a lawyer is the correct life choice for anyone ever, you have probably snorted, laughed..."
"... and said the following things to a lawyer-in-training: that I will become a professional liar, that I will have to sleep my way into a partnership or a good job or a higher salary because I am a woman, that I will have to wear suits 24/7, that my life won't really be like the show Suits even though I pray to the Jew god for that daily (but who doesn't want to work with Harvey Specter?!!), that I will hate my life and become an alcoholic and/or kill myself one day, and that I will make six-figures or be forced to work as volunteer in public interest law."
Some scribbling I read at XOJane because Above the Law said: "A tipster writes: 'PLEASE address this trash pile of an article… I’m begging you.' Well, here you go."
Some scribbling I read at XOJane because Above the Law said: "A tipster writes: 'PLEASE address this trash pile of an article… I’m begging you.' Well, here you go."
"Little girls are packing heat in support of Paul Ryan..."
"... after he took flak for buying his daughter hunting gear."
ADDED: Here's another guns and fathers story in the news today:
ADDED: Here's another guns and fathers story in the news today:
A woman who was alone in the house believed someone was breaking in and called [Jeffrey Giuliano], who lives next door, and he grabbed a gun and went outside to investigate, police said.
The father confronted someone wearing a black ski mask and black clothing and then fired his gun when the person went at him with a shiny weapon in his hand, police said.The gunshot was fatal, and under the mask was the face of Giuliano's 15-year-old son Tyler.
Madison, where the powerful bike lobby pushes for policies that will get 20% of workers commuting by bike...
... bicycle commuting dropped to only 4.69% in 2011. The previous year it was 6.03%.
The bike lobby folks disparage the survey, which asked people how they got to work in the previous week. Maybe the question was asked after a week of nasty weather. Of course, here in Wisconsin, it's frequently too cold or rainy for anyone other than a hardcore bicyclist.
Meanwhile the 20% goal lives on, with influential politicos hyping expensive improvements (or supposed improvements) as if people will shift to bicycle commuting. I find it amusing that my liberal city puts so much tax money into amenities that serve, overwhelmingly, its white male population.
The bike lobby folks disparage the survey, which asked people how they got to work in the previous week. Maybe the question was asked after a week of nasty weather. Of course, here in Wisconsin, it's frequently too cold or rainy for anyone other than a hardcore bicyclist.
The number of people walking (8.38 percent) and using a motorcycle (0.15 percent) to get to work edged down slightly. The number who said they took public transportation to work (8.79 percent) inched up, and those who drove to work alone rose to 65.46 percent from 63.42 percent.This is America, people. We drive. We have a lifestyle built on cars. Do you mind?
Arthur Ross, Madison's pedestrian-bicycle coordinator, could not be reached Thursday for comment, but data from the city paint a picture of steady growth for bike commuters. According to a 2011 report by the city's traffic engineering department, the annual average volume on the John Nolen Drive and Brittingham Park bike paths has steadily climbed since 1987, when an average of 400 bikes per day used the paths. In 2011, the number, according to the bike counts, had more than doubled to about 975 bikes per day.Yes, but are these people biking to work? Or are we talking about people who bike for exercise/pleasure on weekends and off hours, mostly concentrated in the pleasantest times of the year? I know I bike those paths a lot, but not as a method of commuting.
Meanwhile the 20% goal lives on, with influential politicos hyping expensive improvements (or supposed improvements) as if people will shift to bicycle commuting. I find it amusing that my liberal city puts so much tax money into amenities that serve, overwhelmingly, its white male population.
So much for the hot, passionate artist boyfriend type.
Last November we were talking about a nicely done Katy Perry video called "The One That Got Away." Remember?
Don't most rich old ladies regret marrying the dull bastard who got them all their stuff and wish they'd spent their lives with the hot, passionate artist who ran off that one night when they'd had that big fight?The One she was talking about was her real-life lost love Johnny Lewis. He's dead now, after a bizarre murderous incident:
Don't ask me. That's not what I did with my life, but it's a fine old cultural meme — that the wives of rich men are so unhappy and that they wish they'd gone down the other road, the one with all that hot sex and emotional turbulence — and it's pithily realized in Katy Perry's new video "The One That Got Away." (I'm watching this because my son Chris emailed me to say: "I'm not generally a Katy Perry fan, but I think this new video is great and very emotionally effective.")
Neighbours called police after hearing a woman screaming and witnessing Lewis attack two men with a piece of wood out the front of Davis' property, where the actor was understood to be renting a room.He got away.
The other victims - a neighbour and a handyman - were badly beaten after the tussle, which lasted between 3-4 minutes and began when Lewis tried to break into the neighbour's home, according to TMZ.
The men Lewis fought with told officers he showed 'super-human strength' and was 'phenomenally strong.' In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, the neighbour said Lewis was hardly deterred by the blows he took, that it was like 'hitting him with a fly swatter.'
Lewis, who dated Perry in 2006 and regularly graced the red carpet with the pop star, then apparently climbed onto the roof. It is unclear whether Lewis jumped or fell to his death.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
"A definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack."
Let's look at all the statements, in order. On the 12th, we were told that what happened in Libya was "clearly a complex attack." On the 13th, there was the muddying swirl about "protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet." Note that doesn't specify the murder of the ambassador in Libya.
Then, on the 16th, we heard Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stolidly deliver the talking points on "Face the Nation":
On the 20th, Jay Carney was saying "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," but claiming a lack of info on whether it was "a significantly preplanned attack" and asserting however much it might have been preplanned — what does "pre-" add to "planned"? — it was still "opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive." Note the clever merger of the planned attack with the cover provided by the offense taken at the video.
Obama kept stressing the video and avoiding saying "terrorism," though Hillary Clinton called it terrorism on the 21st. Confronted with her statement on the 25th, Obama would only say we're "still doing an investigation, and "it wasn’t just a mob action." That was on "The View."
Yesterday, Carney was asked whether "there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?" Jeez, "The View" was too tough. Carney said:
Then, on the 16th, we heard Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stolidly deliver the talking points on "Face the Nation":
“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously...What's the scope of "it"?
... in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”So there first thing that happened was the video-related protests, and then others joined in, but we don't know whether they did that spur of the moment or if it was planned. "We do not have information" about those"extremist elements, individuals," but we do have "the best information" about things beginning spontaneously.
On the 20th, Jay Carney was saying "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," but claiming a lack of info on whether it was "a significantly preplanned attack" and asserting however much it might have been preplanned — what does "pre-" add to "planned"? — it was still "opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive." Note the clever merger of the planned attack with the cover provided by the offense taken at the video.
Obama kept stressing the video and avoiding saying "terrorism," though Hillary Clinton called it terrorism on the 21st. Confronted with her statement on the 25th, Obama would only say we're "still doing an investigation, and "it wasn’t just a mob action." That was on "The View."
Yesterday, Carney was asked whether "there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?" Jeez, "The View" was too tough. Carney said:
“He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”It's our view and his view, but he wouldn't say it on "The View."
More debate — at the University of Wisconsin — about affirmative action.
You might remember last September, there was a huge crowd for a debate about affirmative action...
Tonight's debate, focusing on the pending Supreme Court case Texas v. Fisher, should be a more modest event — at the law school at 6:15. My colleague Larry Church will once again take the pro side on affirmative action, but he's got a different sparring partner, lawprof Rick Esenberg. Last year, the anti-affirmative action side was taken by Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which was mounting an attack on the admissions policies at the University of Wisconsin. Fisher is about undergraduate admissions at the University of Texas.
As Meade and I walked home, I called the students "admirable" for not getting out of hand and shouting down the speakers, and Meade made fun of my low standard. I said, "It's Wisconsin. Kudos for not rioting."Earlier in the day, there was an outbreak of something that either was or was not violence, and students — mostly undergrad, not law students — were passionate but reasonably controlled at the debate later on. (Here's video I shot and edited.)
Tonight's debate, focusing on the pending Supreme Court case Texas v. Fisher, should be a more modest event — at the law school at 6:15. My colleague Larry Church will once again take the pro side on affirmative action, but he's got a different sparring partner, lawprof Rick Esenberg. Last year, the anti-affirmative action side was taken by Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which was mounting an attack on the admissions policies at the University of Wisconsin. Fisher is about undergraduate admissions at the University of Texas.
Ahmadinejad's underlings in Manhattan go shopping at Payless, Costco, Walgreens and Duane Reade.
They love America... in the form of discount stores:
The two-term president was criticized at home for bringing an estimated 140 people along for his final UN speech as Iran’s leader.Unlikely? Really? Stores with shelves and shelves of cheap shoes and cheap Tylenol are a big thrill. Maybe not for you, but if it is for them, that says something about the liberty we take for granted.
“Many . . . have only traveled there for a picnic,” sniped Mansour Haghighatpour, deputy head of the parliamentary committee on national security.
The delegation insider disagreed, saying the guests wanted no part of jewelry stores, boutiques or high-end retailers — like the plush Lord & Taylor directly across Fifth Ave. from the Payless.
Instead, they preferred any drugstore where they could stock up on over-the-counter medication....
The cut-rate shopping sprees come despite an assortment of landmarks within walking distance of the hotel: Central Park, Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Hall... [But] the Iranian visitors did make sightseeing trips to one unlikely destination: The Statue of Liberty.
"Romney’s tongue-tied eloquence."
Fareed Zakaria is back, back to kick Romney in the mouth, back from exile, presumably now purged of his plagiarism sins. Let's see how eloquent his eloquence critique is:
If you bother to keep reading — and it's likely both Obama fans and Romney fans stopped at "rolling calamity," either pleased or disgusted — you'll see many paragraphs asserting that Romney doesn't want to talk about taxes and illegal immigration. He's "tongue-tied" because there's "a new kind of political correctness" in the GOP:
As President Obama has surged in the polls, Republicans have been quick to identify the problem: Mitt Romney. Peggy Noonan eloquently voiced what many conservatives believe when she said that Romney’s campaign has been a “rolling calamity.” Others have been equally critical of his candidacy. And yet, shouldn’t it puzzle us that Romney is so “incompetent” (also from Noonan), given his deserved reputation for, well, competence? He founded one of this country’s most successful financial firms, turned around the flailing Salt Lake City Olympics and was a successful governor. How did he get so clumsy so fast?Rasmussen has the candidates locked in a tie. They're 46/46 again today, same as yesterday, and pretty much the same for the past week. But if you want to find Obama surging, there are polls to satisfy your urge for the surge. These polls are grotesquely oversampling Democrats, to the point where the joke has become obvious, but maybe you can find your pleasure there, if you're also the sort that listens to Peggy Noonan as the exemplar of what conservatives are thinking. She eloquently voiced the opinion you want to hear: Romney’s campaign has been a “rolling calamity.”
If you bother to keep reading — and it's likely both Obama fans and Romney fans stopped at "rolling calamity," either pleased or disgusted — you'll see many paragraphs asserting that Romney doesn't want to talk about taxes and illegal immigration. He's "tongue-tied" because there's "a new kind of political correctness" in the GOP:
They cannot speak certain words (taxes) or speculate about certain ideas (immigration amnesty) because these are forbidden.... As a result, he has twisted himself into a pretzel, speaking vacuously... That’s a straitjacket that even Peggy Noonan’s eloquence cannot get him out of.I'm picturing Peggy using her tongue to untwist a pretzel. Or is she unbuckling a straitjacket? Marvelous writing, Fareed. Did you make that all up yourself?
Does "exceptionalism" = "swagger" in the mind of the Washington Post?
"Obama, Romney differ on need for U.S. 'swagger.'" That's the headline on the WaPo front page now, linking to a story with the headline "Obama, Romney differ on U.S. exceptionalism."
The word put in quotes is "swagger," and that ought to mean somebody said that. The word appears once in the article. After a few sentences on Romney's "far tougher approach to the world" and Obama's emphasis on "diplomacy and partnerships, and American assistance where wanted without heavy-handed demands from the top," we get:
It's rather annoying to see WaPo quote a supposed expert telling us what's "very clear" in the rhetoric and then slap the label "swagger" on it. Show us the rhetoric, and let us judge. I'm displaying your rhetoric, so my readers can judge.
If we keep going and click over to page 2 and scroll halfway down (which I think very few readers will do), we get to more contrasts between Obama and Bush, with Obama the "realist, free of the 'freedom agenda' ideology." Obama doesn't talk freedom ideology?
The word put in quotes is "swagger," and that ought to mean somebody said that. The word appears once in the article. After a few sentences on Romney's "far tougher approach to the world" and Obama's emphasis on "diplomacy and partnerships, and American assistance where wanted without heavy-handed demands from the top," we get:
“It’s very clear in reading and hearing what the two candidates have to say that, at least rhetorically, there would be a significant change under President Romney,” said Karl F. Inderfurth, an assistant secretary of state in the Bill Clinton administration who is now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.So, apparently Inderfurth used the word "swagger," perhaps only to characterize the feeling some people got from George Bush (that cowboy), but Romney has never — as far as I can see — said we need "swagger," and Romney's manner seems wholly different from George Bush's. It seems modest and mannerly. The word "swagger" seems more applicable to Obama, who's been killing enemies with drones and likes to point out that he killed bin Laden.
Inderfurth, who is not working with either campaign, said some of the “swagger” of the George W. Bush administration would return to U.S. foreign policy under Romney.
“Obama has tried to tone that down, and he has faced pushback for doing so,” he said.
It's rather annoying to see WaPo quote a supposed expert telling us what's "very clear" in the rhetoric and then slap the label "swagger" on it. Show us the rhetoric, and let us judge. I'm displaying your rhetoric, so my readers can judge.
Until now, the campaign has been concerned mostly with the economy, and foreign policy has been viewed largely as a strength for the president, who was behind the killing of Osama bin Laden.So, I suspect, you're putting out this article, with that front-page headline, in an effort to help shore up the fortunes of your favored candidate. Let's find a way to scare voters... equate Romney with Bush!
But the recent unrest in the Muslim world — revealed in the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11 that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — has exposed Obama politically and been seized upon by Romney as a product of what he calls the president’s weak engagement of the world.
The conflicting philosophies Obama and Romney outlined this week are consistent in large part with their life experiences.
Those backgrounds have given each a different vantage on the world — a former chief executive’s broad-strokes view of how it should work and a former community organizer’s details-matter assessment — and different opinions about the best way to promote U.S. interests at a time of fiscal constraint at home and rapid change abroad.What?! You're just going to make generalizations about the 2 men based on what they did in the parts of their careers when they were not politicians, and Romney's long career as a business executive is translated into a "broad-strokes view of how it should work" and Obama's short bit of time performing the little-examined role of "community organizer" shows he's a details guy! And the suggestion is that Obama actually got things done while Romney floated above it all with ideas about what "should work." Businessfolk can just believe in big dreams? Is there any evidence at all the Romney didn't have to pay attention to the facts on the ground as he went about these business enterprises, that he didn't get tested over and over by whether things actually did work?
If we keep going and click over to page 2 and scroll halfway down (which I think very few readers will do), we get to more contrasts between Obama and Bush, with Obama the "realist, free of the 'freedom agenda' ideology." Obama doesn't talk freedom ideology?
Obama’s choice of force... is the drone strike, which he has expanded greatly from the Bush years on similarly contested legal ground.So he is like Bush. Even more than Bush.
[Obama's] realism has often felt arid to those trying to understand it, too calculating and lacking in passion for U.S. values and power. This is the vein Romney has sought to tap.Lest you think Romney might have an advantage here, please picture him draining blood from one of Obama's veins. (The normal metaphor using "vein" has to do with mineral deposits, and the verb should be "mine" not "tap.")
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
"Some people always don't get something, but I figured describing PowerPoint as having been invented to euthanize cattle would make the satire clear."
Said Politico's Roger Simon, referring to something that appeared on page 2 of his satire. Don't you know about satire?! You r dum.
I call bullshit. People don't read and read down into an article. Simon intentionally put a fake quote out there knowing it would be taken as real. You have to get 2/3 of the way into his piece to see the euthanize-cattle nudge. That's not the way people read these days.
Here you can see page 1. Who would click to page 2?
This was a deliberate attempt to pollute the public debate, to promote Simon's candidate. He would never fun with Obama like that. He kept his deniability, but he put it way down where no one would read. His writing doesn't merit the click to page 2.
I call bullshit. People don't read and read down into an article. Simon intentionally put a fake quote out there knowing it would be taken as real. You have to get 2/3 of the way into his piece to see the euthanize-cattle nudge. That's not the way people read these days.
Here you can see page 1. Who would click to page 2?
This was a deliberate attempt to pollute the public debate, to promote Simon's candidate. He would never fun with Obama like that. He kept his deniability, but he put it way down where no one would read. His writing doesn't merit the click to page 2.
Everyone's winking at Drudge right now.
Here's the archived page, so you can click all the links. Here's Drudge itself.
Now, let's analyze the winkage. The main headline is Hillary, acknowledging her recent dissembling about Libya. She was just bullshitting before. Meanwhile, Obama's "GETTING SERIOUS," planning a 3-day debate prep. And Putin wants Obama to win. What's Michelle winking about? If the kids feel hungry after the lunches she's skimpified, let them
"It's not surprising that some youngsters will in the middle of the day be hungry," [Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said]... "We understand that change is difficult... Some folks love it, some folks have had questions about it, but that's to be expected..."Regardless of how tall you are, whether you're in a growth spurt, and whether you're active and athletic. Everyone must pay — with their own bodies, as they are trapped in compulsory schooling — for the subset of kids who eat more than their bodies need. One size fits all. Uniformity.
Under the new regulations, cafeterias are required to serve twice as many fruits and vegetables while limiting proteins and carbohydrates. For an average high school student, that means two baked fish nuggets, a cup of vegetables, half a cup of mashed potatoes, one whole grain roll and 8 ounces of fat free milk is the fuel that served to get them through their last four hours of classes.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The main topic is: Everyone's winking. That means: It's all bullshit now, don't you know?
Madonna "was being ironic on stage" when she said we have "a Black Muslim in the White House."
“Yes, I know Obama is not a Muslim — though I know that plenty of people in this country think he is. And what if he were? The point I was making is that a good man is a good man, no matter who he prays to. I don’t care what religion Obama is — nor should anyone else in America.”
Should on-stage performers dumb it down for the people who aren't sophisticated enough to process humor?
I'm sure it's all very amusing for Madonna, who gets big publicity and looks "edgy" again. People call her stupid, and then she one-ups them and can seem — certainly to herself — to be quite smart. (Did you hear she has an IQ of 140? Same as Hillary Clinton. And Shakira.)
Others wielding humor have more to worry about. Like Romney with his "trees are just the right height" and, more recently, about those airplane windows that "don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that." People aren't going to get it if they don't want to get it, if they're looking for material to use to say you're an idiot.
And Romney can't make the Madonna move and call his antagonists dumb. Mitt Romney — who, like Madonna, was born in Michigan, where the trees are just the right height — has an estimated IQ in the range of 130 to 139, which is smart enough to choose whether to dumb it down in self-defense.
ADDED: Look at how Paul Ryan's antagonists are trying to hurt him by pretending not to get his sense of humor. Are they stupid or pretending to be stupid? Tobin Harshaw writes:
AND: Wait. Ryan never even made those "Stench" remarks. A Politico writer made them up and intended it as satire. I thought they were good enough jokes to be believable as the casual humor of a relatively young man, and I would have appreciated them as such. Harshaw is attacking Ryan's antagonists as so hostile that they didn't pick up that it was humor. I didn't pick up that it was humor, and I was defending Ryan. That's all very odd.
ALSO: I like the way Drudge is putting it: "MEDIA 'SATIRE' HIT PIECE ON PAUL RYAN BACKFIRES.../O'Donnell, Krugman 'fooled'..." Drudge is, I think, insinuating that Politico's Roger Simon intended to be misunderstood, for the Ryan quotes to be believed, and then to reveal that it was satire after the damage was done.
MORE: Fake quotes live on as real. Remember Sarah Palin's most famous quote: "I can see Russia from my house."
Should on-stage performers dumb it down for the people who aren't sophisticated enough to process humor?
I'm sure it's all very amusing for Madonna, who gets big publicity and looks "edgy" again. People call her stupid, and then she one-ups them and can seem — certainly to herself — to be quite smart. (Did you hear she has an IQ of 140? Same as Hillary Clinton. And Shakira.)
Others wielding humor have more to worry about. Like Romney with his "trees are just the right height" and, more recently, about those airplane windows that "don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that." People aren't going to get it if they don't want to get it, if they're looking for material to use to say you're an idiot.
And Romney can't make the Madonna move and call his antagonists dumb. Mitt Romney — who, like Madonna, was born in Michigan, where the trees are just the right height — has an estimated IQ in the range of 130 to 139, which is smart enough to choose whether to dumb it down in self-defense.
ADDED: Look at how Paul Ryan's antagonists are trying to hurt him by pretending not to get his sense of humor. Are they stupid or pretending to be stupid? Tobin Harshaw writes:
There is no underestimating the literal-mindedness of the American reader: Years ago when I worked at the Times we published a satirical op-ed column by Steve Martin riffing on the idea that a NASA Mars probe had discovered millions of kittens on the Red Planet. Shortly thereafter, a subscriber sent a terse letter to the editor asking us to "inform your science correspondent" that the lack of oxygen on Mars made kitten infestation highly unlikely.Wait. Why is Harshaw assuming the letter-writer wasn't doing humor?
AND: Wait. Ryan never even made those "Stench" remarks. A Politico writer made them up and intended it as satire. I thought they were good enough jokes to be believable as the casual humor of a relatively young man, and I would have appreciated them as such. Harshaw is attacking Ryan's antagonists as so hostile that they didn't pick up that it was humor. I didn't pick up that it was humor, and I was defending Ryan. That's all very odd.
ALSO: I like the way Drudge is putting it: "MEDIA 'SATIRE' HIT PIECE ON PAUL RYAN BACKFIRES.../O'Donnell, Krugman 'fooled'..." Drudge is, I think, insinuating that Politico's Roger Simon intended to be misunderstood, for the Ryan quotes to be believed, and then to reveal that it was satire after the damage was done.
MORE: Fake quotes live on as real. Remember Sarah Palin's most famous quote: "I can see Russia from my house."
"Less than a month after reopening, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is full of algae, a sea of green overshadowing the nearly two-year, $34 million renovation of the famous site."
"This is a direct consequence of the fact that this is a green project,” said spokeswoman Carol Johnson. “The conditions are pretty good for algae, once it gets in there.”
Visitors to the pool described it as similar to “split pea soup,” “muddy,” like the “surface of the moon” and “icky-looking.”You wanted green... and you got it.
“It doesn’t look like a $34 million circulation job,” Jim Carroll, 85, of Wisconsin said as he looked out over the pool....
“It doesn’t reflect well on the city at all,” Carolyn Rossinsky, 49, of Miami said as she sat near the pool.
“It looks like green fluff,” she added.
"The one thing you can say about the standard high-heeled shoe..."
"... in response to entirely reasonable criticisms that they’re painful, physically damaging and ultimately a little sexist, is that they’re aesthetically pleasing."
We think that has a lot to do with why they’ve become a classic and why women’s footwear hasn’t really changed all that much in the last 50 years...Astounding shoe pics at the link.
But these? We’re sorry, we love Miuccia and her entirely original ideas, but these are just plain ugly to us. Seriously ugly. Aggressively ugly.
This is what Wisconsin protesting looks like...
... these days.
Last year's vast crowds were a magnet for all sorts of people, and some of them were individuals with problems of their own, looking for meaning within a group. As the crowds disperse, who is left? What can they do? Where is the meaning?
If the seeming meaning they found does not remain and cannot be revived, perhaps these once-lost souls feel that they are dying.
Last year's vast crowds were a magnet for all sorts of people, and some of them were individuals with problems of their own, looking for meaning within a group. As the crowds disperse, who is left? What can they do? Where is the meaning?
If the seeming meaning they found does not remain and cannot be revived, perhaps these once-lost souls feel that they are dying.
"I'm not a weakling and a censor like you."
"And I actually wish I could interact with what you have if it had some value beyond your typical Althouse is being stupid again. (Really intelligent to come up with that, little schoolboys.)"
(Careful, with the link within the link that I link to at that link. That's the blog I'm punishing with traffic starvation.)
(Careful, with the link within the link that I link to at that link. That's the blog I'm punishing with traffic starvation.)
Obama 46%, Romney 46%.
In the Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll. If you push undecideds and get an answer — that is, you include "leaners" — the Obama number stays the same, and Romney goes up to 48%.
It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.
I won't even lean. Go ahead push me. I won't turn into a "leaner" that can be included on one side or the other. I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.
It's amazing that with all the events of the last couple weeks, especially the shift of focus to terrorism but also the media's constant pounding on Romney, that that candidates stay locked in a tie. Is there some inherent balancing mechanism in the American electorate? It must drive the politicos bonkers. It relaxes and amuses me — me, one of the undecideds.
I won't even lean. Go ahead push me. I won't turn into a "leaner" that can be included on one side or the other. I have the American inherent balancing mechanism.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
"Some of the replacement referees working for the NFL... aren't even good enough for the Lingerie Football League..."
"... it was revealed on Tuesday."
The LFL, which fields women playing in bras and skimpy underwear, announced that it had fired several of the referees now calling prime time NFL games for 'on-field incompetent officiating.'
"On issues related to the military and foreign policy, Obama’s worse than Bush, 'in the sense that he’s more aggressive, more illegal worldwide."
Said Ralph Nader, calling Obama a “war criminal."
“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”
"We are more likely to be receptive to good news than bad..."
"... and a team at UCL has gone some way to explaining why we prefer to look on the bright side."
If you had the power to true us up would you dare use it?
"We believe the left inferior frontal gyrus is normally inhibiting other parts of the brain from learning from bad news. But by interfering with the left IFG we're releasing this inhibition," says [Cognitive neuroscientist Tali] Sharot...If what we get wrong helps us live, there is a rightness that's different from truth. So much of what is beautiful and wonderful about human life is full of inaccuracies and distortions.
Chris Chambers, a cognitive neuroscientist at Cardiff University, said one surprise was that TMS had such a specific effect, apparently without affecting other aspects of behaviour, such as emotional arousal or attention....
Should we try to base our views more on bad news? Probably not. The good news bias tends to be less common in people with depression, suggesting the optimists' view of life is good for our wellbeing and helps to motivate us.
If you had the power to true us up would you dare use it?
"Federal authorities on Tuesday took legal action against 71 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County..."
"... part of an ongoing campaign to crack down on the establishments."
“Over the past several years, we have seen an explosion of commercial marijuana stores -– an explosion that is being driven by the massive profits associated with marijuana distribution,” said U.S. Atty. André Birotte Jr. in a statement. “As today’s operations make clear, the sale and distribution of marijuana violates federal law, and we intend to enforce the law. Even those stores not targeted today should understand that they cannot continue to profit in violation of the law.”That makes it sound — it's strange and yet familiar — as though what the government opposes is profit. Not drugs.
"2013 bacon shortage 'unavoidable.'"
It's all about the drought and the cost of soy and corn. We eat bacon every day at Meadhouse, so this is alarming news.
Obama at the U.N.: "[A] crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.... The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech."
“Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs," he said. "As President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views--even views that we profoundly disagree with.
“Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that," said Obama. “But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Justice Stevens rejects the idea that legal expertise is the reason why judges have the last word on the meaning of the Constitution.
The retired Justice is reviewing Sanford Levinson's new book "Framed: America’s Fifty-One Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance." Levinson has offered 3 different reasons why judges have this role in our system of separated powers:
[F]irst, that they are experts in the law in the same way that rocket scientists have a field of expertise; second, that they are gifted with exceptional wisdom; or third, that the terms of their office liberate them from “political” constraints. He correctly rejects the first answer because the number of dissenting opinions belies the suggestion that there is only one permissible answer to the kind of question that courts consider. He correctly rejects the second answer because he agrees with Justice Holmes that “the life of the law is not logic, but experience.” While he concludes that the third answer depends on one’s views about the empirical consequences of election of judges, in my judgment, he accurately identifies the controlling criterion in this sentence: “Life tenure and the liberation from political accountability would remove certain incentives that lead ordinary leaders to betray the public good.”
Did Scott Brown staffers make anti-Indian gestures at a rally?
I'm not saying it was good or wise for them to make the "tomahawk chop" gesture while yelling in a way that the news report characterizes as an "Indian war whoop." And Scott Brown has said he doesn't condone that sort of acting out, but I just want to specify that the staffers' gesturing and noise-making doesn't count as antagonism toward Native Americans.
Someone doing the "tomahawk chop" is himself playing the role of Indian. This Indian character making a stereotypical gesture can't be read as expressing hostility toward Indians. The Indian is his hero. At a certain level of political correctness, the tomahawk chop is considered offensive to Native Americans, but somehow it's not offensive enough to have stopped Atlanta Braves fans from doing it.
Anyway, these fake Indians, the staffers, are pretending to be real Indians, miming an attack on Elizabeth Warren on the ground that she's a fake Indian. There's a lot of fakery in there, but no one is expressing the view that it's bad to be Indian. That's all I wanted to say, and I do understand how real Indians might prefer not to be represented as stereotypical characters. And maybe they'd object even more if a non-Indian got a great job from an employer who was practicing affirmative action in hiring or self-promoting by claiming diversity.
Someone doing the "tomahawk chop" is himself playing the role of Indian. This Indian character making a stereotypical gesture can't be read as expressing hostility toward Indians. The Indian is his hero. At a certain level of political correctness, the tomahawk chop is considered offensive to Native Americans, but somehow it's not offensive enough to have stopped Atlanta Braves fans from doing it.
Anyway, these fake Indians, the staffers, are pretending to be real Indians, miming an attack on Elizabeth Warren on the ground that she's a fake Indian. There's a lot of fakery in there, but no one is expressing the view that it's bad to be Indian. That's all I wanted to say, and I do understand how real Indians might prefer not to be represented as stereotypical characters. And maybe they'd object even more if a non-Indian got a great job from an employer who was practicing affirmative action in hiring or self-promoting by claiming diversity.
"What's behind all the... hype?" — asks the Washington Post, revealingly.
The WaPo seems to be brimming with optimism about the sunny prospects of our handsome President. Look at him striding forward silhouetted against blue skies.
But look closely, there across the top. Yes, the new poll — Lead widens! — and there's Elizabeth Warren — Gloves are off! — but then the facade slips. See it?
"What's behind all this kale hype?"
Yeah! Hype! I keep seeing it everywhere! Ridiculous promotion! Ridiculous promotion of... a vegetable. You know, that one: Kale!!! Why's everybody talking about kale?!! Kale! It's on everyone's lips! Kale! We're gonna live forever! Kale! I'm gonna learn how to fly! On Air Force One!!!11!!1! I got more in me, and you can set it free, I can catch the moon in my hands. Don't you know who I am? Barack Obama. And Kale! We're gonna live forever. I feel it coming together. People will see me and cry. Kale! I'm gonna make it to heaven! He went to Harvard not Yale! Kale!
And have you heard? WE'RE EATING MORE BEETS!
But look closely, there across the top. Yes, the new poll — Lead widens! — and there's Elizabeth Warren — Gloves are off! — but then the facade slips. See it?
"What's behind all this kale hype?"
Yeah! Hype! I keep seeing it everywhere! Ridiculous promotion! Ridiculous promotion of... a vegetable. You know, that one: Kale!!! Why's everybody talking about kale?!! Kale! It's on everyone's lips! Kale! We're gonna live forever! Kale! I'm gonna learn how to fly! On Air Force One!!!11!!1! I got more in me, and you can set it free, I can catch the moon in my hands. Don't you know who I am? Barack Obama. And Kale! We're gonna live forever. I feel it coming together. People will see me and cry. Kale! I'm gonna make it to heaven! He went to Harvard not Yale! Kale!
And have you heard? WE'RE EATING MORE BEETS!
"Freedoms must not interfere with the freedoms of others," said Ahmadinejad.
"If someone insults, what would you do? ... Is insulting other people not a form of crime?"
In other words, it's irrelevant that the U.S. government didn't make the "Innocence of Muslims" video. In this frame of thinking, the government should be protecting people from infringement of their freedom not to be insulted.
Ahmadinejad also talked about Salman Rushdie: "Where is he now?... Is he in the United States? If he is, you shouldn't broadcast that for his own safety."
(Most of the linked article is about Ahmadinejad's opinion of Israel — it doesn't belong in the Middle East and will be removed.)
(By the way, in my home town, a man was arrested for what the news report characterizes as insulting journalists. If insulting people is going to be a crime, you'd think the least sympathetic victims would be journalists.)
In other words, it's irrelevant that the U.S. government didn't make the "Innocence of Muslims" video. In this frame of thinking, the government should be protecting people from infringement of their freedom not to be insulted.
Ahmadinejad also talked about Salman Rushdie: "Where is he now?... Is he in the United States? If he is, you shouldn't broadcast that for his own safety."
(Most of the linked article is about Ahmadinejad's opinion of Israel — it doesn't belong in the Middle East and will be removed.)
(By the way, in my home town, a man was arrested for what the news report characterizes as insulting journalists. If insulting people is going to be a crime, you'd think the least sympathetic victims would be journalists.)
"More Americans now commit suicide than are killed in car crashes as miserable economy takes its toll.”
That's the headline asserting causation based on correlation and... there actually isn't even correlation.
Quite apart from that, if car crashes decrease and suicides increase, maybe all that is really happening is that the car crash method of suicide is becoming less popular. That is, previously, some suicides were hidden within the car crash numbers. Suicide numbers will go up if the method used for a suicide makes it crushingly clear it wasn't an accident. I'll speculate that guns cause a high proportion of suicides in part for this reason.
Quite apart from that, if car crashes decrease and suicides increase, maybe all that is really happening is that the car crash method of suicide is becoming less popular. That is, previously, some suicides were hidden within the car crash numbers. Suicide numbers will go up if the method used for a suicide makes it crushingly clear it wasn't an accident. I'll speculate that guns cause a high proportion of suicides in part for this reason.
Wisconsin state senator Jon Erpenbach tweets the NFL commissioner's phone number...
... because, you know, those damned replacement officials and Jennings caught that ball and offensive pass interference and arrrggghhhh come on people let's harass Roger Goodell.
ADDED: "Twitter Lynch Mob: Let’s kill NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell."
And: "Scott Walker: ‘Return the real refs’; Libs cry hypocrisy over unions, spew venom."
ADDED: "Twitter Lynch Mob: Let’s kill NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell."
And: "Scott Walker: ‘Return the real refs’; Libs cry hypocrisy over unions, spew venom."
"Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik?"
A WSJ op-ed by Michael B. Mukasey, who presided over the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman and sentenced him to life in prison.
Abdel Rahman was convicted in 1995 of participating in a seditious conspiracy that included the [Meir] Kahane murder, the 1993 WTC bombing, and a plot to blow up other landmarks in New York and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he visited the United Nations....Mukasey reviews the evidence that the Obama administration is contemplating releasing him, including the "excruciatingly lawyered" sounding statement of officials. For example, Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who, before Congress, asked "whether there is an intention 'at any time to release the Blind Sheikh,'" said, "Well, let me just say this. I know of no such intention."
In 1997, members of Abdel Rahman's organization... murdered more than 60 tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and inserted notes in the body cavities of several victims demanding the Blind Sheik's release. Also in the mid-1990s, Abdel Rahman contrived from jail to issue the fatwa that Osama bin Laden cited as authorization to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The sheik's confinement was on bin Laden's list of grievances meant to justify that atrocity.
... Abdel Rahman has been a totemic figure to Islamists since 1981, when his pronouncements gave a group of Egyptian army officers the spiritual justification for assassinating President Anwar Sadat. The officers were hanged, but Abdel Rahman successfully defended himself at trial by arguing that he had simply been opining on issues of Islamic law and should not face censure for that in a Muslim country.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is leaving kids hungry.
Or so they sing:
Link to video via Drudge, who also links to:
Link to video via Drudge, who also links to:
'WE ARE HUNGRY'...
WASTED FOOD...
COMPLAINTS MOUNT AGAINST MICHELLE O'S NEW LUNCH MENU
The crime of insulting journalists.
As the Wisconsin State Journal puts it:
Jeremy Ryan, 24, of Madison is accused of hurling taunts and insults at journalists, including singing insulting songs about the death of a longtime journalist, Richard Wheeler. Wheeler died suddenly in November 2011, and the Capitol press room was named for him after his death.
Ryan also shouted derogatory names for news organizations, including the State Journal....
The chameleon work
... of the illustrious Chip Ahoy, who explains his methodology for taking my photographs and perceiving the animal hiding therein. He found the chameleon in the hot peppers I displayed today:
It's that curled tail that gave it away! Chip points us back to the old poodle in the carpet:
The very well disguised elephant in the blue tile wall:
And my personal favorite, the giraffe in the woods:
It's that curled tail that gave it away! Chip points us back to the old poodle in the carpet:
The very well disguised elephant in the blue tile wall:
And my personal favorite, the giraffe in the woods:
Let's not get too distracted by the State Department spokeman's saying "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life"...
... to that BuzzFeed reporter, Michael Hastings. There's so much more of immensely great importance in their email exchange about what that spokesman — Phillippe Reines — had been trying to get us to think about CNN's use of the Chris Stevens journal, found at the site of the murder in Benghazi, after our diplomatic personnel fled the scene.
Hastings emailed an excellent set of questions:
Hastings emailed an excellent set of questions:
Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?And Reines couldn't or wouldn't answer these questions. He continued those pretty defensive efforts to shift the focus to CNN. When Hastings pressed him, Reines resorted to "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life." Those nasty comebacks shouldn't be the story. They should direct us to the set of questions. Those are great questions, and the State Department will not answer them. Without answers, they feel like questions that answer themselves.
I've been thinking a lot today about about the verb "to like."
First, I was struck by the Democratic pollster who said, about Romney, "Ultimately, people don’t like this guy. If they don’t like someone, it’s hard to get people to vote for him — particularly to fire someone they do like."
And then later today, I overheard a professor — I won't say who — telling students they will be meeting representatives of 2 groups, one conservative and one liberal, and that they "would like" the liberals. These particular conservatives, he said, were more effective pursuing their aims — some field of policy that I won't identify — but the liberals, you will like.
And it got me thinking about this word "like." What is this liking that we do — or are told to do or assert that we do — these days? You can "like" somebody on Facebook. It's a social thing. Politically, it's about liberals. Liberals are likeable. Barack Obama is — it's drummed into our heads — likeable. He's so likeable. He got ahead of Hillary Clinton for being so darned likeable, and he famously said "You're likeable enough" to her on his way to beating her to the nomination.
It occurred to me that that liberals have quite effectively insinuated the message into our brains that they are likeable, and, in particular, Barack Obama is likeable. And that doesn't just mean that any given individual likes him, subjectively. He is likeable, objectively. If you don't like him, what's wrong with you? You don't seem likeable. You'd better like him or no one will like you. All the likeable people are liberal, so you'd better be liberal or no one will like you.
That sounds very schoolyard, or like a shallow adult. Maybe if you're old like me, you remember the Arthur Miller play "Death of a Salesman," in which a pathetic man was way too concerned about whether he was well liked. Years ago, when we Baby Boomers were young, it seemed pathetic to dwell on being liked. It was a distraction for small minds, for conventional people.
Consider the etymology of the verb "to like":
I'm reading the long Oxford English Dictionary entry for "like" — sorry, it's not linkable — and I run across the line in "Uncle Tom's Cabin": "I may like him well enough; but you don't love your servants." I can link to the full context:
But only like. You don't love....
Love... it's so old fashioned and retrograde. It's what the Baby Boomers talked about, back when they were hippies.
And then later today, I overheard a professor — I won't say who — telling students they will be meeting representatives of 2 groups, one conservative and one liberal, and that they "would like" the liberals. These particular conservatives, he said, were more effective pursuing their aims — some field of policy that I won't identify — but the liberals, you will like.
And it got me thinking about this word "like." What is this liking that we do — or are told to do or assert that we do — these days? You can "like" somebody on Facebook. It's a social thing. Politically, it's about liberals. Liberals are likeable. Barack Obama is — it's drummed into our heads — likeable. He's so likeable. He got ahead of Hillary Clinton for being so darned likeable, and he famously said "You're likeable enough" to her on his way to beating her to the nomination.
It occurred to me that that liberals have quite effectively insinuated the message into our brains that they are likeable, and, in particular, Barack Obama is likeable. And that doesn't just mean that any given individual likes him, subjectively. He is likeable, objectively. If you don't like him, what's wrong with you? You don't seem likeable. You'd better like him or no one will like you. All the likeable people are liberal, so you'd better be liberal or no one will like you.
That sounds very schoolyard, or like a shallow adult. Maybe if you're old like me, you remember the Arthur Miller play "Death of a Salesman," in which a pathetic man was way too concerned about whether he was well liked. Years ago, when we Baby Boomers were young, it seemed pathetic to dwell on being liked. It was a distraction for small minds, for conventional people.
Consider the etymology of the verb "to like":
O.E. lician "to please, be sufficient," from P.Gmc. *likjan (cf. O.N. lika, O.Fris. likia, O.H.G. lihhen, Goth. leikan "to please"), from *lik- "body, form; like, same." The basic meaning seems to be "to be like" (see like (adj.)), thus, "to be suitable." Like (and dislike) originally flowed the other way: It likes me, where we would say I like it. The modern flow began to appear late 14c.The modern flow! I like Obama would pre-14c be expressed: Obama likes me. He pleases me. And why? Because he's like me? I see myself in him? Is that what we are doing? Looking in a mirror? If it feels as though we are looking in a mirror, we like him?
I'm reading the long Oxford English Dictionary entry for "like" — sorry, it's not linkable — and I run across the line in "Uncle Tom's Cabin": "I may like him well enough; but you don't love your servants." I can link to the full context:
"Would you think you were well off, if there were not one creature in the world near you to love you?"
"I?—Well, of course not."
"And you have taken Dodo away from all the friends he ever had, and now he has not a creature to love him;—nobody can be good that way."
"Well, I can't help it, as I know of. I can't get his mother and I can't love him myself, nor anybody else, as I know of "
"Why can't you?" said Eva.
"Love Dodo! Why, Eva, you wouldn't have me! I may like him well enough; but you don't love your servants."
"I do, indeed."
"How odd!"
"Don't the Bible say we must love everybody?"
"O, the Bible! To be sure, it says a great many such things; but, then, nobody ever thinks of doing them,—you know, Eva, nobody does."
Eva did not speak; her eyes were fixed and thoughtful for a few moments.Now, I certainly don't think we ought to love our political leaders. "He loved Big Brother" is the last line of George Orwell's "1984":
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.Horrifying. But this liking of Obama — not loving, liking — what is it? Is it racist? You like him. You really, really like him. Or something's wrong with you. Do you twinge with anxiety that you might be racist if you don't like him? Better like him. Why suffer the cruel, needless misunderstanding, the stubborn, self-willed exile from the likeable breast! Everything can be all right. The struggle can be finished. Surrender to the victory over yourself. You like Barack Obama.
But only like. You don't love....
Love... it's so old fashioned and retrograde. It's what the Baby Boomers talked about, back when they were hippies.
It's so fine, It's sunshineNot anymore. Now, the word is: LIKE.
It's the word, love
Everywhere I go I hear it said
In the good and the bad books that I have read
Grand gesticulations over things small and large.
At Drudge just now now (click to enlarge):
In the right column, we've got Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day swearing and gesticulating over his show time getting cut down to 1 minute.
In the middle column, it's Senate candidate/lawprof Elizabeth Warren:
... "Feds brace for historic stink bug outbreak..."
In the right column, we've got Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day swearing and gesticulating over his show time getting cut down to 1 minute.
In the middle column, it's Senate candidate/lawprof Elizabeth Warren:
DOES ELIZABETH WARREN HAVE A LAW LICENSE PROBLEM?If you keep scrolling, beyond my screen grab, there's also:
... On defensive again over heritage claimAnd a picture of a stink bug...
... "Feds brace for historic stink bug outbreak..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
