"Obama to spend long holiday weekend in Florida — without Michelle..."

Says Drudge, collecting a set of teasers under what seems to be a very old picture of Michelle and Barack (as if to say, they were in love once but not anymore):



Those 2 go on plenty of vacations together, and now, he wants to golf and she doesn't have anything she likes doing in Florida. And she likes to ski. She's going to Aspen. This seems perfectly fine to me.

Should your spouse travel without you when he/she loves a sport that you don't care about?
	No, he/she should plan a different vacation somewhere else that you both like.
	He/she should find a way to take you along and include you in some side activities that you like.
	You should go along and attempt to participate in the activity.
	It's okay only if you get a simultaneous, equally good vacation that you like.
	He/she should feel free to go, even if you are left home alone.
	He/she can go, but payback will be exacted at a time and in a form he/she cannot predict.
pollcode.com free polls

Politicians and their wives... chez Drudge.

Right now, at Drudge, at the top of the middle and left columns:



The message of the juxtaposition seems to be: Powerful political wives dominate their husbands. Or: Bow down to women, O ye men!

Here's the story about Carla and Nicolas moving to — of all places to avoid taxes — the UK. You know taxes are harsh when England seems like the way out. (Didn't the English rock stars use to move to France to avoid taxes? (Back in the days when The Beatles contributed to the protest-song genre with "Taxman.")

[Nicolas Sarkozy] and his former supermodel third wife Carla Bruni-Sarkozy would be likely to settle in an affluent district like South Kensington – so becoming the most high profile Gallic celebrity couple in the city.

But the former president is under investigation for corruption in France, and if he does cross the Channel there will be outrage.

Oh, to be relatively young and super high profile! Carla is waving bye-bye. We'll see what her getaway looks like. (How "Gallic" is Carla Bruni? She was born Carla Gilberta Bruni Tedeschi, in Turin, Italy. How coupled is she? She famously cheated on Eric Clapton with Mick Jagger.)

Meanwhile, in America, I've got no criticism of Barack Obama bowing to his wife as he invites her to dance. Or do you think anytime he bows, he calls up the old bowing-to-dictators meme?

Drudge slags the First Lady with the unsupported assertion that the "Inaugural lunch tops 3,000 calories."

Drudge links to a Washington Times article that refers without linking to another website that supposedly lists the items on the menu and purports to know the calorie count. I found that other website myself, and here's the article, which is obviously exaggerating the calorie count by assuming immense portion sizes. A first course of lobster, with some sauce and potato is unlikely to add up to 783 calories. It's almost surely tiny. A second course with grilled bison and some squash puree is not going to be 1194 calories. It's a lunch entree of lean meat.

This is a very nice and sensible lunch. Stop pooping on it!

Speaking of Presidents and nightmares...

I had a dream last night that I woke up, looked at my iPhone, and saw a terrible headline in Drudge. I tried really hard to yell it out to Meade, who was asleep. It was impossible to yell, which should have tipped me off that it was a dream, but it was so realistic — the dream of waking up in bed and doing something that you tend to do while still in bed — that later, when I really did wake up, I grabbed my iPhone, went right to Drudge, and I was so relieved to see the same headline that was there when I went to bed Friday night.

It's a particularly cheerful headline — "Stocks Hit 5 Year High" — with a picture of wine glasses splashily clinking, angled together in a position that parallels Oprah's hands in a picture just above and to the left. Oprah looks alarmed/outraged, but only because "He even lied — to Oprah?!" And how reassuring that is. The outrage of the day is Lance Armstrong, doping and lying, the same old thing, and it's something that only vaguely affects us. Thank God.

What was the headline I saw in my dream? I won't tell you. It's not that I'm superstitious, but ideas affect minds, and it's an image I won't put out there.

Essence of Drudge.

Is that a form of argument?

What is Drudge trying to say about Sonia Sotomayor?

This is at the top of the right-hand column at Drudge this morning:



Now, as we saw last night, what Justice Sotomayor did was deny an emergency injunction. That would have required a finding that "the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear," which clearly, they are not. And her opinion never mentions "morning-after" pills, only contraception, generally. (The challenged HRSA’s guidelines refer to "all Food and Drug Administration . . . approved contraceptive methods.")

With that rather strange photograph and the reference to "morning-after," I've got to infer that Drudge intended sexual humor aimed at the Justice. I think the photograph was chosen for the "bedroom hair" and the groggy eyes. Or do you focus on the hand? Does it seem to be tossing pills at us?

David Gregory, neatly tweaked...

... by Drudge (in Christmas colors):



The links are: "Did David Gregory Violate DC Gun Law On National TV?" and "Mocks NRA Chief for Proposing Armed Guards; Sends Kids to High-Security School..."

And here's the transcript for the whole interview. We watched it. Gregory was all heated up, eager to extract his sound bites from LaPierre, in the typical style of recent gun control debates I've seen, like this one between Bob Wright and Jacob Sullum. The one who wants gun control cranks up the emotion, and the gun control opponent stolidly stands his ground.

It's like they intended to make an implicit argument, premised on the question: This is what a human being is like; do you want people to have guns? The gun control advocate models the answer "no" (because people run on emotion and might do unpredictable, regrettable things). The gun control opponent models the answer "yes" (because people are stable and rational).

It's all about control: Do you think people are self-controlled or is government control needed? And now, I see this post is about to bust loose into a much more general set of observations about politics, and I don't want to do that. This is a blog post, the first of the day, and it needs to come to an end. So let me leave you with 3 brief bonus observations:

1. David Gregory was not appearing on "Meet the Press" as a gun control advocate. He's the moderator... some sort of "journalist."

2. If a new federal gun control program includes a buy-back of some newly banned "assault" weapons, it will be like Cash for Clunkers. I hated Cash for Clunkers.

3. The post-Newtown gun control advocates have been emphasizing the gun, rather than the person, on the theory that a person may have murderous impulses but if he doesn't have a gun, he won't be able to do as much damage. But in real life, if you had someone in you midst who was bent on murder, you would not think: Well, at least he doesn't have a gun. If he goes off, what's the worst he can do, maybe 4 or 5 kids, max?

Drudge revolts against the British.

Yes, of course, the British don't like our guns.



They're still licking their wounds from the 18th century.

Drudge features huge, horrible Pelosi laughing skull-face.

This is expressive:



You have to click over to Drudge to get the real effect. The picture is huge. The link goes here.)

"Tiny monkey in a little coat runs amok in IKEA store..."

Notes Drudge, with tiny pic:



Linking here:

The primate's owners, who had been shopping in Ikea, came forward after the incident. They now face $240 fine for having an illegal pet.

The rhesus macaque species is not endangered but it is against the law to keep the animal in Ontario....

Yes, it's cruel to keep it in Ontario.

News of a monkey in a coat visiting Ikea quickly went viral on social networks. On Twitter, #Ikeamonkey trended and there are least two parody accounts. There is also an Ikea Monkey page on Facebook.

The Pope with a clown, Susan Rice caught between 2 power-heads, and a heavily tattoo'd quarterback.

I don't know what Matt Drudge is trying to slip into our subconscious today, but it's phantasmagoric. Felliniesque.


Click to enlarge.

The quarterback is Colin Kaepernick, who, not having murdered anybody, seems to be doing comparatively well, NFL-wise. His mother is "annoyed." The body scribblings are Bible verses (we're told). Across the chest it says "Against All Odds." Is that in the Bible? I don't know. Ask the Pope (if he's through clowning around). I've heard of the book of Philipians, so maybe there's a Philcollinsians.

Hillary and Rahm are swirling around Susan Rice. The story is Hillary prefers Kerry as her successor. Fine, but I can't see the Pope+Clown → Tattoo'd Quarterback transition. I hate to think there's no connection, that these are simply the stories that belonged at the top of their respective columns. Drudge means so much more. Tell me what the meaning is.

Here's the story about the Pope meeting 1000s of circus performers at the Vatican:

Benedict, a known cat lover, paid particular attention to a pair of lion cubs that were brought up to him, stroking them and chatting with their trainers. At one point Benedict even bent down to caress one — not an easy feat given the 85-year-old pope has trouble with his knees and occasionally uses a cane.

A gentle scene. Not the first thing that leaps to mind when you think about Christians and lions. 

What's the point?

Drudge has everyone pointing:


(Click to enlarge.)

"'HE'S A BULLSHITTER'" goes to a Weekly Standard item, quoting Obama:

As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”’

Nothing wrong with the word "bullshitter" in casual speech, and nothing special about a politician characterizing another politician as a bullshitter. It takes one to know one, and these politicians are all bullshitters. How could they be otherwise? What major-party candidate has ever not been a bullshitter?

But it is odd to imagine a 6-year-old child thinking "Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell." He was paraphrasing. Come on.

There's nothing here!

Now, quit pointing.

Quit pointing at nothing.

With 2 words, Drudge evokes Watergate for Obama's Libya troubles.

The linked story is "White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails."

The famous question from Watergate was "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

In 1973 and 1974 [Howard] Baker was... the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee... that investigated the Watergate scandal. He is famous for having asked aloud, "What did the President know and when did he know it?", a question given him to ask by his counsel and former campaign manager, future U.S. Senator Fred Thompson.

Is this Trump's impending bombshell?

"Operatives close to the Romney campaign were contacted and rejected the information..."

“They didn’t want anything to do with it,” the source said. “They thought it was not anything they wanted to be associated with or anything their candidate would want to be associated with.”...

“The operatives close to the Romney campaign believed the man’s story would be the ultimate October Surprise but they got nowhere. People who would have taken the information to the highest levels of Romney’s campaign just wouldn’t touch it."

That's at Radar, linked in the top of the center column at Drudge with the teaser: "Romney says no to Obama cocaine hit..."

Meanwhile, Trump himself is teasing that he's got a "bombshell" he's releasing on Wednesday. It's "something very, very big... It's going to be very big. I know one thing - you will cover it in a very big fashion." It's "large, bordering on gigantic." So, I get it... huge, immense size.

Drudge depicts women turning away from Obama.

Right now at Drudge:



Click to enlarge.

The full headline is "GALLUP: WOMEN TURNING AWAY." I cut "gal" from "Gallup" to symbolize the loss of females. Just kidding. I cropped the screen-grab to tighten the view of the revelant photographs. The metaphor was accidental, I admit.

But I don't think the juxtaposition of these photographs was accidental. Women are turning away, and there are Hillary Clinton and Candy Crowley, each turning away. Hillary is taking responsibility for security in Benghazi. And Candy is going rogue on debate moderation.

Click the image above to enlarge. You see what Obama is doing? He's palling around — to coin a phrase — with a cardboard image of himself. (And that was not an accidental allusion (to another gal).)

Ladies turn away from a narcissistic man — a man who is in love with himself. And ladies turn away from a man who's completely shallow — shallow to the point of 2-dimensionality.

ADDED: Rereading this post and the previous one, I find myself ranting out loud: Speaking of women turning away! We could have had the first woman President! She was there, she deserved it, she would have been better! This man who was not ready and apparently not really willing to take on the responsibilities of the presidency wooed us away from her. He deprived us of the first woman President! That's another reason for women to turn away. We can see now that the woman would have been tougher, smarter, more dedicated, every step of the way.

Hillary is letting us see that now, as she takes responsibility as she takes responsibility for security in Benghazi. It sounds as though she's protecting Obama from criticism. Sounds, superficially. But she is really criticizing him. Put the pieces together. Go back to that 2008 speech, embedded in that last post. She made her taking-responsibility statement, and immediately afterward, that video clip pops to the surface of the web. Beneath these surfaces there are depths. Not everything is 2-dimensional.

"FLASH: TV RATINGS FOR VP DEBATE DOWN SHARPLY... DEVELOPING... "

Says Drudge, in all caps, which... isn't that yelling? I'm tired of all this yelling!

CBS 10.4 MILLION
ABC 6.9 MILLION
NBC 6.8 MILLION
FOX 5.3 MILLION

*CABLE NUMBERS LATER TODAY...
**69.9 MILLION WATCHED IN 2008...

As I said, I'm tired of the yelling. I found the debate really hard to watch, but I kept watching because I was committed to live-blogging. Even still, I got catatonic. There was a point when I didn't write anything for 20 minutes and then I said:

Biden has been yelling at Martha Raddatz for the last 15 minutes (as the subject is war). It's so inappropriate!

The previous post had been:

The stress level is rising. Biden is so angry. Why is he yelling? Ryan needs nerves of steel not to lose his cool. I'm impressed that Ryan, when he gets his turn, is able to speak in an even, natural voice. It's hard to concentrate on the policy itself, because the emotional static is so strong.

That shows how I felt: pain. So here's my question. Ratings were down, I see, but when were the ratings taken? In the beginning? How did the ratings drop off over the course of the 90 minutes? Who was still around when Biden was yelling at Martha Raddatz for 15 minutes? How did the gender balance change over the course of the evening? I'll bet people — especially women — left in droves and the ratings were overall much worse than those already-low numbers say. And for the people that instinctively — with good human sense — clicked away, what was lodged in their mind was revulsion toward Biden. That's what happened to me. But then I stuck around, enduring the (second hand) brow-beating and bullying.

You know, I have an aversion to politics. If you've been reading this blog for a while, you might remember the old subtitle "Politics and the aversion to politics...." That was absolutely sincere. I am one of the many people — sensible people, many of them women! — who naturally withdraw from the political debate. It's just not worth it. Life is short, and much of it is beautiful and full of love. I want to go somewhere else. But somewhere else for me has been writing — ironically, about politics. That's an odd thing about me, but it puts me in a position where I can see some things that typical political junkies don't see. And I think I speak — in some way — for the people who would not watch that debate, certainly not much more than 20 minutes of it, with Biden's childish, clownish rudeness.

Drudge calls attention to Obama's stance during the debate.

We noticed the foot position here at Meadhouse and Meade said "He's standing like a girl," which made me say "If only he had stiletto heels."

That photo is juxtaposed with the headline "Lost, bewildered without his teleprompter..."

"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.

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 eat cake snack.

"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..."

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.

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. 

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. The main topic is: Everyone's winking. That means: It's all bullshit now, don't you know?

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:

DOES ELIZABETH WARREN HAVE A LAW LICENSE PROBLEM?

If you keep scrolling, beyond my screen grab, there's also:

... On defensive again over heritage claim

And a picture of a stink bug...



... "Feds brace for historic stink bug outbreak..."