*
Editor's note: "Moose droppings" is your Fifty50 dispensary for links to mind-bending stories about "Amerika's Governor," or "Alaska's GILF," or the "Pig With Lipstick," or whatever you wish to call Sarah Palin. Credit for the title of this hopefully short-term feature must go to VAR Of The DAR, who originally invented it for an even more ridiculous blog than the one you are now reading.
Today's dropping: Mayor Sarah's BYORK* policy!
______________
* Buy your own "rape kit."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It was a simpler time
*
Back before Michelle Obama had something to hide, before the Bush Doctrine, even before September 11 was a pre-conjugal glint in the eyes of some oily transnational villains, it was a simpler time. A time when Mavericks Roamed The Earth. A time when politicians considered each-other's families off limits. It was a time when high-profile political wives had nothing to hide.
Back before Michelle Obama had something to hide, before the Bush Doctrine, even before September 11 was a pre-conjugal glint in the eyes of some oily transnational villains, it was a simpler time. A time when Mavericks Roamed The Earth. A time when politicians considered each-other's families off limits. It was a time when high-profile political wives had nothing to hide.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Josh Marshall makes a funny
*One of the things I like about TPM is the style of humor employed by Josh Marshall. It's sort of a throwback to a more innocent time in that he rarely swears or relies on topical pop culture references. When he uses terms like "malarkey" and "bamboozlement" they have an automatic ring of authenticity, and they arrest the eye for a moment.
Today Josh and company seem to have gotten impatient with Obama's defense of his "lipstick on a pig" remark, in the face of McCain's phony outrage about it, even though McCain has repeatedly used the phrase himself (not to mention his own well documented public sexist insults of Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno, his second wife, and others). So the TPM gang does its part to help the Obama campaign and other weak-kneed Democrats get over their defensiveness and "embrace the pig."
I think the logo is cute and devastating. And TPM even provides an example of how to employ the pig in a commercial. Very nice --- wicked, but not vicious. This is the kind of stuff that the "moderate undecided voter" can instantly understand. And the laughter at the end is a nice touch.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Political gang fight metaphors
*
Earlier this campaign season I heard someone from the Obama campaign --- maybe The Man himself --- talk about bringing a gun to the Republican knife fight that is a political campaign. At the time I appreciated the sentiment but not the metaphor.
Instead of bringing a gun to the Karl Rove knife fight, Obama needs to break out the Jackie Chan moves. Aerobatic wheel kicks transmigrating into fists pumping like the pedals of Vinnie Paul's kick drums. Head butts, scampering up walls like an insane hermit crab, then dropping his shell 15 feet down right to where McCain is getting "a little thin on top." Bonking people with their own weapons in outstandingly humorous ways. That kinda thing.
In fact, I believe there are now some early signs that Obama may have this very suite of tactics in his game plan. (Can't find the @#$#^@! links I had earlier and am too tired and irascible to go harvest them again; I'm finna go to sleep now.)
Earlier this campaign season I heard someone from the Obama campaign --- maybe The Man himself --- talk about bringing a gun to the Republican knife fight that is a political campaign. At the time I appreciated the sentiment but not the metaphor.
Instead of bringing a gun to the Karl Rove knife fight, Obama needs to break out the Jackie Chan moves. Aerobatic wheel kicks transmigrating into fists pumping like the pedals of Vinnie Paul's kick drums. Head butts, scampering up walls like an insane hermit crab, then dropping his shell 15 feet down right to where McCain is getting "a little thin on top." Bonking people with their own weapons in outstandingly humorous ways. That kinda thing.
In fact, I believe there are now some early signs that Obama may have this very suite of tactics in his game plan. (Can't find the @#$#^@! links I had earlier and am too tired and irascible to go harvest them again; I'm finna go to sleep now.)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Armageddon is not just for church
*
Sometimes Atrios irritates me with his reasonable-liberal-everyman shtick. Even though he is a proud and closed-minded atheist, he sometimes tries to show how liberal-minded he is by insisting that a candidate's religion should not enter into the public discussion.
I agree with his core principle, of course: the domain of governing and public policy-making should be completely divorced from everyone's religious doctrines. But because Republicans have been working for over a generation to conflate Church and State, and to demonize all political opponents for not being members of their club --- and because the corporate media have completely normalized that concept to most of us --- sometimes it is prudent and appropriate to pay attention to the religious dogma to which officials and candidates subscribe.
So what if Sarah Palin truly believes the dogma of her Assembly of God Pentacostal denomination, which according to CNN includes a belief in "the 'end times' --- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming"? Wouldn't it be useful to know whether Governor Palin or her congregation believe that humans are empowered to help God implement Armageddon? Because in a few months Palin or someone like her may gain possession of The Football, and I think it would be best if that person is not one who comes into the game thinking it's first-and-goal.
Sometimes Atrios irritates me with his reasonable-liberal-everyman shtick. Even though he is a proud and closed-minded atheist, he sometimes tries to show how liberal-minded he is by insisting that a candidate's religion should not enter into the public discussion.
I agree with his core principle, of course: the domain of governing and public policy-making should be completely divorced from everyone's religious doctrines. But because Republicans have been working for over a generation to conflate Church and State, and to demonize all political opponents for not being members of their club --- and because the corporate media have completely normalized that concept to most of us --- sometimes it is prudent and appropriate to pay attention to the religious dogma to which officials and candidates subscribe.
So what if Sarah Palin truly believes the dogma of her Assembly of God Pentacostal denomination, which according to CNN includes a belief in "the 'end times' --- a violent upheaval that they believe will deliver Jesus Christ's second coming"? Wouldn't it be useful to know whether Governor Palin or her congregation believe that humans are empowered to help God implement Armageddon? Because in a few months Palin or someone like her may gain possession of The Football, and I think it would be best if that person is not one who comes into the game thinking it's first-and-goal.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Rudy sez...
*
"Ya ever seen the inside of one-uh them new lightbulbs? I broke one the other day. Ya know what's in there? Diodes an' shit! I thought there was just supposed to be gas in there! I'm not puttin' any-uh those in my house! I don't want the government watchin' everything I do all night!"
"Ya ever seen the inside of one-uh them new lightbulbs? I broke one the other day. Ya know what's in there? Diodes an' shit! I thought there was just supposed to be gas in there! I'm not puttin' any-uh those in my house! I don't want the government watchin' everything I do all night!"
Thursday, September 4, 2008
As seen on dansolomon.com [updated]
*
Last night I responded to an open invitation for guest posts issued by my blog-world friend Dan Solomon, who is busy resettling back in the U.S.S.A. after living in teh England. I offered Dan a StuporMundi Exclusive looking back on my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 fugue, and why I believe the principles behind my strategy would have been sound for Republicans. I'm very gratified that he posted it, and I thank him. Take a look if you like.
Update: Go read my post on dansolomon.com, goddamit!!!
Last night I responded to an open invitation for guest posts issued by my blog-world friend Dan Solomon, who is busy resettling back in the U.S.S.A. after living in teh England. I offered Dan a StuporMundi Exclusive looking back on my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 fugue, and why I believe the principles behind my strategy would have been sound for Republicans. I'm very gratified that he posted it, and I thank him. Take a look if you like.
Update: Go read my post on dansolomon.com, goddamit!!!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Fantasy presidential debate question
*
Moderator: Senator McCain, do you think the pregnancy of Governor Palin's underage daughter out of wedlock demonstrates the failure of abstinence-only sex education programs in Alaska, or does it merely indicate that the Palins failed to raise their daughter according to homespun Christian family values?
Senator McCain: That is a private matter, my friend. Although I am reluctant to speak of it publicly, I once was a war hero!
Moderator: Senator McCain, do you think the pregnancy of Governor Palin's underage daughter out of wedlock demonstrates the failure of abstinence-only sex education programs in Alaska, or does it merely indicate that the Palins failed to raise their daughter according to homespun Christian family values?
Senator McCain: That is a private matter, my friend. Although I am reluctant to speak of it publicly, I once was a war hero!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Home-made applied research [updated]
*
This evening, 1 September, I begin the first part of a two-phase experiment in which I test and compare the longevity of two different kinds of shaving razors. The objectives are to (1) see how long each razor can provide an acceptable shave and (2) determine whether the disposable give-aways that I steal from the gym are of higher quality than the replaceable cartridges I obtain in exchange for cash at the drug store.
First up: a disposable teal-colored Shick Xtreme3 ComfortPlus Xtra-Smooth "flexible" razor with "Vitamin E & Pre-shave Oil". Don't you agree that's quite a name for something what takes whiskers off your face? The performance period of Phase I is estimated to be approximately 2 months.
Update: I forgot to tell you my @#$%*#@^&! hypothesis! I wish to determine whether the promotional giveaways provide superior quality and performance to the blades you have to buy. If that is not the case, then it is difficult for me to figure out why the manufacturer would provide such largess. The object of the giveaway must be to persuade the gym rat to abandon an established brand preference in favor of the sampled brand. My experiment inaugurates a new topical area for this blog: brilliance in marketing. "Ask for yours today!"
This evening, 1 September, I begin the first part of a two-phase experiment in which I test and compare the longevity of two different kinds of shaving razors. The objectives are to (1) see how long each razor can provide an acceptable shave and (2) determine whether the disposable give-aways that I steal from the gym are of higher quality than the replaceable cartridges I obtain in exchange for cash at the drug store.
First up: a disposable teal-colored Shick Xtreme3 ComfortPlus Xtra-Smooth "flexible" razor with "Vitamin E & Pre-shave Oil". Don't you agree that's quite a name for something what takes whiskers off your face? The performance period of Phase I is estimated to be approximately 2 months.
Update: I forgot to tell you my @#$%*#@^&! hypothesis! I wish to determine whether the promotional giveaways provide superior quality and performance to the blades you have to buy. If that is not the case, then it is difficult for me to figure out why the manufacturer would provide such largess. The object of the giveaway must be to persuade the gym rat to abandon an established brand preference in favor of the sampled brand. My experiment inaugurates a new topical area for this blog: brilliance in marketing. "Ask for yours today!"
Work in progress
*
I'm periodically reproducing recent photographs under the heading of Work in progress. What's "in progress" isn't the perfection of a given picture, but my work toward developing some genuine technical skill in photography. Several of my jobs dating back to 1977 have included photography as a central duty. In the '70s I was mostly interested in subject matter that appealed to me, composition, and capture of Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment". Matters such as film exposure and high-quality darkroom printing were of theoretical interest, but they were too much to think about or too much trouble to achieve. So now, as I resume a formal interest in photography after a 25-year hiatus, I am starting with fundamentals. But they are the fundamentals of digital image-making, the technology of which in fact makes it possible to develop technical skill much faster, with less waste, and with much less expense.
The photo below was taken at the head of an odd little nature trail that occupies a vacant lot between two vintage commercial buildings across the street from WEFT, Champaign's community-operated radio station. The nature trail was constructed by a gentleman called "The Prairie Monk," who hosts a weekly radio show on WEFT. He has gardened the lot with plants typical of the native midwestern prairie, and littered it with purposeful-looking junk. I shot this view with the Sony F717, and was quite surprised by how much color the photo captured versus how I had halfway seen it via eyeball. Unfortunately, there is one small patch where the highlights are blown out by a sunray at left foreground.
I processed the Sony's JPEG using CS3's Camera RAW tool. Warmed the white point a bit, cranked up highlight recovery to 100, brightened a bit, sharpened somewhat using the clarity slider, and very slightly increased vibrance. The shot doesn't look like much at small scale, but I believe it would be much more interesting printed at a large scale where the forms and textures could pop out at you. Click the thumbnail below for a larger view.
As an aside, I will say that I'm surprised how differently the photo renders through a web browser versus what it looks like displayed directly in Photoshop or Bridge. Fortunately, Adobe provides a program called Adobe Device Central so one can inspect how a photo is rendered for different end uses (inkjet printer, browser, cell phone, etc.); unfortunately, I lack the energy to learn anything about it at this point in the evening.
I'm periodically reproducing recent photographs under the heading of Work in progress. What's "in progress" isn't the perfection of a given picture, but my work toward developing some genuine technical skill in photography. Several of my jobs dating back to 1977 have included photography as a central duty. In the '70s I was mostly interested in subject matter that appealed to me, composition, and capture of Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment". Matters such as film exposure and high-quality darkroom printing were of theoretical interest, but they were too much to think about or too much trouble to achieve. So now, as I resume a formal interest in photography after a 25-year hiatus, I am starting with fundamentals. But they are the fundamentals of digital image-making, the technology of which in fact makes it possible to develop technical skill much faster, with less waste, and with much less expense.
The photo below was taken at the head of an odd little nature trail that occupies a vacant lot between two vintage commercial buildings across the street from WEFT, Champaign's community-operated radio station. The nature trail was constructed by a gentleman called "The Prairie Monk," who hosts a weekly radio show on WEFT. He has gardened the lot with plants typical of the native midwestern prairie, and littered it with purposeful-looking junk. I shot this view with the Sony F717, and was quite surprised by how much color the photo captured versus how I had halfway seen it via eyeball. Unfortunately, there is one small patch where the highlights are blown out by a sunray at left foreground.
I processed the Sony's JPEG using CS3's Camera RAW tool. Warmed the white point a bit, cranked up highlight recovery to 100, brightened a bit, sharpened somewhat using the clarity slider, and very slightly increased vibrance. The shot doesn't look like much at small scale, but I believe it would be much more interesting printed at a large scale where the forms and textures could pop out at you. Click the thumbnail below for a larger view.
As an aside, I will say that I'm surprised how differently the photo renders through a web browser versus what it looks like displayed directly in Photoshop or Bridge. Fortunately, Adobe provides a program called Adobe Device Central so one can inspect how a photo is rendered for different end uses (inkjet printer, browser, cell phone, etc.); unfortunately, I lack the energy to learn anything about it at this point in the evening.
Status quo we can believe in [updated x 2]
*
Item 1, from HuffingtonPost: "In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped."
Item 2, from Reuters via TPM: "The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child."
I believe it's true that in most states, having sex with a 17-year-old constitutes statutory rape whether it was forcible or not. In at least some jurisdictions, a minor male can be prosecuted for statutory rape even if he is the same age as the female.
Supply your own analysis.
Update: an anonymous McCain aide told Reuters that rumors" about Bristol Palin's pregnancy were spread by the Obama campaign. Next up, no doubt: rumors that baby Palin is Obama's love child.
Later update: And when famous preachers and right-to-lifers start crying crocodile tears about how liberals are trying to politicize the Palins' private family matter, I hope that someone reminds them (with a blunt object) that the so-called right-to-life movement politicized everyone's unplanned pregnancy a generation ago --- including Bristol Palin's --- with their strident ideological opposition to reproductive rights for women.
Item 1, from HuffingtonPost: "In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped."
Item 2, from Reuters via TPM: "The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child."
I believe it's true that in most states, having sex with a 17-year-old constitutes statutory rape whether it was forcible or not. In at least some jurisdictions, a minor male can be prosecuted for statutory rape even if he is the same age as the female.
Supply your own analysis.
Update: an anonymous McCain aide told Reuters that rumors" about Bristol Palin's pregnancy were spread by the Obama campaign. Next up, no doubt: rumors that baby Palin is Obama's love child.
Later update: And when famous preachers and right-to-lifers start crying crocodile tears about how liberals are trying to politicize the Palins' private family matter, I hope that someone reminds them (with a blunt object) that the so-called right-to-life movement politicized everyone's unplanned pregnancy a generation ago --- including Bristol Palin's --- with their strident ideological opposition to reproductive rights for women.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Palin "shock"
*
Will Thomas wrote a brief post on TPM remarking on two under-reported aspects of McCain's selection of Palin for his VP running mate. The second one is of high interest to this blog:
"Shock. The pick caught everyone by surprise, including the Obama camp...."
Just imagine how "shocked" the "Obama camp" would be if, in a week or two, they found that Barack was running against Dave Petraeus. That has been my point all along for repeatedly writing about the unlikely Petraeus/Lieberman '08 Republican strategy: if you're going to shake things up with a so-called "hail Mary pass", it needs to be one that really could change the game. As opposed to pulling the stupidest political stunt ever executed since my brain was first fully developed.
And don't rule out Lieberman yet, either. Josh Marshall makes my point with this one word post: "Eagleton"? If Palin bails or is forced to withdraw, doesn't it seem likely that the petulant McCain would return to his first choice?
Will Thomas wrote a brief post on TPM remarking on two under-reported aspects of McCain's selection of Palin for his VP running mate. The second one is of high interest to this blog:
"Shock. The pick caught everyone by surprise, including the Obama camp...."
Just imagine how "shocked" the "Obama camp" would be if, in a week or two, they found that Barack was running against Dave Petraeus. That has been my point all along for repeatedly writing about the unlikely Petraeus/Lieberman '08 Republican strategy: if you're going to shake things up with a so-called "hail Mary pass", it needs to be one that really could change the game. As opposed to pulling the stupidest political stunt ever executed since my brain was first fully developed.
And don't rule out Lieberman yet, either. Josh Marshall makes my point with this one word post: "Eagleton"? If Palin bails or is forced to withdraw, doesn't it seem likely that the petulant McCain would return to his first choice?
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Rudy sez....
*
Regarding his primary care physician:
"She's over 6 feet tall. The prettiest black woman you ever saw. I don't know what she's doin' as a doctor: she coulda been a supermodel!"
Regarding his primary care physician:
"She's over 6 feet tall. The prettiest black woman you ever saw. I don't know what she's doin' as a doctor: she coulda been a supermodel!"
Friday, August 29, 2008
Maverick tactics
*
Brilliant: trying to upstage one of the finest nights in the history of American political theater by doing something astonishingly stupid. Nice job of vetting the running mate, Maverick.
I believe McCain did this in an unscripted petulant frenzy because his advisors bullied him out of listening to StuporMundi.
My friends, I don't think we've heard the last of this daring strategic plan yet.
Brilliant: trying to upstage one of the finest nights in the history of American political theater by doing something astonishingly stupid. Nice job of vetting the running mate, Maverick.
I believe McCain did this in an unscripted petulant frenzy because his advisors bullied him out of listening to StuporMundi.
My friends, I don't think we've heard the last of this daring strategic plan yet.
Final GOP VP comment before selection [updated]
*
Here's one last reason I think McCain is more likely to choose Lieberman as his running mate: Joe's physique and appearance will not upstage the allegedly petty and petulant McCain.
Next to Romney, McCain would look exceptionally short, cadaverous, and "a little thin up there." Wouldn't it be deluxe if McCain, standing next to Romney in the sun, suddenly melted down forever: "At least I don't slather on the mousse like a trollop, you cunt!"
Update: Upon McCain's choice of the foxy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, several thoughts occur to me. First, McCain will still look exceptionally cadaverous and "a little thin up there" next to Governor Palin. (He may look short next to her also, but I don't know how tall she is out of spikes.) Second, McCain's selection of a governor with only 2 years of state-level administrative experience indicates how desperately and deeply he had to reach into the Republican bench to find a running mate who doesn't threaten his ego and has no established PR negatives on the "national stage." Third, Governor Palin hails from what is probably the most politically corrupt state, per capita, in the nation ("google" Senator Ted Stevens and U.S. Rep. Don Young, for example, then google any other name mentioned as indicted or a person of interest in an investigation). So not surprisingly, she already has her own share of baggage to talk about. Fourth, and finally: what Atrios says: Palin's name has barely surfaced in the corporate media over the past month as a prospective McCain VP choice. Although her selection has apparently doomed my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 nightmare ticket, and with it my future as even a second-tier national blogger, I was closer to being right than the bona fide pundits and lefty bloggers were: McCain selected a longshot with at least some history of making social policy in contravention to the right-wing company line (as seen on TPM).
As an aside, I see that there are lots of references on the web to Governor Palin being a "GILF". I wonder what that means.
Here's one last reason I think McCain is more likely to choose Lieberman as his running mate: Joe's physique and appearance will not upstage the allegedly petty and petulant McCain.
Next to Romney, McCain would look exceptionally short, cadaverous, and "a little thin up there." Wouldn't it be deluxe if McCain, standing next to Romney in the sun, suddenly melted down forever: "At least I don't slather on the mousse like a trollop, you cunt!"
Update: Upon McCain's choice of the foxy Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, several thoughts occur to me. First, McCain will still look exceptionally cadaverous and "a little thin up there" next to Governor Palin. (He may look short next to her also, but I don't know how tall she is out of spikes.) Second, McCain's selection of a governor with only 2 years of state-level administrative experience indicates how desperately and deeply he had to reach into the Republican bench to find a running mate who doesn't threaten his ego and has no established PR negatives on the "national stage." Third, Governor Palin hails from what is probably the most politically corrupt state, per capita, in the nation ("google" Senator Ted Stevens and U.S. Rep. Don Young, for example, then google any other name mentioned as indicted or a person of interest in an investigation). So not surprisingly, she already has her own share of baggage to talk about. Fourth, and finally: what Atrios says: Palin's name has barely surfaced in the corporate media over the past month as a prospective McCain VP choice. Although her selection has apparently doomed my Petraeus/Lieberman '08 nightmare ticket, and with it my future as even a second-tier national blogger, I was closer to being right than the bona fide pundits and lefty bloggers were: McCain selected a longshot with at least some history of making social policy in contravention to the right-wing company line (as seen on TPM).
As an aside, I see that there are lots of references on the web to Governor Palin being a "GILF". I wonder what that means.
Free political advice for The Maverick
*
Dear Senator McCain,
After Senator Obama's DNC acceptance speech on the evening of 28 August 2008, I think your best tactic for winning the November election will be to drive home the message that Michael Moore is fat.
Your friend,
---StuporMundi
Dear Senator McCain,
After Senator Obama's DNC acceptance speech on the evening of 28 August 2008, I think your best tactic for winning the November election will be to drive home the message that Michael Moore is fat.
Your friend,
---StuporMundi
"They call me MISTER Obama"
*
I doubt that my favorite line of Obama's speech will draw any notice from the corporate media or bona fide bloggers, but it was this:
"So I've got news for you, John McCain."
The rhetoric of it is brilliant and simple, and (I believe) deliberately intended to provoke McCain's irrational anger. No black man tells a white man that "I've got news for you". And nobody except nobody ever says that to a Maverick. I also think the nuance will be understood by unhinged bigots in the audience.
I'm thinking of it as the 21st century version of "They call me Mister Tibbs."
I doubt that my favorite line of Obama's speech will draw any notice from the corporate media or bona fide bloggers, but it was this:
"So I've got news for you, John McCain."
The rhetoric of it is brilliant and simple, and (I believe) deliberately intended to provoke McCain's irrational anger. No black man tells a white man that "I've got news for you". And nobody except nobody ever says that to a Maverick. I also think the nuance will be understood by unhinged bigots in the audience.
I'm thinking of it as the 21st century version of "They call me Mister Tibbs."
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Killer O
*
Not a grand slam. Not even a home run.
Obama's acceptance speech was an in-the-park homer with four men on base, after running which he snatched the ball from the catcher's mitt and jumped 30 yards into the air to hit a three-pointer on a basketball hoop 2 miles away. Really.
I'm at a disadvantage with sports metaphors, obviously. But Obama just gave the best political speech I've ever heard, and I've been listening to them since 1964 --- long before my brain was even fully developed.
If Obama wins the general election, his acceptance speech will be studied for decades. If he doesn't, it still may be studied for decades. Everything about it, in my opinion, rang genuine and uncontrived. His oratory style was perfect --- almost nobody I've ever heard could hit the sweet spot between the personal and the grandiose. If you missed it live, I'm sorry you did --- it is no exaggeration to say it was historic. Gracious, but with plenty of fighting words. Spiritual, but inclusive of everybody. Hard-headed liberalism. About fuckin' time!
I'll try one more sports metaphor. First the setup: remember that Obama is running not only against McCain and all the shadowy interests that want to prevent both a Democrat and a black man from living in the White House, but he's also running against the corporate interests that dominate the mass news media. He's running against all the corporate handmaidens who have been assigned to trivialize Obama, to misdirect our attention to meaningless foibles or words taken out of context, to expound or pass on the dog-whistle racism that right-wing bigots have already been spewing for months on end.
So (sports metaphor coming): if Obama can pull this out and get elected with a mandate, it would at least equal the 1970 no-hitter Dock Ellis pitched while tripping on acid. And that, my friends, would really be something.
Update: I'll try to explain these thoughts more coherently in a future post. Was up too late Thursday night dancing to "The Theme from Shaft" and drinking malt liquor straight from the bag.
Not a grand slam. Not even a home run.
Obama's acceptance speech was an in-the-park homer with four men on base, after running which he snatched the ball from the catcher's mitt and jumped 30 yards into the air to hit a three-pointer on a basketball hoop 2 miles away. Really.
I'm at a disadvantage with sports metaphors, obviously. But Obama just gave the best political speech I've ever heard, and I've been listening to them since 1964 --- long before my brain was even fully developed.
If Obama wins the general election, his acceptance speech will be studied for decades. If he doesn't, it still may be studied for decades. Everything about it, in my opinion, rang genuine and uncontrived. His oratory style was perfect --- almost nobody I've ever heard could hit the sweet spot between the personal and the grandiose. If you missed it live, I'm sorry you did --- it is no exaggeration to say it was historic. Gracious, but with plenty of fighting words. Spiritual, but inclusive of everybody. Hard-headed liberalism. About fuckin' time!
I'll try one more sports metaphor. First the setup: remember that Obama is running not only against McCain and all the shadowy interests that want to prevent both a Democrat and a black man from living in the White House, but he's also running against the corporate interests that dominate the mass news media. He's running against all the corporate handmaidens who have been assigned to trivialize Obama, to misdirect our attention to meaningless foibles or words taken out of context, to expound or pass on the dog-whistle racism that right-wing bigots have already been spewing for months on end.
So (sports metaphor coming): if Obama can pull this out and get elected with a mandate, it would at least equal the 1970 no-hitter Dock Ellis pitched while tripping on acid. And that, my friends, would really be something.
Update: I'll try to explain these thoughts more coherently in a future post. Was up too late Thursday night dancing to "The Theme from Shaft" and drinking malt liquor straight from the bag.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary's convention speech
*
I caught a few minutes near the end of it. Seemed to be well written, and I liked the allusion to Harriet Tubman --- good work, whoever thought of that twofer for this specific setting.
Clinton looked relaxed and very well rehearsed. I thought her delivery was much less wooden than it was during the primary season, but it still had a small whiff of Classic American Revival Tent Political Oratory, which very few pols really ever transcend. Her presence reminded me of Ted Kennedy at the convention in 1980, when I developed the hypothesis that marquee politicians who run for president give their best speeches as also-rans, after they have anything to gain personally from the oratory. At that time, Kennedy gave a true, sincere barn-burner that greatly elevated my opinion of him. I think Clinton approached that league tonight.
Now, if she would just kick that peckerwood husband of hers to the curb and then return to the Senate as a strong liberal voice until Obama nominates her to the Supreme Court.
Update: As an afterthought, I must note that I am perplexed by her selection of a Gitmo-drag orange jumpsuit from her senatorial wardrobe. Maybe it's time that she get rid of her present wardrobe.
Late update: "Ah, so you want to get rid of President Ward Robey!?!"
I caught a few minutes near the end of it. Seemed to be well written, and I liked the allusion to Harriet Tubman --- good work, whoever thought of that twofer for this specific setting.
Clinton looked relaxed and very well rehearsed. I thought her delivery was much less wooden than it was during the primary season, but it still had a small whiff of Classic American Revival Tent Political Oratory, which very few pols really ever transcend. Her presence reminded me of Ted Kennedy at the convention in 1980, when I developed the hypothesis that marquee politicians who run for president give their best speeches as also-rans, after they have anything to gain personally from the oratory. At that time, Kennedy gave a true, sincere barn-burner that greatly elevated my opinion of him. I think Clinton approached that league tonight.
Now, if she would just kick that peckerwood husband of hers to the curb and then return to the Senate as a strong liberal voice until Obama nominates her to the Supreme Court.
Update: As an afterthought, I must note that I am perplexed by her selection of a Gitmo-drag orange jumpsuit from her senatorial wardrobe. Maybe it's time that she get rid of her present wardrobe.
Late update: "Ah, so you want to get rid of President Ward Robey!?!"
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Work in progress
*
In order to skew this blog back toward Fifty50, and away from Seventy30, today I start inserting more nonpolitical content. Contrary to appearances, I do not hate fun: I like stories, songs, toys, and pictures as much as you all do. Work in progress is where I'll share a photographic study that someone other than me might be interested in seeing.
Here's my first one, shot with my Sony F717, an interesting, versatile point/shoot with a blue-chip Zeiss lens. Does not shoot in RAW format, but I discovered that Adobe Bridge CS3 can open JPEGs and TIFFs for processing with the Camera RAW plugin. Many of the controls in Camera RAW are obscure to a novice, but even the simplest ones are quite powerful.
The image depicts some local color (local grayscale, actually): the Chester Street (Champaign) viaduct under the Illinois Central RR tracks, looking approximately northeast. The original file was captured as an RGB fine-quality JPEG. I opened it in Camera RAW, desaturated all the pixels to gray, used the Fill Light slider to emulate the effect of having a huge soft box to even out the exposure to my liking. I may have sharpened a bit. Finally, I used the Skew tool in Photoshop to make the verticals vertical, then messed with the contrast curve a bit. Good learning exercise; halfway decent, if somewhat standard, view. Need to develop a better eye for dynamic range --- deeper darks and a few near-whites might help. Also need to understanding the differences between rendering for screen view versus hardopy print.
In order to skew this blog back toward Fifty50, and away from Seventy30, today I start inserting more nonpolitical content. Contrary to appearances, I do not hate fun: I like stories, songs, toys, and pictures as much as you all do. Work in progress is where I'll share a photographic study that someone other than me might be interested in seeing.
Here's my first one, shot with my Sony F717, an interesting, versatile point/shoot with a blue-chip Zeiss lens. Does not shoot in RAW format, but I discovered that Adobe Bridge CS3 can open JPEGs and TIFFs for processing with the Camera RAW plugin. Many of the controls in Camera RAW are obscure to a novice, but even the simplest ones are quite powerful.
The image depicts some local color (local grayscale, actually): the Chester Street (Champaign) viaduct under the Illinois Central RR tracks, looking approximately northeast. The original file was captured as an RGB fine-quality JPEG. I opened it in Camera RAW, desaturated all the pixels to gray, used the Fill Light slider to emulate the effect of having a huge soft box to even out the exposure to my liking. I may have sharpened a bit. Finally, I used the Skew tool in Photoshop to make the verticals vertical, then messed with the contrast curve a bit. Good learning exercise; halfway decent, if somewhat standard, view. Need to develop a better eye for dynamic range --- deeper darks and a few near-whites might help. Also need to understanding the differences between rendering for screen view versus hardopy print.
Wise sayings
*
There are two kinds of things in the world: (1) any given particular kind of thing and (2) all things that do not fall into the first category.
There are two kinds of things in the world: (1) any given particular kind of thing and (2) all things that do not fall into the first category.
Eternal truths
*
Effective immediately, the "Eternal truths" department of Fifty50 is hereby renamed "Wise sayings" (for reasons that are best known to Big Otis, Stan Freberg, and Ben Franklin.
Effective immediately, the "Eternal truths" department of Fifty50 is hereby renamed "Wise sayings" (for reasons that are best known to Big Otis, Stan Freberg, and Ben Franklin.
Pwn3d by Obama!!!
*
I stayed up past midnight waiting for my email and it never came! Now I read on TPM that Obama has announced his selection of Biden via the email I never got!!! I yam disgustipated!
I'm also not that thrilled by the selection of Bankruptcy Joe, favorite son of the Credit Card State. As VP he would be too close to the presidential side of the legislative sausage factory for my liking, what with all his fancy banker lobbyist friends. But I suppose I'll come to the acceptance stage soon as Big Otis and all the pundits convince me that Biden is the sharpest knife in the block.
Note to Barack: I don't need your email message any more, so please conserve my electrons and put them to good use in defeating your opponents... you juicebag! I WANTED TO BE PART OF HISTORYYYYYY!
PS: I'm voting for McCain now, or better yet, staying home. Take that!
PPS: The "Credit Card State" was invented by Uncle Charlie.
I stayed up past midnight waiting for my email and it never came! Now I read on TPM that Obama has announced his selection of Biden via the email I never got!!! I yam disgustipated!
I'm also not that thrilled by the selection of Bankruptcy Joe, favorite son of the Credit Card State. As VP he would be too close to the presidential side of the legislative sausage factory for my liking, what with all his fancy banker lobbyist friends. But I suppose I'll come to the acceptance stage soon as Big Otis and all the pundits convince me that Biden is the sharpest knife in the block.
Note to Barack: I don't need your email message any more, so please conserve my electrons and put them to good use in defeating your opponents... you juicebag! I WANTED TO BE PART OF HISTORYYYYYY!
PS: I'm voting for McCain now, or better yet, staying home. Take that!
PPS: The "Credit Card State" was invented by Uncle Charlie.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Suggestion for John McCain
*
Dear Senator McCain,
May I suggest that you select a new campaign theme song? I know Running On Empty is descriptive of your character and the extent of your supply of good ideas, but there are better choices considering that Jackson Browne wants to sue you for damages related to misusing his copyrighted material. Instead, how about using Home Home Home Home Home Home Home On The Ranges?
Your friend,
---StuporMundi
Dear Senator McCain,
May I suggest that you select a new campaign theme song? I know Running On Empty is descriptive of your character and the extent of your supply of good ideas, but there are better choices considering that Jackson Browne wants to sue you for damages related to misusing his copyrighted material. Instead, how about using Home Home Home Home Home Home Home On The Ranges?
Your friend,
---StuporMundi
Not a prediction, just an observation
*
From the "who cares?" department, here is my one and only post about the Democratic VP nomination.
I think Kathleen Sebelius would be Obama's best choice for a running mate. First, I think Obama could benefit from having an executive (i.e., governor) on the ticket. Second, her presence would serve to "heal" the feelings of '70s-era identity-politics feminists who think it was unfair of Obama to win the Democratic primary cycle, no matter what they now say; Sebelius also would appeal to many other women of all ages, and the Democrats need them to come out strong in November. Third, Sebelius looks lively and energetic while sporting white hair; selecting her for the ticket would give "moderate, undecided voters" (you know: morons) a subliminal point of reference along the lines of "only one party has a person with white hair on the ticket who isn't a morally, psychiatrically compromised former war hero blinded by opportunism and a voracious sense of self-entitlement, and it ain't the Republicans."
But then, I'm just a simple country editor....
PS: I'd actually like Sebelius to be Obama's pick because it would be so much fun to see Hillary, her peckerwood husband, and the horses they rode in on completely "pwn3d" by reality --- just desserts for the Clintons' filthy, racially driven negative campaigning.
From the "who cares?" department, here is my one and only post about the Democratic VP nomination.
I think Kathleen Sebelius would be Obama's best choice for a running mate. First, I think Obama could benefit from having an executive (i.e., governor) on the ticket. Second, her presence would serve to "heal" the feelings of '70s-era identity-politics feminists who think it was unfair of Obama to win the Democratic primary cycle, no matter what they now say; Sebelius also would appeal to many other women of all ages, and the Democrats need them to come out strong in November. Third, Sebelius looks lively and energetic while sporting white hair; selecting her for the ticket would give "moderate, undecided voters" (you know: morons) a subliminal point of reference along the lines of "only one party has a person with white hair on the ticket who isn't a morally, psychiatrically compromised former war hero blinded by opportunism and a voracious sense of self-entitlement, and it ain't the Republicans."
But then, I'm just a simple country editor....
PS: I'd actually like Sebelius to be Obama's pick because it would be so much fun to see Hillary, her peckerwood husband, and the horses they rode in on completely "pwn3d" by reality --- just desserts for the Clintons' filthy, racially driven negative campaigning.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Oh, I just can't help it tonight
*
Here are three more reasons why I think John McCain will not be President of the United States even if the Republicans win the November general election. From everything I've seen and read about his personality, McCain is certain to transcend a critical behavioral event horizon if the meme takes hold that his tenure as a war hero has officially expired. I believe McCain's candidacy will become untenable, and Machiavellian Republicans will throw him off the train; ultimately, a coup like that would carry less risk than sticking with him through November.
Here are three more reasons why I think John McCain will not be President of the United States even if the Republicans win the November general election. From everything I've seen and read about his personality, McCain is certain to transcend a critical behavioral event horizon if the meme takes hold that his tenure as a war hero has officially expired. I believe McCain's candidacy will become untenable, and Machiavellian Republicans will throw him off the train; ultimately, a coup like that would carry less risk than sticking with him through November.
Eternal truths
*
[Now with it's very own external link:]
One's tenure as a war hero expires immediately when one endorses U.S. government torture of its military adversaries.
[Now with it's very own external link:]
One's tenure as a war hero expires immediately when one endorses U.S. government torture of its military adversaries.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
VP Joe Lieberman: where have I heard that idea before?
*
Oh dear. Is it possible that Joe Lieberman might have a place on the Republican ticket this fall? Can't be, because neither Tim Russert nor Tony Snow told us it could happen before they each went off to wait at the Gates of Hell for John McCain's torturers to show up.
But wait a minute: there was one observer who suggested way, way back in December 2007 that everybody be on the lookout for this development. Who could it have been? Oh, now I remember.
I'll cop to modifying The Most Awesome Political Prediction Ever later, as more recent events have prudent. My original premise still holds, though: that no one who has been considered Republican presidential timber by the serous media would be strong enough or even untainted enough to win the general election against a strong Democrat. At that time I felt Lieberman might jump his party early to settle in as a Republican, but he didn't. Instead, he spent his time laying groundwork for jumping the party in September. Furthermore, back in December I felt that Petraeus might effectively play the strongman role as Lieberman's VP, in a reprise of the Imperial Vice Presidency. For the past few weeks, though, I've suggested that there is no need for such a role reversal, and that Petraeus/Lieberman '08 would be a stronger ticket for the Republicans. I still believe that.
The only objection I've gotten to my P/L '08 scenario that even begins to hold water, in my view, was from a blogger named Dan Solomon. He raised a technical issue related to the legalities and tradition of military retirements relating to whether Petraeus would be eligible to run for President in September. My original reply to Solomon was that an Executive Branch that gets away with launching wars that are illegal in the view of many unbiased experts, breaking U.S. treaties (impeachable offense, by the way), etc., can certainly find a way to finesse the legalities of a general's retirement... when the Justice Department and the Supreme Court have been thoroughly politicized. My secondary reply, offered now, is that McCain could still make it into the general election cycle in September and not be there in October. Abracadabra.
Again, for any slow learners out there, I'm not suggesting this scenario as something that any sentient citizen of a democracy would like to see. I'm suggesting it because it's as plausible as what we're looking at right now --- a morally and mentally bankrupt former war hero with no real constituency running the high ground against an up-by-the-bootstraps, relatively conservative young black family man. My overall point is that Obama would be prudent to have a coupla people in his boiler room working on a plan for shifting strategic gears if he found himself running against a freshly retired Four-Star General. I may be wrong, though, because Steve Benen, Josh Marshall, and Bob Cesca all have failed to reply to my email on the topic. I'm not bona fide, you see.
Oh dear. Is it possible that Joe Lieberman might have a place on the Republican ticket this fall? Can't be, because neither Tim Russert nor Tony Snow told us it could happen before they each went off to wait at the Gates of Hell for John McCain's torturers to show up.
But wait a minute: there was one observer who suggested way, way back in December 2007 that everybody be on the lookout for this development. Who could it have been? Oh, now I remember.
I'll cop to modifying The Most Awesome Political Prediction Ever later, as more recent events have prudent. My original premise still holds, though: that no one who has been considered Republican presidential timber by the serous media would be strong enough or even untainted enough to win the general election against a strong Democrat. At that time I felt Lieberman might jump his party early to settle in as a Republican, but he didn't. Instead, he spent his time laying groundwork for jumping the party in September. Furthermore, back in December I felt that Petraeus might effectively play the strongman role as Lieberman's VP, in a reprise of the Imperial Vice Presidency. For the past few weeks, though, I've suggested that there is no need for such a role reversal, and that Petraeus/Lieberman '08 would be a stronger ticket for the Republicans. I still believe that.
The only objection I've gotten to my P/L '08 scenario that even begins to hold water, in my view, was from a blogger named Dan Solomon. He raised a technical issue related to the legalities and tradition of military retirements relating to whether Petraeus would be eligible to run for President in September. My original reply to Solomon was that an Executive Branch that gets away with launching wars that are illegal in the view of many unbiased experts, breaking U.S. treaties (impeachable offense, by the way), etc., can certainly find a way to finesse the legalities of a general's retirement... when the Justice Department and the Supreme Court have been thoroughly politicized. My secondary reply, offered now, is that McCain could still make it into the general election cycle in September and not be there in October. Abracadabra.
Again, for any slow learners out there, I'm not suggesting this scenario as something that any sentient citizen of a democracy would like to see. I'm suggesting it because it's as plausible as what we're looking at right now --- a morally and mentally bankrupt former war hero with no real constituency running the high ground against an up-by-the-bootstraps, relatively conservative young black family man. My overall point is that Obama would be prudent to have a coupla people in his boiler room working on a plan for shifting strategic gears if he found himself running against a freshly retired Four-Star General. I may be wrong, though, because Steve Benen, Josh Marshall, and Bob Cesca all have failed to reply to my email on the topic. I'm not bona fide, you see.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Anointing his successor
*
Oh, looky who's right at the top of John McCain's list of wise people: why, it's Gen. Dave Petraeus! At least that's what he tells the rich, fancy Orange County preacher man. (Search on "Petraeus" after you click through to the page.)
Please let me know if you think McCain has said or done anything in the past week to make Petraeus/Lieberman '08 seem more farfetched than you already think it is.
Oh, looky who's right at the top of John McCain's list of wise people: why, it's Gen. Dave Petraeus! At least that's what he tells the rich, fancy Orange County preacher man. (Search on "Petraeus" after you click through to the page.)
Please let me know if you think McCain has said or done anything in the past week to make Petraeus/Lieberman '08 seem more farfetched than you already think it is.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Most constructive invention of 1877
*
I can't believe I did not know this, but barely a century before disco swept the nation, the word "hello" was apparently a rarity in the American vernacular. According to Wired online, Thomas Edison is credited with suggesting that people answer the telephone using this salutation instead of Alexander Graham Bell's preferred greeting, "ahoy, ahoy." Wired writer Tony Long tells us, in fact, that initially people did answer their telephones with "ahoy," but Edison's suggestion quickly superseded it. Hello, he says, did not enter the dictionary until 1883 even though earlier uses are documented.
Montgomery Burns, who I believe was born about 12 years after Bell applied for his patent, still answers the horn the correct way to this very day. I can't explain, though, why our parents (or I) answer with "nnnyellllo."
Photo credit: from itspaulkelly's photostream on Flickr. Uploaded it to prevent link rot.
I can't believe I did not know this, but barely a century before disco swept the nation, the word "hello" was apparently a rarity in the American vernacular. According to Wired online, Thomas Edison is credited with suggesting that people answer the telephone using this salutation instead of Alexander Graham Bell's preferred greeting, "ahoy, ahoy." Wired writer Tony Long tells us, in fact, that initially people did answer their telephones with "ahoy," but Edison's suggestion quickly superseded it. Hello, he says, did not enter the dictionary until 1883 even though earlier uses are documented.
Montgomery Burns, who I believe was born about 12 years after Bell applied for his patent, still answers the horn the correct way to this very day. I can't explain, though, why our parents (or I) answer with "nnnyellllo."Photo credit: from itspaulkelly's photostream on Flickr. Uploaded it to prevent link rot.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pop quiz
*
Bruce Ivins is to the 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks as Lee Oswald is to:
a. Paris Hilton's pudenda
b. American Idol
c. the Lone Gunman Theory
d. Mexican Idol
Bruce Ivins is to the 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks as Lee Oswald is to:
a. Paris Hilton's pudenda
b. American Idol
c. the Lone Gunman Theory
d. Mexican Idol
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Eternal truths
*
You have the right to remain funky. Your funkiness can not and will not be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to remain funky. Your funkiness can not and will not be used against you in a court of law.
Things I did not know about England
*Dan Solomon, an expatriate American blogger living in the U.K., offers us this fascinating report about the ubiquity and characteristics of propaganda posters in England. Most of his examples read like something from the backgrounds in "V", but I found the poster reproduced at upper left to be especially... something or other. Click through and check it out; Dan notifies us that there is at least one "western democracy," as we still call them, that is even better than our very own Republicans at fearmongering to promote social control. The general message of British propaganda seems to be: We see what you're doing. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Edwards: "I, imbecile" (updated)
*
I agree with the concision of Atrios pertaining to the "public" John Edwards. What kind of fool does a guy have to be to run for President right after carving a new notch on his bedpost next to his wife's ear?
I'll grudgingly give Edwards credit for having the sense to cop to his affair on a Friday afternoon in the background of pointless Olympics media hoopla. In order to bury news like this about one of their own, by contrast, the Republicans will generally launch a new war or something.
With the Edwards affair now out in the open and lacking the news "legs" to sustain much public interest beyond the Olympics, the corporate media are now free to fully report on the case of John McCain's missing lobbyist girlfriend, Vicki Iseman. I wonder why the courageous Huffington Post isn't following up Chris Kelly's lead on that topic.
Update: Haha --- I beat Josh Marshall to the punch on the Iseman angle! That guy had better get on the ball with Petraeus/Lieberman '08!
I agree with the concision of Atrios pertaining to the "public" John Edwards. What kind of fool does a guy have to be to run for President right after carving a new notch on his bedpost next to his wife's ear?
I'll grudgingly give Edwards credit for having the sense to cop to his affair on a Friday afternoon in the background of pointless Olympics media hoopla. In order to bury news like this about one of their own, by contrast, the Republicans will generally launch a new war or something.
With the Edwards affair now out in the open and lacking the news "legs" to sustain much public interest beyond the Olympics, the corporate media are now free to fully report on the case of John McCain's missing lobbyist girlfriend, Vicki Iseman. I wonder why the courageous Huffington Post isn't following up Chris Kelly's lead on that topic.
Update: Haha --- I beat Josh Marshall to the punch on the Iseman angle! That guy had better get on the ball with Petraeus/Lieberman '08!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
From the Petraeus/Lieberman '08 comments
*
A blogger named Dan Solomon, whose site you can visit here, raised an interesting objection to my current metaparanoid scenario involving the drafting of Petraeus and Lieberman as the 2008 Republican presidential ticket out of the thin air of left field. I'm reproducing Dan's comment and my reply here at the top level because I think it's interesting.
I'll add something here that I forgot to address in Dan's comment. I think the disruption of the GOP convention would not necessarily be disadvantageous. It could be stage-managed into a groundswell of "spontaneous" enthusiasm (never mind where all those Petraeus posters suddenly came from). I believe that the Republican lumpen proletariat is naturally self-selected to be a top-down, hierarchy-awed, order-taking lot. Compliance is mandatory; resistance is futile.
________________
dansolomon said...
To follow-up from Bob Cesca's place-
Petraeus couldn't just announce -during- the convention, he'd have to announce beforehand, by the end of August. And he'd be breaking military custom to do so (generals aren't required to announce their retirement sixty days ahead of time, but they almost always do, barring cancer or something), which is a big deal. There's really just not enough time- we're three weeks away from the point at which he'd have to enter the race, and he's nowhere near announcing his retirement. Keep in mind that, if he announces his retirement, he's in effect declaring himself for the nomination (why else would he retire suddenly, in a break from custom?). Which means that McCain has to spend the rest of August as a lame duck that everyone -knows- is lame, so effectively the Republicans have no nominee between Petraeus retiring and the convention. Retiring late in the month would make him look like the scheming-est politician in the world (a real risk anyway), and there's nowhere for him to go.
If he were already a retired general, I think you'd be on to something. But this would be totally unprecedented (and seen by many to be a push toward Martial Law) and it'd disrupt the Republican party in ways that wouldn't be advantageous to them. It'd be a huge gamble, in entirely new ways, and I don't think McCain's polling makes it seem particularly attractive. Remember, his biggest problems come from a lack of a ground game, and that's something that'd be hampered even more by a switcheroo.
--d
07 August, 2008 06:03
Blogger StuporMundi said...
Dan,
You've raised a procedural barrier that I hadn't thought of, and I hope it's as large of a barrier as you think it is. But I don't think so. Consider the real stakes here to the current players. It's not the war, it's keeping the executive investigative and law-enforcement power out of Democratic hands. It's probably not a stretch to say that every senior administration leader is vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for violation of oath, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, garden-variety corruption, and so on. My theory is based on this premise.
My theory is also based on the power of television to affect the behavior of the so-called swing voter, which is likely the low-info voter who gets most of his or her information from the TV. Those are the people who are most impressionable to powerful TV images of "leadership" and "presidential" comportment.
Another premise of my theory is that, if I'm correct, this strategy was thought of and planned long ago. Any disruption of the convention process would actually be part of the plan since it will be stage-managed by whatever cabal is wanting to "draft" Petraeus.
Would it be a big gamble? I don't think so. But consider this: to reasonable, impartial people, the Republican brand is ruined. These are the people who have put the country on the "wrong track," and everybody knows it. McCain doesn't have much more dignity or credibility to lose; he will be completely out of it by the time the GOP convention starts. If McCain is the nominee, the Republicans will lose, and the GOP knows it.
Yes, you and I would consider this act to be a precedent-erasing move toward overt martial law. But who are you and I? Just two guys who won't vote for a Republican. All this move requires is a procedural irregularity and a violation of military tradition, neither feat being too difficult for people who have been pulling the President's strings for 8 years. There would be some tut-tutting. Henry Waxman would hold a hearing.
Your point about the Republicans having no ground game is dead-on, and that's another reason why I fear this Petraeus '08 possibility. The only way the GOP can win is through a spectacular, unprecedented media campaign. September would be a great time for them to roll out their new product: a bloodless military junta for America.
Thanks for commenting on this. I surely hope that you're correct and that I am dead wrong.
A blogger named Dan Solomon, whose site you can visit here, raised an interesting objection to my current metaparanoid scenario involving the drafting of Petraeus and Lieberman as the 2008 Republican presidential ticket out of the thin air of left field. I'm reproducing Dan's comment and my reply here at the top level because I think it's interesting.
I'll add something here that I forgot to address in Dan's comment. I think the disruption of the GOP convention would not necessarily be disadvantageous. It could be stage-managed into a groundswell of "spontaneous" enthusiasm (never mind where all those Petraeus posters suddenly came from). I believe that the Republican lumpen proletariat is naturally self-selected to be a top-down, hierarchy-awed, order-taking lot. Compliance is mandatory; resistance is futile.
________________
dansolomon said...
To follow-up from Bob Cesca's place-
Petraeus couldn't just announce -during- the convention, he'd have to announce beforehand, by the end of August. And he'd be breaking military custom to do so (generals aren't required to announce their retirement sixty days ahead of time, but they almost always do, barring cancer or something), which is a big deal. There's really just not enough time- we're three weeks away from the point at which he'd have to enter the race, and he's nowhere near announcing his retirement. Keep in mind that, if he announces his retirement, he's in effect declaring himself for the nomination (why else would he retire suddenly, in a break from custom?). Which means that McCain has to spend the rest of August as a lame duck that everyone -knows- is lame, so effectively the Republicans have no nominee between Petraeus retiring and the convention. Retiring late in the month would make him look like the scheming-est politician in the world (a real risk anyway), and there's nowhere for him to go.
If he were already a retired general, I think you'd be on to something. But this would be totally unprecedented (and seen by many to be a push toward Martial Law) and it'd disrupt the Republican party in ways that wouldn't be advantageous to them. It'd be a huge gamble, in entirely new ways, and I don't think McCain's polling makes it seem particularly attractive. Remember, his biggest problems come from a lack of a ground game, and that's something that'd be hampered even more by a switcheroo.
--d
07 August, 2008 06:03
Blogger StuporMundi said...
Dan,
You've raised a procedural barrier that I hadn't thought of, and I hope it's as large of a barrier as you think it is. But I don't think so. Consider the real stakes here to the current players. It's not the war, it's keeping the executive investigative and law-enforcement power out of Democratic hands. It's probably not a stretch to say that every senior administration leader is vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for violation of oath, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, garden-variety corruption, and so on. My theory is based on this premise.
My theory is also based on the power of television to affect the behavior of the so-called swing voter, which is likely the low-info voter who gets most of his or her information from the TV. Those are the people who are most impressionable to powerful TV images of "leadership" and "presidential" comportment.
Another premise of my theory is that, if I'm correct, this strategy was thought of and planned long ago. Any disruption of the convention process would actually be part of the plan since it will be stage-managed by whatever cabal is wanting to "draft" Petraeus.
Would it be a big gamble? I don't think so. But consider this: to reasonable, impartial people, the Republican brand is ruined. These are the people who have put the country on the "wrong track," and everybody knows it. McCain doesn't have much more dignity or credibility to lose; he will be completely out of it by the time the GOP convention starts. If McCain is the nominee, the Republicans will lose, and the GOP knows it.
Yes, you and I would consider this act to be a precedent-erasing move toward overt martial law. But who are you and I? Just two guys who won't vote for a Republican. All this move requires is a procedural irregularity and a violation of military tradition, neither feat being too difficult for people who have been pulling the President's strings for 8 years. There would be some tut-tutting. Henry Waxman would hold a hearing.
Your point about the Republicans having no ground game is dead-on, and that's another reason why I fear this Petraeus '08 possibility. The only way the GOP can win is through a spectacular, unprecedented media campaign. September would be a great time for them to roll out their new product: a bloodless military junta for America.
Thanks for commenting on this. I surely hope that you're correct and that I am dead wrong.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Apropos of nothing
*
Because I'm currently tired of speculating about the earth-shattering importance of America's future herself, here is The Studebacher Hoch Dancing Lesson and Prayer for Guidance, Roosevelt Auditorium, Chicago, circa 29 May 1971 (a few weeks before being recorded in New York for "the white album with the pencil on the cover). Note: photo taken before the prayer became "Cosmic" at the Fillmore East.
Because I'm currently tired of speculating about the earth-shattering importance of America's future herself, here is The Studebacher Hoch Dancing Lesson and Prayer for Guidance, Roosevelt Auditorium, Chicago, circa 29 May 1971 (a few weeks before being recorded in New York for "the white album with the pencil on the cover). Note: photo taken before the prayer became "Cosmic" at the Fillmore East.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Words and pictures
*
About the role of pictures in a presidential campaign, versus words.
McClatchy has a nice article on Big Oil interests possibly "laundering" oer $61,000 in McCain campaign contributions through the bank account of a middle-class New York family.
If the story is true, the reporting will not hurt John McCain in the slightest. The only way McCain will be hurt by this story is if Helen Thomas, when she returns to work, sucker punches him with a question about it on camera. You know: asking McCain if his flipflop on offshore oil drilling was related to the influx of Hess Corp. campaign contributions a few days earlier. Watch McCain stammer. Watch him turn red. Watch him call Helen a "cunt" when she returns to work. Now that would be a picture what is a picture.
But I may be wrong, because I'm just a simple country editor....
About the role of pictures in a presidential campaign, versus words.
McClatchy has a nice article on Big Oil interests possibly "laundering" oer $61,000 in McCain campaign contributions through the bank account of a middle-class New York family.
If the story is true, the reporting will not hurt John McCain in the slightest. The only way McCain will be hurt by this story is if Helen Thomas, when she returns to work, sucker punches him with a question about it on camera. You know: asking McCain if his flipflop on offshore oil drilling was related to the influx of Hess Corp. campaign contributions a few days earlier. Watch McCain stammer. Watch him turn red. Watch him call Helen a "cunt" when she returns to work. Now that would be a picture what is a picture.
But I may be wrong, because I'm just a simple country editor....
More Petraeus/Lieberman '08 talk
*
In the comments section under my previous post on this topic, Big Otis suggests that Democrats could negate the benefits of drafting Petraeus for a Republican "Unity '08" ticket by running Wesley Clark (retired General) or Jim Webb (retired Admiral) as VP. I disagree for several reasons. (Reason 0: Webb has stated that he will not accept the nomination because he is afraid it would serve to muzzle him.)
Clark might help Obama with some voters (not me), but not as much as Petraeus would help the Republicans. First, Clark's most renowned military accomplishments, in the public's view, was as a NATO Commander (i.e., bossing around "gay" Europeans in Bill Clinton's Kosovo adventure), not as a two-fisted four-star General Officer in charge of the most lethal U.S. Army command in world history, as Petraeus currently is. In Stratego terms, Clark is a General (Ret.) and Petraeus is a Field Marshal (active duty). Field Marshal wins.
With Petraeus as GOP presidential nominee and Clark as Democratic VP nominee, Clark couldn't lay a glove on Petraeus even if he wanted to --- and I do not think that he would want to. Even if he did, it would make Obama look weak, as if hiding behind General Clark's kilt (or whatever former NATO commanders wear after hours).
I have much more to say on this, but I'm going to give it a rest for a bit. Last night I floated my theory to Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca by email, but neither one replied. I am not surprised --- this idea is still too far away in left field. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to self-destruct, today jokingly (I assume) pimping his wife out to the titties and beer crowd at Sturgis. But the more damage his campaign does to Obama through racist invective and slander, the more Obama looks like a "divisive" candidate to the corporate media once all the superstar journalists and pundits have their novel, shiny plaything, starting around Labor Day, in the form of Unity '08: a reluctant warrior willing to hang up his spurs in order to save the nation from... a Xenobamislamofascist presidency. The "moderate, undecided voters" will be hypnotized by the exciting and glamourous images on TV, as usual.
And if that were to occur, it would take Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca and the Democratic Party and everybody else except readers of this blog 2 months to figure out what happened. It's really a deadly simple strategy, though: a Petraeus/Lieberman "Unity '08" Republican ticket would instantly, for almost 2 months, wipe out or obscure all GOP negatives in a cyclone of hype, media man-love, corporate media "bipartisanship," and other sleight of hand. And 2 months is all they need.
In the comments section under my previous post on this topic, Big Otis suggests that Democrats could negate the benefits of drafting Petraeus for a Republican "Unity '08" ticket by running Wesley Clark (retired General) or Jim Webb (retired Admiral) as VP. I disagree for several reasons. (Reason 0: Webb has stated that he will not accept the nomination because he is afraid it would serve to muzzle him.)
Clark might help Obama with some voters (not me), but not as much as Petraeus would help the Republicans. First, Clark's most renowned military accomplishments, in the public's view, was as a NATO Commander (i.e., bossing around "gay" Europeans in Bill Clinton's Kosovo adventure), not as a two-fisted four-star General Officer in charge of the most lethal U.S. Army command in world history, as Petraeus currently is. In Stratego terms, Clark is a General (Ret.) and Petraeus is a Field Marshal (active duty). Field Marshal wins.
With Petraeus as GOP presidential nominee and Clark as Democratic VP nominee, Clark couldn't lay a glove on Petraeus even if he wanted to --- and I do not think that he would want to. Even if he did, it would make Obama look weak, as if hiding behind General Clark's kilt (or whatever former NATO commanders wear after hours).
I have much more to say on this, but I'm going to give it a rest for a bit. Last night I floated my theory to Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca by email, but neither one replied. I am not surprised --- this idea is still too far away in left field. Meanwhile, John McCain continues to self-destruct, today jokingly (I assume) pimping his wife out to the titties and beer crowd at Sturgis. But the more damage his campaign does to Obama through racist invective and slander, the more Obama looks like a "divisive" candidate to the corporate media once all the superstar journalists and pundits have their novel, shiny plaything, starting around Labor Day, in the form of Unity '08: a reluctant warrior willing to hang up his spurs in order to save the nation from... a Xenobamislamofascist presidency. The "moderate, undecided voters" will be hypnotized by the exciting and glamourous images on TV, as usual.
And if that were to occur, it would take Josh Marshall and Bob Cesca and the Democratic Party and everybody else except readers of this blog 2 months to figure out what happened. It's really a deadly simple strategy, though: a Petraeus/Lieberman "Unity '08" Republican ticket would instantly, for almost 2 months, wipe out or obscure all GOP negatives in a cyclone of hype, media man-love, corporate media "bipartisanship," and other sleight of hand. And 2 months is all they need.
Eternal truths
*
John McCain offered to let his wife flash 500,000 bikers at Sturgis because he thinks she is a "cunt."
John McCain offered to let his wife flash 500,000 bikers at Sturgis because he thinks she is a "cunt."
Monday, August 4, 2008
Revisiting Petraeus/Lieberman '08
*
On 16 December 2007, in an early blog post characterized by mediocre writing, I presented my reasons for predicting that a brokered Republican National Convention would result in a ticket of Joe Lieberman and General David Petraeus. I'm sure everybody thought this was quite cute.
Today, with John McCain becoming an object of open scorn for some members of the elite Washington media, and even Paris Hilton's mother, I'm afraid (scared to death, actually) I'm going to have to "double down" on my prediction. Forget the stupid polls that say McCain has a nominal lead over Obama --- Zogby's polls have been wrong about pretty much everything all year. I am convinced that John McCain will not be running for President in October 2008.
First, the Republicans cannot afford to cede the Executive Branch and all the law enforcement and judicial appointment power that comes with it. The Republicans will not lose this election without trying tricks that aren't even in the book yet (outside of this blog). Everyone knows that McCain will lose against Obama no matter what pollsters or pundits say. Want proof? Just think about it for a moment. War, economy, energy: nobody on earth really thinks John McCain has any idea what the problems are, let alone the solutions.
Second, the Republicans have literally no one to run for President who is both well known and untainted by scandal, historical incompetence, etc. That is why McCain is the nominal candidate. But the GOP needs a real candidate and a off-the-scales strategy for winning the November election.
I believe they have that strategy.
Right now, John McCain's bigoted, incompetent campaign serves two Republican purposes. One is that Rove and his proteges are damaging Obama with the standard GOP bigotry and smears; the other is that Republicans are desperate for anyone to deliver them from the disaster of a McCain candidacy. They need someone who will unite the militarists, the corporate interests, the fundamentalists, and low-information "independent voters."
McCain's purpose --- damaging Obama --- will run its course soon, let's say around Labor Day, during the GOP convention, when it is finally time to start the real election campaign they've been planning along. Now imagine this: an "asymmetric" political strategy that begins with McCain dropping out at or shortly before the convention. Maybe he becomes unable to continue his campaign, ostensibly (or in fact) for health reasons.
National drama! The Republicans will have to rally around someone fast --- a devil we don't know, so to speak. The convention ensures maximal prime time viewing for all us suckers out here in TV land. What to do? Draft the only prominent Republican personage who no one would dare to criticize: Dave Petraeus. During the run-up to our annual September 11 fetish, The Architect Of The Surge, a telegenic general who both Republicans and the corporate media love, rides in on his White Horse.
There would be a month-long love affair by the press just because of the novelty of it all. Obama's campaign strategy, whatever it is, would be null. His message and voice would be drowned out for weeks on end. His strategists would be in disarray over how to handle the General. Anyone who wants an excuse to vote against Obama would have one. And Barack, to paraphrase what Hunter Thompson once said of Hubert Humphrey after being stabbed in the back, would look like he'd been sprayed in the face with shitmist.
As a side note, consider that Petraeus recently promoted to head CENTCOM, which Time correctly calls "the core of the U.S. military's current operations". No General in DoD has more power. And, unlike even McCain and Bush, General Petraeus will hear none of this "timetable" crap.
Of course Petraeus will need an inoffensive running mate, perhaps a moralistic, comparatively clean nebbish who is nominally a Democrat. One whose name begins with "Lie". One to whom the General can "reach across the aisle" to construct the Dream Unity '08 Ticket.
This idea truly frightens me. I have to come back later and edit this mess when I'm not feeling sick.
On 16 December 2007, in an early blog post characterized by mediocre writing, I presented my reasons for predicting that a brokered Republican National Convention would result in a ticket of Joe Lieberman and General David Petraeus. I'm sure everybody thought this was quite cute.
Today, with John McCain becoming an object of open scorn for some members of the elite Washington media, and even Paris Hilton's mother, I'm afraid (scared to death, actually) I'm going to have to "double down" on my prediction. Forget the stupid polls that say McCain has a nominal lead over Obama --- Zogby's polls have been wrong about pretty much everything all year. I am convinced that John McCain will not be running for President in October 2008.
First, the Republicans cannot afford to cede the Executive Branch and all the law enforcement and judicial appointment power that comes with it. The Republicans will not lose this election without trying tricks that aren't even in the book yet (outside of this blog). Everyone knows that McCain will lose against Obama no matter what pollsters or pundits say. Want proof? Just think about it for a moment. War, economy, energy: nobody on earth really thinks John McCain has any idea what the problems are, let alone the solutions.
Second, the Republicans have literally no one to run for President who is both well known and untainted by scandal, historical incompetence, etc. That is why McCain is the nominal candidate. But the GOP needs a real candidate and a off-the-scales strategy for winning the November election.
I believe they have that strategy.
Right now, John McCain's bigoted, incompetent campaign serves two Republican purposes. One is that Rove and his proteges are damaging Obama with the standard GOP bigotry and smears; the other is that Republicans are desperate for anyone to deliver them from the disaster of a McCain candidacy. They need someone who will unite the militarists, the corporate interests, the fundamentalists, and low-information "independent voters."
McCain's purpose --- damaging Obama --- will run its course soon, let's say around Labor Day, during the GOP convention, when it is finally time to start the real election campaign they've been planning along. Now imagine this: an "asymmetric" political strategy that begins with McCain dropping out at or shortly before the convention. Maybe he becomes unable to continue his campaign, ostensibly (or in fact) for health reasons.
National drama! The Republicans will have to rally around someone fast --- a devil we don't know, so to speak. The convention ensures maximal prime time viewing for all us suckers out here in TV land. What to do? Draft the only prominent Republican personage who no one would dare to criticize: Dave Petraeus. During the run-up to our annual September 11 fetish, The Architect Of The Surge, a telegenic general who both Republicans and the corporate media love, rides in on his White Horse.
There would be a month-long love affair by the press just because of the novelty of it all. Obama's campaign strategy, whatever it is, would be null. His message and voice would be drowned out for weeks on end. His strategists would be in disarray over how to handle the General. Anyone who wants an excuse to vote against Obama would have one. And Barack, to paraphrase what Hunter Thompson once said of Hubert Humphrey after being stabbed in the back, would look like he'd been sprayed in the face with shitmist.
As a side note, consider that Petraeus recently promoted to head CENTCOM, which Time correctly calls "the core of the U.S. military's current operations". No General in DoD has more power. And, unlike even McCain and Bush, General Petraeus will hear none of this "timetable" crap.
Of course Petraeus will need an inoffensive running mate, perhaps a moralistic, comparatively clean nebbish who is nominally a Democrat. One whose name begins with "Lie". One to whom the General can "reach across the aisle" to construct the Dream Unity '08 Ticket.
This idea truly frightens me. I have to come back later and edit this mess when I'm not feeling sick.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Eternal truths
*
Many people refer to food prepared in a wok as "stir fry," but no one refers to food prepared in an oven as "bake."
Many people refer to food prepared in a wok as "stir fry," but no one refers to food prepared in an oven as "bake."
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Now Obama has a case of the stupids
*
First, regarding my previously posted eternal truth, here's this from the AP via HuffingtonPost:
"Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that Republican rival John McCain's campaign is not racist but is cynical in trying to divert voter attention from the real issues of the presidential campaign.
"Obama met with reporters for the first time since the McCain campaign claimed that the Illinois Democrat had "played the race card" by warning that McCain would try to scare voters about how Obama looks unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" --- all of whom are white men."
Yes, it would be a rookie mistake or Obama to be lured into the McCain/Rove trap of making this election campaign all about race. But it is just plain stupid for Obama to give professional Republican bigots cover in order to deflect false accusations that Obama is "playing the race card." Backing down will not win Obama points with the corporate media, but it will undermine his own appearance of candor toughness.
In other stupidity news from AP via HuffPost, Obama yesterday said "he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources." His point was that, in order to avoid Republican gridlock on energy policy, he wants to avoid being "so rigid that we can't get something done."
So here's the scenario as Obama sees it: He is elected President in November 2008 and has a veto-proof majority in the Senate. The Bush Administration also has done him the unsolicited favor of inflating the perceived importance of the Executive Branch to the status of a virtual monarchy. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has been undeniably exposed as a corrupt and incompetent little cabal of excessively wealthy men who do the bidding of transnational oil corporations and Saudi princes at the expense of U.S. citizens. And yet President Obama will work hard with these same toads to reach a compromise on offshore oil drilling despite the preponderance of facts and economic analysis stating that harvesting offshore oil will have no significant impact on global supply or price relief, either now or in the future.
I think someone may have poisoned Obama's morning orange juice with Stupid Pills. Or else he is listening a little too closely to Hillary Clinton's advisors. Watch for the term flipflop to appear soon in the ongoing political narrative about Obama.
First, regarding my previously posted eternal truth, here's this from the AP via HuffingtonPost:
"Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that Republican rival John McCain's campaign is not racist but is cynical in trying to divert voter attention from the real issues of the presidential campaign.
"Obama met with reporters for the first time since the McCain campaign claimed that the Illinois Democrat had "played the race card" by warning that McCain would try to scare voters about how Obama looks unlike "all those other presidents on the dollar bills" --- all of whom are white men."
Yes, it would be a rookie mistake or Obama to be lured into the McCain/Rove trap of making this election campaign all about race. But it is just plain stupid for Obama to give professional Republican bigots cover in order to deflect false accusations that Obama is "playing the race card." Backing down will not win Obama points with the corporate media, but it will undermine his own appearance of candor toughness.
In other stupidity news from AP via HuffPost, Obama yesterday said "he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources." His point was that, in order to avoid Republican gridlock on energy policy, he wants to avoid being "so rigid that we can't get something done."
So here's the scenario as Obama sees it: He is elected President in November 2008 and has a veto-proof majority in the Senate. The Bush Administration also has done him the unsolicited favor of inflating the perceived importance of the Executive Branch to the status of a virtual monarchy. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has been undeniably exposed as a corrupt and incompetent little cabal of excessively wealthy men who do the bidding of transnational oil corporations and Saudi princes at the expense of U.S. citizens. And yet President Obama will work hard with these same toads to reach a compromise on offshore oil drilling despite the preponderance of facts and economic analysis stating that harvesting offshore oil will have no significant impact on global supply or price relief, either now or in the future.
I think someone may have poisoned Obama's morning orange juice with Stupid Pills. Or else he is listening a little too closely to Hillary Clinton's advisors. Watch for the term flipflop to appear soon in the ongoing political narrative about Obama.
Eternal truths
*
If John McCain were to accuse Barack Obama of being a "lazy coon," the corporate media would applaud McCain as "a straight talker who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade." If Barack Obama were to reply that McCain's accusation was self-evident hate speech, the corporate media would assert that Obama is playing the "race card" once again.
If John McCain were to accuse Barack Obama of being a "lazy coon," the corporate media would applaud McCain as "a straight talker who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade." If Barack Obama were to reply that McCain's accusation was self-evident hate speech, the corporate media would assert that Obama is playing the "race card" once again.
Friday, August 1, 2008
As seen via Eschaton
*
A Wall Street Journal story today asks whether a nation of obese slobs would stand for a president like Barack Obama, who apparently has very low body fat content. It's supposed to be a serious story, actually. Atrios points us to an explanation, on SadlyNo, of how the WSJ reporter did her research.
The reporter first asked a leading question about Obama's physique on a Yahoo financial message board, and then based her story largely on one probably prankish reply she received that met her need for a "news hook." That reply indicated that the reporter's source, one "onlinebeerbellygirl", would prefer a doughy, potbellied chief executive to "any beanpole guy." The other responses posted to that same thread were from "people saying that the question is stupid, and/or making fun of [the reporter]," SadlyNo informs us. Ample documentation is provided. Arabesques of stupidity will stream through your power cord like beer flowing over your grandmother's paisley shawl.
I must say I completely agree with Alex from the SadlyNo comments thread, who sums it up like this:
If McCain were a homosexual, the WSJ would be questioning whether Obama sucked enough cock to be President.
A Wall Street Journal story today asks whether a nation of obese slobs would stand for a president like Barack Obama, who apparently has very low body fat content. It's supposed to be a serious story, actually. Atrios points us to an explanation, on SadlyNo, of how the WSJ reporter did her research.
The reporter first asked a leading question about Obama's physique on a Yahoo financial message board, and then based her story largely on one probably prankish reply she received that met her need for a "news hook." That reply indicated that the reporter's source, one "onlinebeerbellygirl", would prefer a doughy, potbellied chief executive to "any beanpole guy." The other responses posted to that same thread were from "people saying that the question is stupid, and/or making fun of [the reporter]," SadlyNo informs us. Ample documentation is provided. Arabesques of stupidity will stream through your power cord like beer flowing over your grandmother's paisley shawl.
I must say I completely agree with Alex from the SadlyNo comments thread, who sums it up like this:
If McCain were a homosexual, the WSJ would be questioning whether Obama sucked enough cock to be President.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Water ice on Mars: confirmed by NASA
*
Lost in the unprecedented shocker about John McCain injecting racial smears into his presidential campaign against Barack Obama comes a news note from The Red Planet. NASA tonight announced that the Phoenix lander has collected ice from martian soil, melted it at 32 degrees Farenheit, and documented the presence of water molecules in the experimental chamber. Really. From the Associated Press. Ho hum.
If the water on Mars story were ever to gain traction, which it won't because it's not mentioned by God in the Bible, McCain can always pick up and run with this related story from a blog called "The Jed Report". In addition to Jed's photographic evidence of Obama's alien connections, the name "Barack" clearly has a Cardassian sound to it. Look for McCain to play the Xenobamislamofascist card right soon.
Lost in the unprecedented shocker about John McCain injecting racial smears into his presidential campaign against Barack Obama comes a news note from The Red Planet. NASA tonight announced that the Phoenix lander has collected ice from martian soil, melted it at 32 degrees Farenheit, and documented the presence of water molecules in the experimental chamber. Really. From the Associated Press. Ho hum.
If the water on Mars story were ever to gain traction, which it won't because it's not mentioned by God in the Bible, McCain can always pick up and run with this related story from a blog called "The Jed Report". In addition to Jed's photographic evidence of Obama's alien connections, the name "Barack" clearly has a Cardassian sound to it. Look for McCain to play the Xenobamislamofascist card right soon.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Cockroach ranchers
*
Apropos of the 1990s Rwanda talk radio man who incited the Hutu majority to exterminate the "cockroach Tutsis" (not to mention raping, hacking apart, and burying them alive), Media Matters for America traces the short but continuing history of a persistent McCain campaign smear of Barack Obama that has been spread and perpetuated relentlessly by the corporate media even though it has been authoritatively debunked by the likes of DC celebrity pundit Andrea Mitchell. And Mitchell is no lefty fellow traveler --- she regularly appears as an Atrios "Wanker of the Day." (Sorry, I can't find an example of Mitchell's wanking because Atrios doesn't provide us with a search engine for his site.)
This is how it's done by genocidal dictators: transform the mass media into an unrebutted echo chamber for hate speech. Create a scapegoat class through broadcast slander and then sic the fear-addled bigots on them. Are we almost there yet? With one more stolen presidential election, maybe.
Nighty night.
Apropos of the 1990s Rwanda talk radio man who incited the Hutu majority to exterminate the "cockroach Tutsis" (not to mention raping, hacking apart, and burying them alive), Media Matters for America traces the short but continuing history of a persistent McCain campaign smear of Barack Obama that has been spread and perpetuated relentlessly by the corporate media even though it has been authoritatively debunked by the likes of DC celebrity pundit Andrea Mitchell. And Mitchell is no lefty fellow traveler --- she regularly appears as an Atrios "Wanker of the Day." (Sorry, I can't find an example of Mitchell's wanking because Atrios doesn't provide us with a search engine for his site.)
This is how it's done by genocidal dictators: transform the mass media into an unrebutted echo chamber for hate speech. Create a scapegoat class through broadcast slander and then sic the fear-addled bigots on them. Are we almost there yet? With one more stolen presidential election, maybe.
Nighty night.
Big Rock Head was here
*
As reparations for making Big Rock Head frown at me, provoked (for once), I herewith reproduce a scan of one of his recent hilarious cartoons. This one was sketched on the top of a foam fast food doggy box.
As reparations for making Big Rock Head frown at me, provoked (for once), I herewith reproduce a scan of one of his recent hilarious cartoons. This one was sketched on the top of a foam fast food doggy box.
Eternal truths
*
A contribution from that Master of Science and all-around West Iowan worthy, Big Otis. Take it away, Big Otis:
American humans may be more ignorant about cause and effect than many insects.
A contribution from that Master of Science and all-around West Iowan worthy, Big Otis. Take it away, Big Otis:
American humans may be more ignorant about cause and effect than many insects.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Eternal truths
*
A poignant milestone in the life of any father is the night No. 1 son announces that the house is running low on gin, tonic, and limes.
A poignant milestone in the life of any father is the night No. 1 son announces that the house is running low on gin, tonic, and limes.
Accessories to terror
*
Apropos of the hideous Unitarian church shootings in Tennessee over the weekend, R.J. Eskow makes a point about right wing media that I've made for years at neighborhood happy hours and elsewhere. The basic point is that words matter, especially when they are scripted subject to editorial review by media corporations before broadcasting to a mass audience.
The corporate infotainment industry has long-since debased the journalism profession to the point where reporters simply cannot be assumed to have their facts straight or to be working impartially. But it's much worse than that: millionaire propagandists posing as journalists have drifted over into packaging hate speech and calls to violence as conservative political punditry. This is simply not an exaggeration and cannot be denied in good faith: it's an obvious fact. Eskow cites some examples:
...right-wing rhetoric toward liberals and humanists like those who attended the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church has been exceptionally violent for years. Liberal groups are often called "Nazi" or "Nazi-like" by [Bill] O'Reilly.... [Michael] Savage says he'd "hang every lawyer" who tried to establish constitutional rights for Guantanamo prisoners, describes Obama as an "Afro-Leninist," and said the folks at Media Matters were "brownshirts"....
Commentary on this sort of right-wing incitement to violence against liberals has been easy to find on lefty blogs for years, and Media Matters for America frequently documents prominent national examples. It's not a secret.
So how do the networks who employ Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley and Ann Coulter retain their sponsors? How does this content make it past network Standards and Practices departments when an extemporaneous "fuck" issuing from Bono's mouth can cost a network half a mil in fines (until the ruling is laughed out of court on appeal)? As "Stone Cold" Steve Austin would say, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY THESE THINGS HAPPEN!" It mainly matters just because they happen. (See keywords below anyway.)
I wonder how long many of these right-wing pricks would keep their jobs if broadcast executives were held liable as accessories to terrorism in cases such as the Knoxville church shootings.
Note about image: found on Bob Cesca's blog, it's an actual McCain political poster curently marketed by an outfit called ConservativeBuys.com. Yours for 18 bills.
Apropos of the hideous Unitarian church shootings in Tennessee over the weekend, R.J. Eskow makes a point about right wing media that I've made for years at neighborhood happy hours and elsewhere. The basic point is that words matter, especially when they are scripted subject to editorial review by media corporations before broadcasting to a mass audience.
The corporate infotainment industry has long-since debased the journalism profession to the point where reporters simply cannot be assumed to have their facts straight or to be working impartially. But it's much worse than that: millionaire propagandists posing as journalists have drifted over into packaging hate speech and calls to violence as conservative political punditry. This is simply not an exaggeration and cannot be denied in good faith: it's an obvious fact. Eskow cites some examples:
...right-wing rhetoric toward liberals and humanists like those who attended the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church has been exceptionally violent for years. Liberal groups are often called "Nazi" or "Nazi-like" by [Bill] O'Reilly.... [Michael] Savage says he'd "hang every lawyer" who tried to establish constitutional rights for Guantanamo prisoners, describes Obama as an "Afro-Leninist," and said the folks at Media Matters were "brownshirts"....
He reminds us that Sean Hannity has said "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker (of the House)." And that Ann Coulter has shared her considered opinion that "liberals should be beaten with baseball bats and tried for treason." Soulless, whoring, tax-evading former Bill Clinton advisor and Republican hater Dick Morris says "liberals are 'traitors' who should be decapitated," according to Eskow.
Commentary on this sort of right-wing incitement to violence against liberals has been easy to find on lefty blogs for years, and Media Matters for America frequently documents prominent national examples. It's not a secret.So how do the networks who employ Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley and Ann Coulter retain their sponsors? How does this content make it past network Standards and Practices departments when an extemporaneous "fuck" issuing from Bono's mouth can cost a network half a mil in fines (until the ruling is laughed out of court on appeal)? As "Stone Cold" Steve Austin would say, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY THESE THINGS HAPPEN!" It mainly matters just because they happen. (See keywords below anyway.)
I wonder how long many of these right-wing pricks would keep their jobs if broadcast executives were held liable as accessories to terrorism in cases such as the Knoxville church shootings.
Note about image: found on Bob Cesca's blog, it's an actual McCain political poster curently marketed by an outfit called ConservativeBuys.com. Yours for 18 bills.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Eternal truths
*
If we've learned anything at all from Popeye it's that we can render a steer into link sausage and steaks if we punch it hard enough.
If we've learned anything at all from Popeye it's that we can render a steer into link sausage and steaks if we punch it hard enough.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Balls of purity
*
Time has a big takeout on this new conservative family activity called "purity balls," during which the paterfamilias takes his virgin daughter, sometimes as young as 4 years old, to a formal dance in which a herd of like-minded dads swear their female offspring to sustain their own purity until marriage. The title of the article, "The Pursuit of Teen Girl Purity," pretty well nails the sleazy double entendre --- unintentionally, of course --- that characterizes these events.
I have nothing to add either to the blog post linked here, at Feministing.com, or the commentary that follows it, except for one thing: the Time photo included with the Feministing post seems reminiscent of "Sisters," David Hamilton's 1972 erotic photography monograph depicting young women as totally innocent, sexually overripe vixens, probably with lesbian tendencies. But in the Time treatment, there are highly respectable geezers in the pictures, dressed in James Bond drag.
Time has a big takeout on this new conservative family activity called "purity balls," during which the paterfamilias takes his virgin daughter, sometimes as young as 4 years old, to a formal dance in which a herd of like-minded dads swear their female offspring to sustain their own purity until marriage. The title of the article, "The Pursuit of Teen Girl Purity," pretty well nails the sleazy double entendre --- unintentionally, of course --- that characterizes these events.
I have nothing to add either to the blog post linked here, at Feministing.com, or the commentary that follows it, except for one thing: the Time photo included with the Feministing post seems reminiscent of "Sisters," David Hamilton's 1972 erotic photography monograph depicting young women as totally innocent, sexually overripe vixens, probably with lesbian tendencies. But in the Time treatment, there are highly respectable geezers in the pictures, dressed in James Bond drag.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Saturday night fever
*
Oops. Looks like someone has jacked up John McCain's weekend. I'll bet McCain calls Nuri al Maliki a "trollop" before Monday comes. I'd also give even odds that Cheney has al Maliki's head shipped to him in a Rubbermaid canister by DHL within that same "general time horizon".
Oops. Looks like someone has jacked up John McCain's weekend. I'll bet McCain calls Nuri al Maliki a "trollop" before Monday comes. I'd also give even odds that Cheney has al Maliki's head shipped to him in a Rubbermaid canister by DHL within that same "general time horizon".
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Eternal truths
*
As Red China becomes more like the United States, the United States becomes more like Red China.
As Red China becomes more like the United States, the United States becomes more like Red China.
And speaking of dead assholes...
*
When I first read the news about North Carolina Sen. Liddy Dole wanting to name an international HIV/AIDS medical aid act after the late Sen. Jesse Helms, I reacted somewhat like Atrios. I thought it was amusing that the name of this homophobic cadaver would be associated with legislation intended to prevent the spread of HIV. He would be certainly be mortified by the development were he not already mort-ified.
But because I am not gay or lesbian, my first reaction to the story lacked empathy for the victims of Helms' epic style of sociopathic, bigoted politics. Pam Spaulding at Pandagon explains it so the rest of us can understand, though, with some NC-level political tinge, to boot.
Afterword: For readers who are on Blog Inconsistency Patrol at this moment, I do not believe that the tone of this post is out of keeping with what I wrote yesterday about dead people who are horrible. My tone is overtly vulgar here because Helms' life work deserves no respect by any stretch of civility. Neither Helms himself nor any of his loved ones could seriously believe, in good faith, that there was any moral content whatsoever to the dead senator's soul. I'm not the judge, but I'm not responsible for the discredit he brought upon himself through a lifetime of peddling hatred to his enablers in return for income and political power.
Late update: I hereby honor Senator Dole by naming an important component of my home infrastructure after her. We shall heretofore refer to the seat of our busiest porcelain throne as the Liddy My Toilet. That something y'all can get behind, North Carolina?
When I first read the news about North Carolina Sen. Liddy Dole wanting to name an international HIV/AIDS medical aid act after the late Sen. Jesse Helms, I reacted somewhat like Atrios. I thought it was amusing that the name of this homophobic cadaver would be associated with legislation intended to prevent the spread of HIV. He would be certainly be mortified by the development were he not already mort-ified.
But because I am not gay or lesbian, my first reaction to the story lacked empathy for the victims of Helms' epic style of sociopathic, bigoted politics. Pam Spaulding at Pandagon explains it so the rest of us can understand, though, with some NC-level political tinge, to boot.
Afterword: For readers who are on Blog Inconsistency Patrol at this moment, I do not believe that the tone of this post is out of keeping with what I wrote yesterday about dead people who are horrible. My tone is overtly vulgar here because Helms' life work deserves no respect by any stretch of civility. Neither Helms himself nor any of his loved ones could seriously believe, in good faith, that there was any moral content whatsoever to the dead senator's soul. I'm not the judge, but I'm not responsible for the discredit he brought upon himself through a lifetime of peddling hatred to his enablers in return for income and political power.
Late update: I hereby honor Senator Dole by naming an important component of my home infrastructure after her. We shall heretofore refer to the seat of our busiest porcelain throne as the Liddy My Toilet. That something y'all can get behind, North Carolina?
Monday, July 14, 2008
Eulogizing bad people
*
I don't speak ill of the dead unless I would have spoken ill of them while they were alive.
Tim Russert was the moderator of venerable Sunday public affairs show Meet the Press which, to his embarrassment (presumably), was revealed during the Scooter Libby trial as Dick Cheney's favorite venue for launching new partisan political narratives and slanderous whispering campaigns disguised as news commentary.
Tony Snow was a right-wing media personality who used his talents to promote illegal war, inhumane economic policies, and perpetuate an ideology that empowers and invites transnational corporations do whatever they wish with our democratic republic while Grover Norquist's cosa nostra tries to twist its frail neck shut forever.
Media commentaries like this one after the death of people like Russert and Snow, by one Bob Franken, are to be expected, I suppose, if the author happens to be an "Emmy-award winning reporter, recently inducted into the Society for Professional Journalists Washington Hall of Fame." I accept Franken's assertion that Russert and Snow were both, on a personal level, nature's noblemen; all Hall of Fame Washington journalists have probably shared many liters of alcohol and buckets of chicken wings with both of the late worthies. And, no doubt, both Russert and Snow "squeezed every last bit of pleasure" from their work, as the Franken notes, with a concomitant amount of joie de vivre.
Well, why wouldn't they enjoy their privileged lives to the hilt? Both Russert and Snow must have felt indescribable thrills with each success catapulting the propaganda on behalf of absolute power. But Tim and Tony were not "champions of the honorable disagreement, where skeptical reporters and passionate advocates could hash out the best solutions to society's problems through intense debate", as the eulogist Franken wants us to believe. Russert was a skilled interviewer who used his position to deny adequate access to opposition points of view, and too often played "gotcha" journalism with them when he did invite them. Tony Snow was a political propagandist who promoted a right-wing agenda in every public appearance I ever saw or heard. Russert and Snow were champions of the "honorable disagreement," as Franken calls it, only because they could easily afford to patronize the guests they vanquished with sophistry, phony civility, and by owning their own venues.
The families and loved ones of such men must grieve for their loss because (1) nobody can choose their family members and (2) the deceased were no doubt kind and generous to a fault... to those who belonged to their tribe. Josh Marshall, who may be the most authentic gentleman among liberal bloggers, characterized the loss of Tony Snow to cancer at age 53 as "sad news." But the news was not sad for me. Just to be clear, the news was not happy for me either, even though I do not hesitate to say good riddance to both.
In his 18 months as the senior propagandist for the Bush administration, and as a substitute host for Rush Limbaugh, and as a right-wing commentator for Fox and CNN and syndication, Snow must in the end accept his share of blame for thwarting the public will for affordable universal health care, and for undermining the public's faith that the U.S. government is capable of providing it. I think it is safe to assume that Snow's health care never suffered as a result of government policy. And the administration's efforts to promulgate illegal war, torture, and cataclysmic economic policies never suffered as a result of the decisions Tony Snow made about how to use his media talents.
Russert, who gave more-than-equal time to our government's worst sociopaths and corporate looters, as well as their enablers and hangers-on --- while shutting out or piling on those with opposing voices --- can petition his sky god for entry through The Pearly Gates despite his role in neutering the press in the service of absolute power. His professional malfeasance, in my opinion, is even worse than Snow's. A constitutional democracy can't survive without a robust, independent press that questions authority and doesn't accept the propagandist's answers at face value. Russert, for reasons unknown to me, chose to abet power instead of the everyday people with whom he claimed to be as one.
Without meaning to denigrate anyone's personal grief for either man, I see nothing wrong with stating my belief that America is a better place today without Tim and Tony. Both men contributed directly or indirectly to the misery of untolled thousands (at least) throughout the world... and the grief of the many must count for much more.
I don't speak ill of the dead unless I would have spoken ill of them while they were alive.
Tim Russert was the moderator of venerable Sunday public affairs show Meet the Press which, to his embarrassment (presumably), was revealed during the Scooter Libby trial as Dick Cheney's favorite venue for launching new partisan political narratives and slanderous whispering campaigns disguised as news commentary.
Tony Snow was a right-wing media personality who used his talents to promote illegal war, inhumane economic policies, and perpetuate an ideology that empowers and invites transnational corporations do whatever they wish with our democratic republic while Grover Norquist's cosa nostra tries to twist its frail neck shut forever.
Media commentaries like this one after the death of people like Russert and Snow, by one Bob Franken, are to be expected, I suppose, if the author happens to be an "Emmy-award winning reporter, recently inducted into the Society for Professional Journalists Washington Hall of Fame." I accept Franken's assertion that Russert and Snow were both, on a personal level, nature's noblemen; all Hall of Fame Washington journalists have probably shared many liters of alcohol and buckets of chicken wings with both of the late worthies. And, no doubt, both Russert and Snow "squeezed every last bit of pleasure" from their work, as the Franken notes, with a concomitant amount of joie de vivre.
Well, why wouldn't they enjoy their privileged lives to the hilt? Both Russert and Snow must have felt indescribable thrills with each success catapulting the propaganda on behalf of absolute power. But Tim and Tony were not "champions of the honorable disagreement, where skeptical reporters and passionate advocates could hash out the best solutions to society's problems through intense debate", as the eulogist Franken wants us to believe. Russert was a skilled interviewer who used his position to deny adequate access to opposition points of view, and too often played "gotcha" journalism with them when he did invite them. Tony Snow was a political propagandist who promoted a right-wing agenda in every public appearance I ever saw or heard. Russert and Snow were champions of the "honorable disagreement," as Franken calls it, only because they could easily afford to patronize the guests they vanquished with sophistry, phony civility, and by owning their own venues.
The families and loved ones of such men must grieve for their loss because (1) nobody can choose their family members and (2) the deceased were no doubt kind and generous to a fault... to those who belonged to their tribe. Josh Marshall, who may be the most authentic gentleman among liberal bloggers, characterized the loss of Tony Snow to cancer at age 53 as "sad news." But the news was not sad for me. Just to be clear, the news was not happy for me either, even though I do not hesitate to say good riddance to both.
In his 18 months as the senior propagandist for the Bush administration, and as a substitute host for Rush Limbaugh, and as a right-wing commentator for Fox and CNN and syndication, Snow must in the end accept his share of blame for thwarting the public will for affordable universal health care, and for undermining the public's faith that the U.S. government is capable of providing it. I think it is safe to assume that Snow's health care never suffered as a result of government policy. And the administration's efforts to promulgate illegal war, torture, and cataclysmic economic policies never suffered as a result of the decisions Tony Snow made about how to use his media talents.
Russert, who gave more-than-equal time to our government's worst sociopaths and corporate looters, as well as their enablers and hangers-on --- while shutting out or piling on those with opposing voices --- can petition his sky god for entry through The Pearly Gates despite his role in neutering the press in the service of absolute power. His professional malfeasance, in my opinion, is even worse than Snow's. A constitutional democracy can't survive without a robust, independent press that questions authority and doesn't accept the propagandist's answers at face value. Russert, for reasons unknown to me, chose to abet power instead of the everyday people with whom he claimed to be as one.
Without meaning to denigrate anyone's personal grief for either man, I see nothing wrong with stating my belief that America is a better place today without Tim and Tony. Both men contributed directly or indirectly to the misery of untolled thousands (at least) throughout the world... and the grief of the many must count for much more.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
NPR Fuct Check: the U.S. Constitution
*
All Things Considered reporter Tom Gjelten extruded a Grand Old Piece of crap this afternoon in his puff piece about an outstanding new idea by aged establishment hacks James Baker (R) and Warren Christopher (D). These former U.S. Secretaries of State (who served, respectively, under Bush I and Reagan II --- I mean Clinton) think we need to replace the unconstitutional yet ineffectual War Powers Act of 1973. I say "unconstitutional" because the Act enables a President to attack a sovereign nation without seeking a Declaration of War from Congress. I say "ineffectual" because the so-called safeguards built into the Act have never been complied with. Nevertheless, this democracy-eroding law has facilitated a sense of normalcy in the American psyche regarding "fine little wars" that the President says are beneficial to us, and that is bad. Given that the War Powers Act has facilitated the transformation of this nation from a republic to an empire, it's hard for me to understand why people corporate imperialists like Baker and Christopher can't just be happy with the way things are.
But judging from the tone of his dutiful reporting, Tom Gjelten sounds sold on the idea that what America needs now (instead of that musty, outdated Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) is "a special joint congressional committee made up of House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees" that the President "would have to consult with that group before sending troops into any 'significant armed conflict.' "
Former Secretary Christopher tells us that this new War Powers Consultation Act is necessary "[s]o that when the president decides he wants to go to war he has to take into account the independent views of the members of Congress, and not just any members of Congress, but this selective group of the leaders of both parties of Congress and of both House and Senate." "Selective." That's a good one.
Achtung, assholes! Consult this: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War...." There is no "question of how a U.S. president and Congress should approach war decisions," as Gjelten asserts on the basis of having found a presidential historian to tell us that Thomas Jefferson himself desired to circumvent Congress when waging war. The only people who question the plain language of the Constitution regarding the separation of war powers are imperialist Presidents, their co-conspirators, and their media apologists. This separation is not an "ambiguity," Tom Gjelten: it is an intentional limitation on both branches of government.
This kind of reporting infuriates me. It contributes to the mass-culture idea that the President is the supreme source of authority in the United States. If Tom Gjelten is confused about the plain language of the U.S. Constitution, maybe it's time to reassign him to a less challenging beat such as spitting into the burritos at Taco Bell. What a d-bag.
All Things Considered reporter Tom Gjelten extruded a Grand Old Piece of crap this afternoon in his puff piece about an outstanding new idea by aged establishment hacks James Baker (R) and Warren Christopher (D). These former U.S. Secretaries of State (who served, respectively, under Bush I and Reagan II --- I mean Clinton) think we need to replace the unconstitutional yet ineffectual War Powers Act of 1973. I say "unconstitutional" because the Act enables a President to attack a sovereign nation without seeking a Declaration of War from Congress. I say "ineffectual" because the so-called safeguards built into the Act have never been complied with. Nevertheless, this democracy-eroding law has facilitated a sense of normalcy in the American psyche regarding "fine little wars" that the President says are beneficial to us, and that is bad. Given that the War Powers Act has facilitated the transformation of this nation from a republic to an empire, it's hard for me to understand why people corporate imperialists like Baker and Christopher can't just be happy with the way things are.
But judging from the tone of his dutiful reporting, Tom Gjelten sounds sold on the idea that what America needs now (instead of that musty, outdated Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) is "a special joint congressional committee made up of House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees" that the President "would have to consult with that group before sending troops into any 'significant armed conflict.' "
Former Secretary Christopher tells us that this new War Powers Consultation Act is necessary "[s]o that when the president decides he wants to go to war he has to take into account the independent views of the members of Congress, and not just any members of Congress, but this selective group of the leaders of both parties of Congress and of both House and Senate." "Selective." That's a good one.
Achtung, assholes! Consult this: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War...." There is no "question of how a U.S. president and Congress should approach war decisions," as Gjelten asserts on the basis of having found a presidential historian to tell us that Thomas Jefferson himself desired to circumvent Congress when waging war. The only people who question the plain language of the Constitution regarding the separation of war powers are imperialist Presidents, their co-conspirators, and their media apologists. This separation is not an "ambiguity," Tom Gjelten: it is an intentional limitation on both branches of government.
This kind of reporting infuriates me. It contributes to the mass-culture idea that the President is the supreme source of authority in the United States. If Tom Gjelten is confused about the plain language of the U.S. Constitution, maybe it's time to reassign him to a less challenging beat such as spitting into the burritos at Taco Bell. What a d-bag.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Simpler times
*
Of topical interest, our Fifty50 Military History Correspondent provides a clipping from page 4 of The Fort Riley Post (23 August 1963) giving an account of “‘Realistic’ POW Conduct Training” offered to unsuspecting soldiers of Company B, 8th Infantry, in West Germany. During a training-oriented deception operation, the soldiers were ambushed, captured, blindfolded, shackled, and detained in a barbed wire compound. The putative POWs were then given the business, thusly:
A good-cop interrogator offered the prisoners “liquid refreshment” (read “booze”) and cigarettes and conversationally probed them for religious and racial prejudices and “other possible character weaknesses.” Next, the men were moved to a venue where they were questioned by an attractive female, “dressed only in a negligee.” Then, because not everything was Rat Pack and Camelot during the Kennedy Administration, geopolitically speaking, the captured soldiers were moved to a “‘torture area’ where they were given a modified water torture and shock treatment.” Even then, the U.S. Army had lots to teach soldiers that previously had been learned from the Commies.
It would be interesting to know if torture has ever been documented to produce any outcome other than the confession that the torturer had expected to extract in the first place. Along those lines, it also would be interesting to know whether that preordained confession might be produced more quickly and humanely through a judicious offering of vice. U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies must have catacombs full of data on this very subject (as do the Chinese). For more information on the subject, be sure to file a Freedom of Information request (with the Chinese).
Of topical interest, our Fifty50 Military History Correspondent provides a clipping from page 4 of The Fort Riley Post (23 August 1963) giving an account of “‘Realistic’ POW Conduct Training” offered to unsuspecting soldiers of Company B, 8th Infantry, in West Germany. During a training-oriented deception operation, the soldiers were ambushed, captured, blindfolded, shackled, and detained in a barbed wire compound. The putative POWs were then given the business, thusly:
A good-cop interrogator offered the prisoners “liquid refreshment” (read “booze”) and cigarettes and conversationally probed them for religious and racial prejudices and “other possible character weaknesses.” Next, the men were moved to a venue where they were questioned by an attractive female, “dressed only in a negligee.” Then, because not everything was Rat Pack and Camelot during the Kennedy Administration, geopolitically speaking, the captured soldiers were moved to a “‘torture area’ where they were given a modified water torture and shock treatment.” Even then, the U.S. Army had lots to teach soldiers that previously had been learned from the Commies.
It would be interesting to know if torture has ever been documented to produce any outcome other than the confession that the torturer had expected to extract in the first place. Along those lines, it also would be interesting to know whether that preordained confession might be produced more quickly and humanely through a judicious offering of vice. U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies must have catacombs full of data on this very subject (as do the Chinese). For more information on the subject, be sure to file a Freedom of Information request (with the Chinese).
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Eternal truths
*
Women with perfect hair and makeup at a coffee shop on a weekend morning prefer men who wear khaki-colored cargo shorts.
[Note to regulars: Yes, this is one of my "new features." It took me 2 months to think of a title other than "Deep Thoughts," which has already been claimed by Jack Handy and Atrios.]
Women with perfect hair and makeup at a coffee shop on a weekend morning prefer men who wear khaki-colored cargo shorts.
[Note to regulars: Yes, this is one of my "new features." It took me 2 months to think of a title other than "Deep Thoughts," which has already been claimed by Jack Handy and Atrios.]
Monday, June 16, 2008
SCOTUS, not VP
*
To this, I say this: I think the Clinton for VP issue is a red herring. There's no way she'll get the VP nomination, and I'm sure she doesn't want it. There's a much bigger incentive for her to go out and help nail down the "bitter" vote for Obama: SCOTUS. And after replacing Stevens, she would even be in a position to make history for women by, later, being named the first female Chief Justice (after Roberts and Alito are impeached for being "disingenuous" during their confirmation hearings). In this way she could easily trump the so-called legacy of her peckerwood husband.
[I said it first in a comment on Bob Cesca's blog because I wasn't thinking fast enough for my own good. That's just how selfless I am with my bon mots.]
To this, I say this: I think the Clinton for VP issue is a red herring. There's no way she'll get the VP nomination, and I'm sure she doesn't want it. There's a much bigger incentive for her to go out and help nail down the "bitter" vote for Obama: SCOTUS. And after replacing Stevens, she would even be in a position to make history for women by, later, being named the first female Chief Justice (after Roberts and Alito are impeached for being "disingenuous" during their confirmation hearings). In this way she could easily trump the so-called legacy of her peckerwood husband.
[I said it first in a comment on Bob Cesca's blog because I wasn't thinking fast enough for my own good. That's just how selfless I am with my bon mots.]
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Infrared
*
The photo below is by my little pal Nadia J., longtime friend of my family. I loaned her my Sony Cybershot, and she immediately went to work documenting artifacts around my house using the "night vision" mode. This mode records a scene at the infrared wavelength by emitting said radiation to reflect off objects within a few yards of the lens. It works best when there is little or no ambient light.
Nadia's little pictures are brilliant, and they make me feel dumb for never having tried the same thing during some otherwise boring rainy evening. This particular one radiates a certain amount of social commentary, which is to me all the more poignant for the fact that it probably was not the motivating intent for creating the image. I think Nadia may be the Cartier-Bresson of my bungalow, curiously finding the "decisive moment" in creating her little still lifes using the junk laying around here. I'll post more of these periodically because I like them, and I hope you do, too.
The photo below is by my little pal Nadia J., longtime friend of my family. I loaned her my Sony Cybershot, and she immediately went to work documenting artifacts around my house using the "night vision" mode. This mode records a scene at the infrared wavelength by emitting said radiation to reflect off objects within a few yards of the lens. It works best when there is little or no ambient light.
Nadia's little pictures are brilliant, and they make me feel dumb for never having tried the same thing during some otherwise boring rainy evening. This particular one radiates a certain amount of social commentary, which is to me all the more poignant for the fact that it probably was not the motivating intent for creating the image. I think Nadia may be the Cartier-Bresson of my bungalow, curiously finding the "decisive moment" in creating her little still lifes using the junk laying around here. I'll post more of these periodically because I like them, and I hope you do, too.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
This tinto tastes like paint!
*
Actually, the Spanish wine I'm drinking at Kopi right now tastes more like Pixie Stix. And that's not all bad, flashwise regarding taste. Much better than vinegar or a gym bag.
In my most recent blogging hiatus I have been planning for the future, blogwise. I've been dissatisfied with how much attention I felt compelled to focus on Hillary Clinton's self-obsessed behavior during the latter half of the Democratic primary process. Too much vitriol from me, as well as Clinton. So I just wanted to say "hi" and assure you that great new features are coming your way!
But for right now I want to post one awesome idea for Barack Obama: a deal that he might make with Hilary that would get her out on the campaign trail and truly working hard to help him sew up the bitter middle-age female and hillbilly vote. He should offer to nominate her for the first SCOTUS vacancy! That would provide Senator Clinton an escape hatch from some discomfort that awaits her in the Senate, and would install her at the highest level of one of our three coequal branches of government. I'll bet she'd go for that. Now, I don't trust her for a second in any elected capacity, but I do think it's possible that an appointment to SCOTUS would allow her to revisit her youthful idealism and dedication to liberal democratic principles. And maybe even give her an opportunity to dump her peckerwood husband. So how about those apples, My Friends?
Actually, the Spanish wine I'm drinking at Kopi right now tastes more like Pixie Stix. And that's not all bad, flashwise regarding taste. Much better than vinegar or a gym bag.
In my most recent blogging hiatus I have been planning for the future, blogwise. I've been dissatisfied with how much attention I felt compelled to focus on Hillary Clinton's self-obsessed behavior during the latter half of the Democratic primary process. Too much vitriol from me, as well as Clinton. So I just wanted to say "hi" and assure you that great new features are coming your way!
But for right now I want to post one awesome idea for Barack Obama: a deal that he might make with Hilary that would get her out on the campaign trail and truly working hard to help him sew up the bitter middle-age female and hillbilly vote. He should offer to nominate her for the first SCOTUS vacancy! That would provide Senator Clinton an escape hatch from some discomfort that awaits her in the Senate, and would install her at the highest level of one of our three coequal branches of government. I'll bet she'd go for that. Now, I don't trust her for a second in any elected capacity, but I do think it's possible that an appointment to SCOTUS would allow her to revisit her youthful idealism and dedication to liberal democratic principles. And maybe even give her an opportunity to dump her peckerwood husband. So how about those apples, My Friends?
Friday, May 16, 2008
It was a simpler time
*
From the Science & Engineering Desk, and apropos of nothing (as our correspondent often says), I present to you an invention for the ultimate in comfort and convenience during the reportedly grueling act of childbirth: behold U.S. Patent 3,216,423 --- Apparatus For Facilitating the Birth of a Child By Centrifugal Force (1965). Notice the cruciform plan of said apparatus, providing subliminal reassurance to all of an immaculate delivery, if not conception. And, no, it's not a nutty idea, regardless of what you may think! Click the image to enlarge detail. My favorite feature is the safety net for Junior.
From the Science & Engineering Desk, and apropos of nothing (as our correspondent often says), I present to you an invention for the ultimate in comfort and convenience during the reportedly grueling act of childbirth: behold U.S. Patent 3,216,423 --- Apparatus For Facilitating the Birth of a Child By Centrifugal Force (1965). Notice the cruciform plan of said apparatus, providing subliminal reassurance to all of an immaculate delivery, if not conception. And, no, it's not a nutty idea, regardless of what you may think! Click the image to enlarge detail. My favorite feature is the safety net for Junior.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Listen, I'm a busy man!!!
*
I must apologize for using my discretionary time for activities other than blogging.
I have been busy with some side work that will enable me to feed my addictions for another month. Hopefully, these addictions will destroy me before I feel the need to overwork myself to such an extent again.
Very late update: This is my occasional reminder that, as a Simple Country Editor, I edit. To include judicious deletions, and stuff like that there. It is hoped that not even regular visitors will have any idea what I am taking about at this point.
I must apologize for using my discretionary time for activities other than blogging.
I have been busy with some side work that will enable me to feed my addictions for another month. Hopefully, these addictions will destroy me before I feel the need to overwork myself to such an extent again.
Very late update: This is my occasional reminder that, as a Simple Country Editor, I edit. To include judicious deletions, and stuff like that there. It is hoped that not even regular visitors will have any idea what I am taking about at this point.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
All you need to know about primary coverage
Click through this link for a first-rate primer on the job that insider campaign spinners and the official media do on John Q. and Mary S. Public every day there is a presidential primary election in the United States. Gullible "political junkies" who get their juice from the likes of Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Cokie Roberts need to consider the possibility that their chosen narrators of life are unreliable with the facts and untrustworthy in their motives.
Concurrent update: Apologies for filing this link after the Tuesday primaries, but it really pertains to the political media-industrial complex in perpetuity.
Concurrent update: Apologies for filing this link after the Tuesday primaries, but it really pertains to the political media-industrial complex in perpetuity.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
WPE cafe blogging!
*
I heart my new MBP and am taking a smidgen of time away from the Simple Country Editor grind to blog, just because I can now, in style.
A certain meme, documented in this case by Atrios, has been floating around since Our President has fallen into disfavor with a majority of die Volk. Specifically, the meme is that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president "in modern times." I wonder: why the qualification? Do we really know of any president who has been more unpopular? A more important question, in my opinion, is why it took a majority of the people 7 years to reach this opinion. Everything about Mr. Bush --- literally everything --- was apparent on its face since before his election, when I remember news reports of him standing at a Florida stock car track or something, repeatedly bleating "W" in high-school Spanish to a crowd of frothed-up Cuban exiles, with the learned media commentators asserting that this behavior displayed not only Governor Bush's fluency in a foreign language, but also his deep connections to the "Hispanic" community.
I believe there is one, and only one, reason why Mr. Bush's popularity ratings are so dismal: people are afraid that they can't afford all their great stuff any more.
Acronym alert: for the benefit of all you puny humans out there, WPE means "Worst President Ever."
I heart my new MBP and am taking a smidgen of time away from the Simple Country Editor grind to blog, just because I can now, in style.
A certain meme, documented in this case by Atrios, has been floating around since Our President has fallen into disfavor with a majority of die Volk. Specifically, the meme is that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president "in modern times." I wonder: why the qualification? Do we really know of any president who has been more unpopular? A more important question, in my opinion, is why it took a majority of the people 7 years to reach this opinion. Everything about Mr. Bush --- literally everything --- was apparent on its face since before his election, when I remember news reports of him standing at a Florida stock car track or something, repeatedly bleating "W" in high-school Spanish to a crowd of frothed-up Cuban exiles, with the learned media commentators asserting that this behavior displayed not only Governor Bush's fluency in a foreign language, but also his deep connections to the "Hispanic" community.
I believe there is one, and only one, reason why Mr. Bush's popularity ratings are so dismal: people are afraid that they can't afford all their great stuff any more.
Acronym alert: for the benefit of all you puny humans out there, WPE means "Worst President Ever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
