Blogtopus

Facebook Privacy = Myth. Google+ Privacy = ???

2012-01-07T11:04:00.000-08:00

So, I think part of the big reason that this blog atrophied so much was my new love affair with Facebook. I could post things that only friends would see, and have reasoned discussions with like-minded (and some not-so-like-minded) people, and it would always be respectful. Couldn't get that with a blog in general, without registration, but even with that, there would always be the concern troll or fifty (if I was lucky).

Yesterday a new Facebook Freak Out™ made its way across our fair Faceland and incited another privacy panic, into which I was duped by a well-meaning friend (and then bailed out by another). I felt like a well-greased cow sliding through a stampede with little to no effort. I don't even mind the privacy issues with Fbook; I've already resigned myself (and my generation) to having no privacy by the time we reach retirement age, so why whine about it now?

The point is, Google+ (or GooglePlus, if you like) seems to be the name dropped whenever these privacy issues come up on the big F. I even have an account for it, but I never use it. It seems like another flavor of social poo, different look. Hard to see how I could convince so many friends to switch over without candy or Journey tickets. How in the world did Google expect people to come over in any substantial ways without addressing this aspect?

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T02:36:00.000-08:00

Sick of looking at Barack Obama's face and wondering why I haven't changed anything since two years ago? Well fret no more! At least I think so... more content coming, but I can't guarantee political incisiveness.

See you soon!

You Decide, Mr. President.

2009-09-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

I give up

2009-02-05T21:45:00.001-08:00

This isn't about Ted Barlow's Syndrome. This is about just not being able to communicate with certain portions of our community. I prefer to use the term Agro-Parsing, but what it comes down to is having your every utterance put through some kind of ultra-lefty machinery, which detects slight ambiguity and interprets it in the worst way possible. Or, put more succinctly, someone takes the time to find the needle in the haystack, and then jams it into your eyeball.

You can see below, I've had a previous experience with Melissa at Shakesville. She's good, she's really good, at what she does. She is one of the leaders of the fight to equalize our world in every way possible, via the web. I have no issues with her fight, and I wish her well. What I do have a problem with is WHO she is fighting.

Obviously I must have rubbed her fur the wrong way (oops! didn't mean it like that sounds, Liss, really), and she has decided that I can't be allowed any leeway in newspeak. Is it hyperbole to refer to what she is trying to form as newspeak? Probably, but she's not doing her cause any favors by attacking someone who is A) Entirely for equality, B) Believes that women should be able to control their own destinies in every way, and C) Thinks that the time has come to make changes. It really makes no sense to me, but what do I matter, I'm just a neanderthal man with a penis and not much brain.

I relinquish my duties as an ardent supporter of women's rights, Melissa. Obviously you don't need my help, nor that of many other men who feel the same way I do. Go ahead and play your little dominance games with what THIS person meant by saying THAT. And I DO think you're changing the world one teaspoonful at a time, but if you keep up your Agro-Parsing on your boards, you're going to lose more than you gain. Have fun in your brave new world.

The Ass of Dorian Gray

2008-12-22T11:34:00.000-08:00

Looking in the mirror this morning, I see that same, sweet, slim face and neck, arms, chest and whatnot. I feel fine.

THEN I put on my jeans. Not so much the same. Everything I do to my body goes somewhere else, somewhere I can't immediately see, but it grows and festers like a painting hidden in the attic somewhere...

It's working its way up my body, though. My midsection is slowly chunking up, and soon enough I will have to ward off the man boobs and howler monkey chins.

I love this season, but I can't wait until the parties are all done and I can focus on HELPING my body, heh.

TEH MOSTEST OPPRESSED PEOPLE EVAH

2008-12-17T15:26:00.000-08:00

Just a little note to Melissa at Shakespeare:

I love your writings dearly; you are a real power to behold and read when many of us are tired, so very tired, of everyone else's bitching online.

That said, I guess it struck me as a little odd that you would choose to disagree with the notion that maybe gay teens have it the worst at our nation's high schools. When I mentioned that a gay high school might be a good idea because at my high school it seemed they got the worst treatment, I didn't expect you to accuse me of making sweeping generalizations at other groups' expense (which I did not).

Perhaps it was my recent admission that I was a white hetero male that caused you to view me differently, perhaps as THE OTHER, the stereotypical BAD GUY? Hey, the Nazis worked for Spielberg.

You maybe didn't think that I was thinking of the recent election, where a black man was elected president, his female primary contender just barely losing to him (if that) earlier in the year, a cabinet full of women and minorities (and at least one lesbian, I didn't forget). I won't mention the various anti-gay people associated with Mr. Obama and he still won. All this CHANGE, and yet anti-gay legislation went through in at least 3 states. Hmm. I don't remember any anti-woman, anti-minority legislation going through recently, do you? Hmm. Could it be that certain things are verboten, while other things, like Prop 8, are not?

Melissa, you have to walk a fine line on your blog, and not offend people in a group of folks who seem to be striving to be TEH MOSTEST OPPRESSEDEST. I don't blame you for trying to make an example out of me so your other more 'understanding and less generalizing' readers can feel better about you and themselves. You go ahead and make everybody feel special, give everyone that shiny medal for being oppressed. Meanwhile, in reality, some of us can see the trends in America and think that maybe, just maybe, some groups have it harder than others.

I think you made the point earlier in a post about the Advocate's stupid cover (Gay is the new Black); this isn't a zero-sum game. Is there still racism and sexism and other-ism happening? Duh, of course. But you try to tell me that my saying gay teens might have it tougher than others, my saying that is wrong and over-generalizing? Read the newspaper, or better yet, your own blog. Openly gay people do have it tougher.

Twitchings

2008-11-17T08:47:00.000-08:00

I'm ready to move on. I feel good about the future government, no matter what conspiracy (or non) theories get thrown out, or what CDS bullshit is heaped upon Hillary whenever a position of power goes her way.

Give me a breather; I'm freelancing like a bastard right now and it's great, but no time for this stuff. More later.

BTW I made the comment that we have to come up with a meaning for the word 'Blooger' at some point. Or is there one already? My suggestion: A particularly odious post from an otherwise decent blogger, as in "Josh Marshall just flicked a blooger at my screen."

Wait, I forgot. Josh Marshall is no longer an otherwise decent blogger. My bad.

By the way...

2008-10-01T10:48:00.000-07:00

In light of the following:

1. Iraq Mess
2. Katrina Mess
3. Economic Mess
4. Countless examples of incompetence, you get the point

I'd like to officially state that I believe that 9-11 would NOT have occured under a different administration. It was a colossal fuckup of major proportions, miscommunications all down the line, ignorance and maybe a little bit of anticipation built in there, anticipation that an attack would bolster certain view points. And as usual, the Administration got in WAY over their head.

I'm not saying the Bush admin deliberately staged the attack. No, that would be too complex for them, as we have seen. No, I believe they fucked up in much the same way they fucked up all the other things; they ignored intelligence, all the 'chatter' and couldn't see beyond their stupid, idiotic world, and when it happened everyone went "What the fuck? I thought it would just be another bomb in the basement!"

Rant over.

Thanks. Thanks a LOT

2008-09-29T20:38:00.000-07:00

The Bush Failure is coming to completion. The world markets are beginning to fail, now, following our lead.

This is what you get when you have A) a stupid, mean and petulant leader of criminals in charge of the most powerful country in the world*, AND

B) a set of sheeplike, selfish and frightened-of-their-own-shadows "opposition party" that has NO SPINE WHATSOEVER, which allows the stupid, mean and petulant leader to get away with EVERYTHING.

Already there are people on DKos who are cheering that the bill didn't pass... well, it may not have been a good one, but it was what kept the waters at bay. Congratulations, you have what you wanted: Global Economic Collapse. Now you can go form your communes and sing songs around a campfire of hash while you grow your own food in a farm somewhere... while everyone who lives in the cities burns. Bra-Vo.

*not anymore.

If hope is all he offers...

2008-08-26T17:09:00.000-07:00

Sometimes that isn't so bad.

Posted in comments at Talkleft and Correntewire:

I got religion, just not the kind that I think Obama would appreciate. (I think this is germane to this post, seeing as how tonight will be Hillary trying to convince people to vote for Obama)
I was speaking with a client of mine and we began to understand that we both have the same wavelength when it comes to politics (thank ghod)... I mentioned that I didn't like Obama's policies / politics, but that he seems to inspire quite a bit of young'ns with his speeches. (this was my mode of thought this morning because I keep hearing how awesome and emotional Michelle Obama's speech was - and I keep thinking how I don't intend on voting based on how good a speech giver you are). He agreed, and we both said we were Hillary supporters.

My client then went on to say that he sees this race as taking control of a super tanker... no matter who controls it, changing directions will take a long time to make happen. The fact is, even if Obama doesn't bring about Universal Health Care, the attention will have been brought infinitesimally closer to that eventuality. Even if Obama is as bad as McCain would have been in terms of religion, abortion, etc, the fact is that he will stand as a symbol to the world that we wanted to change - we voted against the party that brought Bush. As empty a suit as he is, or worse yet filled with Chicago politics, as a symbol, he will show African Americans that there is literally no limit to what they can do -- and the inspirational value of that alone is no small trick.

I don't agree with the UHC argument -- I think Obama can do damage to our attempts much like the deep-sixing of Hillary's plan pretty much hurt future attempts -- but with the rest I can agree: most people are not going to know the dirty tricks Obama played to reach his place, or how empty his rhetoric is... they'll just know that America chose a black man with a foreign-sounding name to lead their nation. To think of what that means to a young boy in the ghetto with bigger dreams, or of any race, I think it might just be worth it.

As for that young GIRL with big dreams, well, we'll always have Hillary, fighting no matter what. If Hillary never gets to the presidency, she'll at least be known as the most powerful, most intelligent, most well-known person of our time NOT to be president, and that carries a weight all its own.

Now, after all is said and done, I am not excusing Obama for all his trashy maneuvers this primary season. It will just be easier for me to accept him if he wins... and it makes me realize that payback for his deeds can happen AFTER he wins, too; he'll just go grey a lot faster than Bill, with all of us harping on his non-liberal stances.

Anyway, I had to say this. Unless Obama does something more destructive than he has in the next few months, I'll be voting for him.

About Time

2008-07-29T12:40:00.000-07:00

I've been waiting for someone to use this format...

Get your mind off the woes of D.C.

2008-06-23T15:21:00.001-07:00

Instead deal with these woes:

And these:

I love this concept, even if people are fucking scared as shit. Get your ass out of the everyday doldrums.

So long and thanks for all the ratfucking

2008-06-03T09:06:00.001-07:00

I want to thank the Obama campaign for doing what no other political scandal has done for me in the past 4-5 years; you've cured me of my political site addiction.

I'm clearing my blogroll of all political sites. I don't want to get infected with whatever madness is spreading around.

From now on, this household will be a political free zone. I'm changing my voter status to 'Independent' and I will send back any and all democratic fundraising mail with a copy of my application /confirmation notice.

I'm not going to support John McCain, but I'm definitely not going to support Obama either. He's completely confident that he doesn't need me; so it's all in his court.

If Hillary wants to run again in 2012, after McCain has thoroughly proven that the GOP and its imitators cannot be trusted, then I'll jump in with both feet. But until then, Obama and his Hope campaign should hope he doesn't sink the Dem brand for this generation.

Hillary: 97% Obama: 3%

2008-06-02T10:52:00.000-07:00

That's quite a headline, isn't it? It's not exactly like that, though.

At TalkLeft, Jeralyn has published Peniel Cronin's explosive report: Caucus v. Primary.
Says Jeralyn:

Some Findings:

• 35.6 million people have voted
• The 37 primary states account for 97% of the vote.
• The 13 caucus states account for 3% of the vote.

Bottom line: Clinton’s lead is from 34.5 million voters (97%) in Primaries. Obama’s lead is from 1.1 million voters (3%) in caucuses.

I agree with J on this; this paper needs to be exposed to as many people as possible, especially to those SD's who have mistakenly believed Hype over Substance (and who also believe that delegate count trumps voter count).

Go there, read it, grab the url and post it in as many forums as you can, send it to as many people you know as possible. Here's the direct URL: http://talkleft.com/media/caucusjune2.pdf

Obama's lead is 97.4% attributable to lopsided (and suspect) victories in caucus contests. Audacity of Hope? Nope. Audacity of Disenfranchisement, Intimidation, and Misinformation. DIM.

Well, this is interesting

2008-05-31T16:43:00.001-07:00

While I believe that the facts on the ground are signaling the nation's first Affirmative Action Presidential Nominee (how else can you describe such preferential treatment for the less competent candidate?*), I'd like to take the time to remind people who support competence over style that they needn't give up hope yet. Hillary is still in this game, and intends to take this directly to the credentials committee. People were shouting 'Denver, Denver, Denver' while the verdict was coming out. This is going to be fun.

Here's some more fun, too.

Use it as you would any of God's lovely gifts.

*Per the Affirmative Action comment, think about it. If you were to take both candidates' resumes, remove all trace of gender, race or age, and put them to a blind selection process, do you honestly think Obama would have any chance of winning the nomination?

Fun Email I received

2008-05-26T11:01:00.001-07:00

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking.

As infants &children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts, or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread, and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because,

WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes. No video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms.......

WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.

Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

If YOU are one of them... CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good .

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

[NOTE: There was a silly Jay Leno quote attached to the end basically saying we should have God in our lives and in our Government. No idea why someone would have an essay on how we survived without help then say it was God who helped us after all. Big Brother or Big Bearded Guy - neither one should be controlling us in any way.]

Again, we look to Foreign Newspapers to say what's happening in America

2008-05-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

Hating Hillary - UK:

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

Read the rest.

The Most Offensive Post I can Write

2008-05-22T22:05:00.000-07:00

To address the most offensive people out there who are writing that Obama's campaign is more important than Hillary's because he's African American, not a Woman.

Ok, you sick fuck. The Oppression Olympics is something that should not be undertaken by ANYONE. But since you started it, let's do this:

1. African Americans were enslaved for a hundred years or more by Americans. Women have been considered property and have been domestic slaves for THOUSANDS of years. They've only recently been allowed to join the military, jackass.

2. African Americans have been treated as second class citizens for a long part of American History, including current times. Women have been treated as such for THOUSANDS of years. In some countries it's still okay to murder women for the most ridiculous things. Witch Trials anyone?

3. Openly Misogynistic men have their own shows on Television, and keep them. Openly Racist people, not so much, eh Imus?

4. By numbers, AA men number around 5% of the population. Women number around 40%. This is the least worthy point, but it needs to be made to people who claim that African Americans 'have it coming first'. Sorry, folks, but women of ANY race have it coming first.

As I said, this is the most offensive thing I've ever written, but it is the only response I can think of for the likes of Judis. IT ISN'T A CONTEST OF OPPRESSION, asshole.

Daily Kos is really losing it

2008-05-21T10:36:00.000-07:00

There used to be a time when I could count on at least SOME semblance of integrity from the posters. Not so much anymore.

The win in Oregon yesterday only reinforced the fact that Obama has only won rural white voters in ONE state. ONE. Yet nobody at Obama Central seems to think that's a problem.

There's a word for people like that.

Quickly! MUST. ATTACK. EVERYTHING!!!

2008-05-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading up on Roger Ebert's personal blog about his love of the Indiana Jones movies, and below I see something that caught my eye. Apparently Roger thought that the story of Hillary and Bill Clinton would make an interesting movie at some point.

Soon thereafter, he was deluged with emails accusing him of, well, just about everything that's been accused of people who are neutral but don't ABSOLUTELY WORSHIP the Messiah-Obama.

Folks this is really taking it too far. LET GO OF THE HATE. It blinds you until all you see are enemies, and what kind of a way is THAT to live a life? It is really beginning to take on a shape of cultish behavior, or worse yet, facist behavior. We know all about that because the Bush years introduced us to the fact that IT CAN HAPPEN HERE. And now it appears to be happening in a location we thought was otherwise immune: the 'Reality-based community'. Irony is not dead.

How to poison Democracy

2008-05-19T09:10:00.001-07:00

There are countless posts and comments made about how Hillary can't count Michigan because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. The fact is, it was, spelled U-N-C-O-M-M-I-T-T-E-D. He actively campaigned with this new name, encouraging voters to vote for him under that nom-de-plume.

The fact is, Hillary was supposed to win Michigan by a large margin already. Obama (and Edwards, it should be pointed out) saw an opportunity to garner favor with Iowa by appearing to be sympathetic to them and their state, by removing their names from the ballot to prove that they didn't think that Michigan was more important than Iowa (by moving their primary ahead of Iowa in the voting schedule). This was an obviously calculated move for political gain, not a 'protest' as they put it. And now they want to have it both ways: They risked this move but don't want to pay. They bet on a losing horse but refuse to pay for the loss.

The fact is, just because you take your name off a ballot does not mean the ballot can't be counted. Believing so is completely disrespectful of all the voters, not just the ones voting for your opponent.

And let's be clear: If this were the moral high road that everyone claims it is, what was stopping Hillary from taking her name off of EVERY BALLOT where she was going to lose? She could have invalidated all the states that Obama won, using his own tactics. The reason she didn't is because IT PERVERTS DEMOCRACY and makes a joke out of the vote. Obama may be content to do such a thing, but we know better.

For the Pro Choice Blackmailers

2008-05-19T08:54:00.000-07:00

This is a reply to a comment that was deleted, but I think there are some good points to make. One of the biggest talking points on the boards for Obama is that if you don't support him you will elect John McCain (if you aren't already threatening to vote for McCain outright - which some supporters are threatening to do).

In particular, they say that a vote for McCain will allow him to fill the next 2 - 3 open positions on the Supreme Court with conservative hacks, which will allow them to overturn Roe V Wade. Here's my reply:

---------
I'd like to reply to this, using what I've gleaned from the dozens of other posts here answering the same questions.

1. McCain might be preferable to an Obama pres: McCain can only make things worse for the GOP, further trashing their 'brand', making a Dem victory in 2012 (and subsequent elections) much more likely. As someone said before, 'I'd rather have a GOP admin for 4 years followed by 8-16 years of Dem admin, than a DEM admin of 4 years followed by 8-16 years of GOP admin.' -- The point being that having a sub-standard and disappointing DEM pres in there trashing our values and providing NO relief for our problems (and maybe creating more like Social Security privatization and poisoning the Health Care well with a substandard plan that doesn't get passed), it might be better for McCain to further the cause of the DEMs than to have Obama further the cause of the GOP.

2. Of course we do. [in response to the query - do you think that Hillary would be better than McCain?]

3. Are you willing to believe that the current makeup of Dem Congress and Senate would allow more conservative judges in the Supreme court? And do you not believe that the current makeup is capable of overturning it NOW? 5-4, last I checked, is enough to overturn RvW next time it comes up.

The threats of RvW being overturned are empty at this point. That ship has sailed. At this point the worst thing we can do is put a candidate in there that tells the voting public 'Dems were given a chance, and we blew it. Better stick with the status quo GOP.'

I will not be voting for McCain, btw. I just think that Obama has to earn my vote, and he hasn't yet.
-------------

I will probably put a check next to Obama's name if he is the nominee. Of course, despite the many trumpeting announcements to the contrary, he is not yet the nominee, and will remain so until the convention. He can't elect himself to the position with a grand announcement.

So you're saying I'm not a Democrat

2008-05-11T14:21:00.000-07:00

Because I refuse to accept the bastardization of liberal politics by some previously unknown politician from Chicago?

Brought to you via Corrente via Darrow via Left Coaster:

“Warning: Long post.

I have been a registered, voting Democrat for 22 years, as long as I have been able to vote. I have identified as a Democrat for 33 years, as long as I have been politically aware. I’ll let you do the math. I haven’t missed a general election yet. I have made it to most of the off cycle (local votes on local issues not held in November) votes. I am probably what you would call the creative class. I am college educated (Environmental Studies). I have lived on an organic farm. I have a graduate degree (Business). I live in blue Seattle. I am pro-choice. In the 1970’s, as a child, I recognized the need to switch away from an oil economy.

And I am somewhat offended and disheartened by Paradox’s naive statement that

“No self-identified, registered Democrat is staying home this year, no matter what happens, the Independents are all breaking Democrat and we have awesome internet activism machines, Jesus what a rout it’s going to be.”

Given that at least this self-identified, registered Democrat is definitely, seriously considering not voting for Obama if he is the nominee I think that Paradox needs to take a deep breath and take a long hard look at reality. As a matter of fact I would need to be convinced that Obama is the right person to be President, not that McCain is the wrong person.

I’ll tell you why.

Until a few weeks ago I had a Kerry/Edwards sign in my window to show my disgust with Bush. I didn’t start out this election cycle with a preferred candidate (other than not wanting Kucinich because I knew he couldn’t win in November as core Democratic his ideas might be).

But my candidate of choice started to emerge back in January. I don’t remember the exact dates of all the events, but here is a list of the various things that began to turn me against Obama (no, not for Clinton). Obama saying that he would get Clinton’s supporters but she wouldn’t get his. Michelle Obama’s unwillingness to state unequivocally that she would support Clinton if she was the nominee. The online communities slamming of a hardworking and committed Democratic candidate that drove me from sites like Huffington Post and Talking Point Memos. MoveOn.org’s endorsement of a candidate during the primaries. (Particularly when Clinton voted to defend MoveOn and Obama didn’t — something that just confounded me.)

Driven from my normal sources for news that was not likely to get much play in the MSM, I started reading new blogs, like The Left Coaster. Here I discovered eRiposte and read about the differences between Clinton and Obama (articles that seemed to me to be the best researched and documented around). I noticed that the MSM was giving Obama a pass and buying into what is now called Clinton Derangement Syndrome (I will admit, that I was at first worried about Clinton’s “negatives”). The heavy hitters in the Blog-o-sphere where saying the same thing as the MSM. That was a big red flag. I blame the MSM for much of the current mess we are in. And I blame current DNC leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for a serious lack of spine in not forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster and veto and letting the MSM paint Democrats as “do nothing” and ineffectual, rather than showing Republicans to be obstructionist.

Then came the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida. More DNC lack of understanding of how to win. No vision.

Throughout all this I started learning more about Clinton. I knew she was a fighter based on all that she had to put up with from the Right Wing Noise Machine. And the more I learned the more I became impressed by her knowledge of policy; her understanding of politics; her grace and poise under pressure. I saw her give well thought out answers under attack in debates. I saw her display humor. I came to actually like her.

I also came to know more about Obama. I learned about his “present” votes. I have heard that he was essentially handed bills that others had worked on in the Illinois Senate (I had no idea that the job was only 55 days a year). I learned that he aided and abetted a slum lord. I learned he didn’t see much difference between Bush’s position on Iraq and his own when he could do something about Iraq, despite having been against the Iraq war when he was in no position to do anything. I have seen him speak without a teleprompter and off the cuff. I learned that he didn’t hold any hearings on NATO despite NATOs crucial role in Afghanistan. His excuse, too busy campaigning for President. I heard him offer a universal health care package that leaves 15 million people still uninsured and is unworkable. I just heard him say that he has been to 57 states and still has two more to go. I have learned that this man can’t handle pressure.

So here I am faced with a choice. Vote for a strong, smart leader or vote for a charismatic unknown. The Democratic party needs leadership. It needs a fighter.

We need a fighter because the Republicans, while on the ropes are still fighters. They still have the MSM in their pocket. They still have access to huge amounts of money.

Obama offers the Republicans a perfect opportunity to frame him. Clinton has been raked over the fire. Obama has nowhere to go but down, Clinton nowhere to go but up.*

Back to my feelings about the heavy hitters in the blog-o-sphere and the DNC, because it is at the core of why Obama will have to campaign for my vote harder than McCain or Clinton as a write in.

If the people who claim (legitimately or not) the thought leadership of the Democratic party aren’t willing to give all Democratic candidates a chance to make their case; aren’t willing to take chances (like rearranging the primary season to better reflect America and real voting patterns); aren’t willing to challenge the mainstream media; are able to connect with the base of the party; well then, I think that the Democratic party needs to loose again because they obviously haven’t learned what it takes to win and to lead(I never thought we needed to loose before, we just didn’t have a fighter in the ring for the past two election cycles). Here is my biggest fear — Obama wins, and turns out to be another Carter and I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise (although I think Carter had better ideas than Obama) and the Democratic party is trounced for the next 20 years. If McCain wins, I think that Americans will not be able to simply blame Bush, but will see that Republican policies, no matter who is in office, are simply wrong. I would trade 4 more years of bad policy for 4 years of okay policy followed by 20 years of bad policy.

Please convince me I am wrong. But don’t give me reasons why Obama is better than McCain. Give me reasons why Obama is truly “the change we have been waiting for” compared to Clinton. Show me what he has done that shows me what he will do. Don’t simply point me to Obama’s website. Point me to third parties that compare Obama’s record to Clinton’s in the way that eRiposte did. Then address his electability in realistic terms. Use past voting patterns in the electoral college. Address how he will fight back against 527’s.

I don’t want hope, I want facts that lead me to believe. More of the same from Obama supporters will only harden my view that he is the wrong person. Help this self-identified, committed Democrat believe in the Democratic party and Paradox’s hoped for rout.

Sorry for the long post. I love America and I think that Democratic values really do represent what America was intended to be. I am just frustrated by thinking like Paradox’s because when I hear that stuff I know we are going to lose again. Something we, and the world, can’t afford.”
Posted by SeaMBA at May 10, 2008 10:48 AM

[Emphasis Darrow]

* That is a very good point. Hillary has been at an extreme media low since almost day one, Obama at an extreme high. AND YET THEY ARE ONLY 2% APART FROM EACH OTHER IN THIS RACE. What does that TELL people?

God Bless Historians

2008-05-09T16:41:00.000-07:00

And God Bless SuperDelegates. Now they just have to do their job and choose for the country, not just a bunch of whiny kids.

Not So Fast, Pony Boy

2008-05-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

The Audacity of Cake Walks

ADDED NOTE: I love this quote from gqmartinez at corrente: "In Animal Farm, they at least waited until they won before they started walking on two legs."

Find the Snipe

2008-05-07T08:23:00.000-07:00

I'm including here an email exchange involving a GOP tool, an Obama supporter, and me. See if you can find the backstabbing here.

-------------
Reply 1: In response to receiving this quiz.

Nice, unbiased quiz....sponsered by MoveOn.org. I'm guessing that you are an Obama fan. While I am not a McCain fan, I don't see how you can seriously consider putting the country in the hands of either Clinton or Obama. To use an analogy, we're on a plane and the pilot has had a heart attack. We have to choose who should pilot the plane; I'm going with the nearsighted passenger who took 5 tries to pass his pilot's license test - you're going with one of the two stewardesses. And, if it's Obama, you're going with the cute one!I love ya, Noel, but you've gotta get a hobby or something! xoxox, [Conservative]

-------------
My Reply to Above:

Allow me to try...

[Conservative], let's work out your analogy so it works properly, shall we?

We're on a plan and the pilot decides he wants to aim the plane at the nearest mountain before he robs the passengers and jumps out with a parachute. He aims the plane, robs the passengers, and, before leaving, puts a wad of cash into the pocket of some dude sleeping in the copilot's chair. Pilot bails.

Said copilot wakes up, finds the cash, and says 'Finally! Action and Adventure and I'M THE HERO!!' He proceeds to accelerate towards the mountain.

Copilot knows how to fly the plane, but this isn't necessarily the best solution now is it?

Tell you what, most people would just thump that copilot on the back of the neck with a roll of quarters and put those two stewards in the pilot and copilot's seat. Some might complain about which seat they go into, but it's a fair bet that, with a little help from ground control (ie: the informed populace), we'll be able to get this plane back on track. I think the lesson we've learned is that in the end, we can't leave all the decision making up to just one person. Signed [Hillaryfan]

-------------
Reply 2: In response

Did all of you guys grow up to be Socialists??? Where did I go wrong??

Try this: draw a line on a piece of paper. On the left end, put extreme left-wing morons; on the right, the extreme right-wing morons. Put a mark in the middle of the line for moderates. Now, decide where on the line you would honestly place Bush, Reagan, Kerry, Kennedy, Obama, Hillary and McCain. If you don't have both Hillary and Obama very near the left end and McCain just right of the middle, you're either not being honest or you are uninformed. Conservatives hate McCain because he is closer to being a Democrat than to being a Conservative. Obama is generally considered one of if not the most liberal member of Congress and Hillary's socialized medicine plans put her pretty far out there, too. What happened to the empty rhetoric about wanting a Moderate who could cross party lines?? When was the last time you saw Conservatives rioting, burning police cars or blocking off the Golden Gate bridge??

I thought I raised you guys better! xoxox, [Conservative]

------------

Response from Obama Supporter:

[Conservative], Your analogies are quite one dimensional, innacurate (fyi.. I talked to [Conservative], on the phone today and he compared Obama's association with his pastor to one of us attending KKK meetings), and frankly pathetic [Conservative]. I used to enjoy bantering about with you about Reagan in the day, but your capacity for critical thinking here is a bit alarming.

Listen man, this is not fun and games. Eight years of Bush has been a fricken tragedy for this country and your humorous analogies are not clever.....they are ridiculous and border on offensive.

If you insist on drawing a one dimensional spectrum of "right" and "left", you will realize that on the left you have folks like Kucinich and on the right you have Bush. Using that model you would actually find Obama falling more in the middle and McCain falling close to Bush and ending up pretty far to the right. These discussions are pretty lame though and play right into the hand of the oversimplified analysis that we get daily from Fox News and other dummed-down sources that rely on partial labotomies. You must realize that this whole "right" versus "left" discussion is quite fabricated and not entirely relevant to the problems we are trying to solve as a country. It's just easier to align yourself with a camp and put yourself in a category rather than take a hard look and what the hell has been going on.

The old school traditional Republicans believed in fiscal conservatism, a strong military and less government. If you call that the "right" then Libertarians are the only ones currently who stand for anything remotely resembling those values. The current administration that we have been suffering with for 8 years has no regard for fiscal discipline and proposes policies that are straight out of George Orwell novels. I won't bother with regurgitating the details around the war in Iraq and hypocritical policies like "No Child Left Behind", the "Clean Air Act", repealing habeus corpus, exempting the US from the Geneva Convention, focusing on distractions like Terry Schiavo and constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and working towards dismantling our constitution. These are not casual issues that are justified by 911 or can be chalked up to "politics as usual". This has been a radical, unilateral and very secretive administration that does not fall on a simple linear scale of "right" versus "left". The policies of this administration have severely damaged our morale, our economy and our reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yes...it does matter what other think of us because we are less secure economically and more vulnerable to terrorism when we take this type of approach. This macho, cowboy approach to foreign policy, reckless spending on an unjustified war in Iraq, and the endless catering to large corporations and tax breaks for the rich pretty much define this administration.

John McCain in my opinion does not represent much change at all from the current course that we are on. He strongly supports the erroneous reasons for going to war and believes we need to "do what it takes" to complete the mission. The mission was never defined to begin with and we still do not have an exit strategy from Bush or McCain. He likes the tax breaks for the rich and admits that he does not understand the economy very well. In short, he seems to be more or less a continuation of Bush economic policies and he is a hawk. He makes jokes about bombing Iran and frankly I find this mentality to be repulsive.

I think Hillary is doing her best to cater to McCain supporters and say anything to win votes and win the primary. She represents business as usual to me in her style of politics but I find her policies much more attractive and in alignment with basic American values than McCain or the Bush clique. Obama represents a welcome and refreshing change of direction and he is capable of understanding the complexities that we face. He does not reduce his opinions and positions to lame analogies about stewardesses, the KKK, or one dimensional views of politics. He is a strong critical thinker with more integrity than any politician who I have seen in a long while. If you read even one chapter of his book "Audacity of Hope" (try chapter one "Republicans and Democrats"), you will realize that this is a man capable of understanding nuance and demonstrating strong leadership. If you think that painting the world in infantile terms like "you are either with us or against us" or "axis of evil" or any of that crap is useful to our long-term national interests, then you should have voted for Tommy Narragon in the last election. Bush is a disgrace and an embarrassment and we need a serious change.

That said, in my brief conversation today, you seemed to zero in on the fact that Obama first stated in his speech on race that his pastor is part of his community and that he can never disown his pastor, just like he can never disown his mom or family. The fact that he recently came out and disowned and denounced his pastor represented a major violation in your view of his integrity and going back on his previous statement. You compared his association with his pastor to me or you attending KKK meetings for years and trying to disassociate ourselves from the values of the group. First of all, you know that comparing Obama's church to the KKK is completely ridiculous so don't insult your intelligence by going there. Secondly, you know how slippery the guilt by association argument is. If you really want to start indicting people and assassinating characters using guilt by association, then just about every politician gets nailed. Did you know that Ted Haggard was a personal spiritual consultant to Bush and led millions of Christian evangelicals in his war on homosexuality before they discovered that he is a closet homo with his own boy-toy masseus. I also read that McCain's pastor voices very radical ideas about the fact that anyone who has an abortion is committing a crime and should be put in prison. You said this view of abortion is shared by a large percentage of the population. Think again. I don't think that too many people share that extreme a view nor do they expect ministers and church leaders to always make sense. Furthermore, I don't know too many politicians who get as much heat as Obama about who they know and have associated with. I personally think it's a clever character assassination technique to paint Obama as an "angry black man", and it appears that you have bought into it hook line and sinker.

That concludes my manifesto [Conservative]. and I apologize in advance for any insulting remarks. However, these are serious time man and not a good time to throw out a lot of careless cavalier statements that seem to demonstrate that you have not learned a DAMN THING from the past 8 years.

I love you man and look forward to hanging out soon. signed: Obamafan

[emphasis mine]

---------------

NOW, I have no problem with all the information and factoids that Obamafan brought up. What I do not like is his need to throw Hillary under the bus to help make his point. And THAT's the difference between the campaigns: Hillary has always been trying to be President in this Campaign. Obama has always been trying to Keep Hillary From Being President.

Steve Soto needs to look at himself.

2008-05-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

I love the constant moving of the goalposts... 'Hillary HAS to win xxx to stay in the race."

How many times have we heard that? HAHA

If she doesn't win NC, she will still continue to be in the race. Why? Because more than half the democratic party wants her to be the Democratic Candidate. Too bad she can't win all those red states like Obama can, eh? The states that McCain will win in the GE? Yup.

I can't wait to witness all the wailing and rending of garments and gnashing of teeth and the prepping of the fainting couches and the clutching of the pearls and all the other euphamisms for WWTSBQ that will occur the rest of this week. Forget Speed Racer; I'm ready to watch an even bigger spectacle based on an even flimsier premise.

A conversation with a 20-something...

2008-05-05T08:34:00.000-07:00

Going for the Samoan Vote

2008-04-28T10:52:00.001-07:00

Obama Campaign Illustrated

2008-04-27T11:40:00.001-07:00

Just checking in

2008-04-27T11:17:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since my last 'post', but I've been doing a lot of lurking / commenting over at TalkLeft. C'mon over, we're having a party you can't see.

More candy

2008-03-24T12:43:00.000-07:00

Does this remind you of any campaigns lately?

Sniff sniff

2008-03-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

Can't Halp it

2008-03-16T21:52:00.001-07:00

see more crazy cat pics

Obama, Negative? WWOD

2008-03-16T18:16:00.000-07:00

From Jeralyn at TalkLeft, we get the lowdown on Peter Dauo's latest mailer on behalf of the Hillary Campaign:

Peter provides these illustrative examples: (ps Blogtopus says these are LINKS. Click for fun)
"Disingenuous"
"Too polarizing to win"
'Divisive'
"Untruthful"
"Dishonest"
'Calculating'
"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
"Attempting to deceive the American people"
"One of the most secretive politicians in America"
"Literally willing to do anything to win"

UPDATE: eRiposte has posted the entirety of the letter.

Excellent Post

2008-03-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

By eRiposte at The Left Coaster:

I am going to borrow Vastleft's insightful observation to craft my version of The Clinton Rules (TCR) and The Obama Rules (TOR).

A. The Clinton Rules (TCR)

TCR 1.0. If anything bad happens to the Democrats in this campaign, it can and should be blamed on Hillary Clinton.

[...]

B. The Obama Rules (TOR)

TOR 1.0. If anything good happens to the Democrats in this campaign, it can and should be attributed to Sen. Barack Obama.

There's MUCH more. Have fun!

Morning Quickie

2008-03-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

Feel free to share on your favorite forum. Reaction to this.

Thoughts on the Primary so far

2008-03-13T08:13:00.000-07:00

1. Obama is racking up his wins in Monopoly money. If you look at the vast majority of states he has won, many if not most of them will inevitably vote Red in November. There is no hope of winning them over with HOPE. None. Hillary has won all but one of the major contested states with the most electoral votes. She has been winning the real cash. So when the GE comes around, who do you want at your side in the casino? The candidate with the wallet full of real cash, or the sucker who walks in with a briefcase full of colorful paper?

2. When talking about Florida, I hear so many Obama supporters braying about 'there were so many voters who didn't go to the polls because they were told their votes wouldn't count.' Well, that is likely true, but who says those voters were all for Obama? Last I checked, both he and Hillary were on that ballot. Statistically speaking, it is likely that the same proportion of voters for Hillary and Obama stayed home, meaning the results of the election should stand. Period.

3. Michigan is another fine mess. Look: The reason Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot was not to respect the DNC, but to curry favor with Iowa and New Hampshire, the states that would have gone before Michigan. They wanted to say 'See, we think that Michigan went too far and that you guys got a bad deal. Don't you think we're better than Hillary because of that?' Well, that turned out well, didn't it? Despite voters being told to vote Uncommitted as code for Obama (and Edwards), voters still gave Hillary 55% of the vote. Great job. By pulling your names from the ballot, you deliberately set out to disenfranchise the voters of Michican by immediately casting doubt on the results. Don't tell me Obama and Edwards didn't think about that; they are both Lawyers, running campaigns filled with lawyers. They know how to look a few moves ahead.

Oh, and for those of you complaining about how Hillary somehow broke the rules of the 'pledge'? Here's the text of that. Doesn't say ANYTHING about removing your name from the ballot, or fundraising. That was a risky move for Edwards and Obama, and with risks come rewards or ruin. Obama, you do not always win a risk.

So much for Mr. Down-Ticket

2008-03-09T21:27:00.000-07:00

For all those Obama supporters who believe that he will inspire more voters to come out, thus increasing the likelihood of more dems being elected down-ticket:

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

Via Taylor Marsh, who I'm sure is taking a lot of bullets for being the messenger.

My explanation? Most of his supporters don't read the fine details of his policies, so they probably don't have patience for all that other 'election B.S.' Who needs to know what else is going on in the world when Obama will fix it all?

Nope, no bias here

2008-03-06T07:55:00.000-08:00

Via Yahoo News photos, Reuters.

C'mon. If we saw a similar picture of Obama in front of a crazy muslim fundamentalist symbol, people would be in the streets.

How to handle McCain

2008-03-05T18:38:00.000-08:00

It's time we started thinking seriously about how to handle the tortured war hero, John McCain. No doubt he is going to bring up his horrific experience as a sign he can handle whatever it takes, that he knows about war. You can't criticize him because, well, we're not Republicans.

However, you don't need to criticize him. Just compare him to people who are having a REALLY BAD TIME in American or Iraq.

Compare him to the middle class homeless people, who can't afford to get cancer like the rich can.

Compare him to the poor people who joined the Army for the GI Bill and came back with less body/brain they started with, and NO GI Bill because the Army screwed them by one day for qualification.

Compare him to the folks who's lives were destroyed by Katrina, who are still homeless. Show pictures of New Orleans.

In short, compare him to all the people who are suffering because of his party. Don't attack the man, attack the party with the consequences of their philosophy. People will draw their own correct conclusions.

And don't forget that Bush himself just endorsed McCain. I'm sure John's still wincing from that one.

Arnold's other 80's career

2008-02-29T18:41:00.000-08:00

You can't tell it's him until he smiles. It is Arnold, I'm sure of it. Just as I'm sure that the hep cat on the keyboard guitar is Barack Obama. Two independent minds: One AWESOME 80's music peak.

Robert Downey Jr is a comic book god

2008-02-28T22:23:00.000-08:00

One Flu over this Cuckoo's Nest

2008-02-20T20:04:00.001-08:00

Boy, this flu going around SUCKS. I've had 102 temp on and off for nearly 3 nights and a couple nights ago was the vomit speed round. Finally I'm getting it under control, meaning I've got it under 101, most of the time 99.9 or thereabouts.

Folks, if you can get flu boosters still, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it. I've got friends who haven't been sick for 18 months or so coming down hard with this. You know the type, heheh.

I've been twittering over at TalkLeft's comment boards, I highly recommend joining the discussions over there. It's kind of like blogging-lite for me (because posting youtube clips is way too draining.)

Good Ad

2008-02-15T14:43:00.001-08:00

Keep up with the facts on hand, Hillary. It's about time we got a comparison primary fight going on.

Same thing

2008-02-15T10:28:00.000-08:00

Don't vote for Barack Obama because he's black: Racist
Vote for Barack Obama because he's black: Equally Racist

Can't have your race card and eat it too, JJ.

Happening across an atypical article on Huffington

2008-02-15T08:21:00.000-08:00

By Erica Jong, titled "Patriarchy:1000, Hillary:0":

If Bill defends her, he's a pimp. If he doesn't, he's a creep. If Chelsea campaigns, it's cynical. If Obama trots out those cute little girls Michelle gave birth to, he's a family man. If Michelle attacks Hillary, it's news. If Hillary attacks Michelle -- well she can't because that would be racist. All we need now is a black woman in this race -- Maya or Oprah or Toni or Gayle or Donna -- any of whom would be a far better president than the one we've still got (not to mention his surrogate Dad, Dick Cheney, his co war-criminal). You couldn't attack Oprah or Maya or Toni or Gayle or Donna because of their color. Wow -- what an idea! Oprah for President. I'd definitely vote for that. I adore Maya Angelou as both person and poet. Toni Morrison is a genius and a true progressive. Gayle King is an executive, mother, communicator. Donna B. is a spokeswoman on CNN. Oprah -- well, she's Oprah -- way beyond having a last name.

Well worth the read. Usually Huffington Post is a strong Obama supporter with its selective reporting and photography, but this one is a good start to waking up. H/t Corrente.

Badtux vs. Robamas

2008-02-14T08:22:00.000-08:00

BadTux minces no verbs:

I'll vote for the man because he's intelligent and competent (unlike the incumbent) and because he's actually sane (unlike John McCain), but I'll vote for him knowing he's just another sleazy politician, another slick con man out of the same mold that produced Ronald Reagan. Really, I don't see why people worship him. He's a politician. He's a successful politician, meaning he's a damned good liar, because people won't vote for someone who tells them the truth.

Have to agree with this sentiment:

But Bushbots, Obamabots, and Ronbots take annoying to a different level, because they are immune to reason.

BHO no JFK

2008-02-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Nance for the video link.

Via Jeralyn at TalkLeft we get this view from writer Thomas Walkom:

So it's worth pointing out, in the midst of all of this fervour, that for better or worse, Obama is not Jack Kennedy. But then, even Kennedy himself was not Jack Kennedy, or at least not the Jack Kennedy we have created in our minds.

Obama is running as a newcomer – someone who has just come to Washington and is not implicated in the mistakes of the past.

...

Where Obama resembles Kennedy is in his rhetoric, in his ability to say things that can touch an audience to the core. I think that is what former Kennedy speechwriter (and now Obama supporter) Ted Sorenson means when he says Obama has the JFK magic.

But the content of what they say is significantly different. Obama, operating in the bruising propwash of the Iraq War and the bitter divisions over George W. Bush's presidency, talks of reconciliation. Kennedy, a liberal cold warrior frustrated by what he saw as the caution of his predecessor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower, spoke of confrontation, and the need to face down the Soviet enemy.

I wish I could find the youtube video of JFK giving an angered and heartfelt speech about the need to fight for one's views. Anybody seen it? [UPDATE: Found by Nance. Thanks!]

Ponuppy Love

2008-02-08T22:37:00.000-08:00

I think it's a valuable thing to watch baby animals playing when you get too riled up by Candidate A or B.

Ponuppy Spotted!

2008-02-08T18:56:00.001-08:00

So much for that Fox News excuse...

2008-02-07T15:13:00.000-08:00

(Pay no attention to that ~~man~~ fear behind the curtain)

Via Taylor Marsh, we have a public letter to Obama from the Clinton Campaign (emphasis mine):

David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Dear David:

Congratulations again on your victories Tuesday night. As Senator Obama declared, it was a great evening for Democrats.

One of the things I've always appreciated about the Democratic Party is its willingness to engage the toughest issues facing our country, even if we don't always agree on how best to solve them.

After seven years of a Bush administration that has left the economy struggling and our health care system in crisis, Americans are certainly facing their fair share of challenges and deserve to hear how the candidates for the nomination will address them.

As such, I was disappointed to see that Senator Obama rejected the idea of having more debates given the fact that he and Senators Clinton have had only a single one-on-one debate. I think we can do better and so does Hillary.

Senator Clinton believes voters should have more than one opportunity to see the candidates discuss the issues and has accepted five debates between now and March 4th from CNN, MSNBC, WJLA, ABC and Fox News.

To that end, we hope Senator Obama will join Senator Clinton for a debate a week beginning this weekend. I'm sure we can find a suitable place to meet on the campaign trail. There's too much at stake and the issues facing the country are too grave to deny voters the opportunity to see the candidates up close.

As Senator Obama has said, "In an era when Americans are rightfully skeptical about the quality of our politics, let us set an example [they] can be proud of and give them the kind of campaign they deserve." We couldn't agree more.

Sincerely,
Patti Solis Doyle
Campaign Manager

So this isn't about Hillary breaking a vow to not be on Fox News anymore. Obama has been challenged to FIVE one-on-one debates. Hell, even Dubya agreed to three.

Would one call that the Obubble?

Joe Klein and selective support

2008-02-07T10:11:00.000-08:00

Look, Obama folks:

If every major pundit, winger radio host, Village establishment press monkey and their organs support your man and bash Hillary, and you stand by and let it happen even when you might know it's unfair or untrue, you are NOT allowed to complain when one of those monkeys drops a letdown bomb on your man.

Case in point: Joe Klein has just published some material about his discomfort with Obama's messianic message and the cult of personality he is creating. When one of the blogs who is less enthusiastic about Obama as you are reprints it, you scream and howl, rend your clothing and gnash your teeth.

Deal with it. This is just the beginning. Can you feel the worm turning? Obama is now at the head of the pack, and that means the knives will come out. I hope you enjoy the next couple months; you've earned it.

As Partisan as Evolution

2008-02-07T10:02:00.000-08:00

At Talkleft, in a discussion of Obama's disturbing Messianic messaging, I was addressing someone's comments that attacking Obama makes a person automatically partisan.

My reply:

Just because you support one cause over the other doesn't make you partisan -- sometimes it's a sign you're rational.

Evolution or Intelligent Design: Are these both equally valid? One is based on facts, logic and solid evidence that supports their claims, used to drive important advances in medicine, biology and zoology. One is a just another form of religion, based on rhetoric, supposition, faulty logic and obfuscation of inconvenient facts, created to make people feel good but delivers nothing in the real world.

Sound familiar?

Nobody has yet to address this avalanche of information about Obama's policies compared to Hillary. Right now it is all about Obama's Higher Plane of Existence (TM).

Frog Marching the Ponuppy

2008-02-06T16:25:00.000-08:00

Via Vastleft at Corrente, I am pointed to this article by Joseph Wilson, husband of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, hardly a shill. Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.
...
In the Spring, 2003, I happened to debate William Kristol, one of the architects of the neoconservative agenda and an enthusiastic supporter for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent policy. He blurted out his judgment that "on the ground experience was highly overrated." That arrogant assertion of ideology and preconceived ideas over practical experience has precisely led to the quagmire we find ourselves in today in Iraq and the Middle East.

Now, Senator Obama echoes and reflects the same attitude of contempt for "on the ground experience." Acting on his superior "intuition" he has proposed unilateral bombing of Pakistan and unstructured summits without preconditions with adversaries such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il. As we have learned, the march of folly is paved with good but naïve intentions.
...
After he came to Washington, Obama's views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama's record identically matches Senator Clinton's--with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama's vote was typically passive.
...
We know that she has won and lost but always fought for her beliefs, which are widely shared within the Democratic Party. The battles she had been in have been fierce--and the battles in the future will be no less intense--and she has proven her steadfastness and is still standing. She does not have a cowardly record of voting "present" when confronted with difficult issues. She does not claim "intuition" as the basis of the most dangerous and serious decision-making. What she has is deep and vital experience, more important than ever in restoring our country's place in the world.

For all the braying I hear from Obama supporters about Hillary's vote for Iraq, their own man had said he didn't know how he would have voted himself. Read the whole thing, it's beautiful.

Obama and Establishment

2008-02-06T10:28:00.000-08:00

How do YOU define Establishment, Obama?

Funny, because if you were to do a blind test, based not on name, but on endorsements, you'd think the one who has all the major endorsements of Longtime D.C. Veterans, major support and bias from the networks, the newspapers, and ingratiating, back-flipping support from THE biggest online communities would be the establishment candidate. The one who is being shunned, attacked and slandered on a regular basis from All Sides, has less money, fewer endorsements and is being constantly scrutinized where the other is not, THAT's your underdog.

Obama can't have his cake and eat it too. Either he has those groups on his side in the name of 'unity' and is the establishment candidate, or he doesn't.

[Added]: But then again, his Senate mentor was Joe Lieberman, who probably considers himself an anti-establishment politician too, compared to Ned Lamont.

Sportsmanship

2008-02-06T08:35:00.000-08:00

The AP notices something we've all known (via TalkLeft):

The AP reports:

At a rally in Chicago, Obama delivered a swipe at Clinton, telling supporters the race was between him and a candidate who accepts money from "special interests in Washington."

During her speech tonight to supporters in New York, Clinton struck a different tone, congratulating Obama on his victories.

"I look forward to our campaigns and our debates about how to leave this country better for the next generation," she told supporters who cheered her.

Their advisors also presented different pictures of Tuesday's results:

"We feel like we've had a good night, but this contest is far from over," Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn told reporters tonight.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe countered: "We're having an outstanding night. We're ahead currently in the number of states won ... and we think the delegates are very close."

That must have been before the California results came in.

Here's something about that comment about 'special interests':

Three of Obama's top fundraisers, who each have raised more than $50,000 for his campaign since January, were registered as lobbyists last year, according to reports filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. In 2006, Alan Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures earned $90,000 in lobbying income; Tom Reed, of Kirkland & Ellis, lobbied for the Seismological Society of America, the Nanobusiness Alliance, and the Airport Minority Advisory Council; and Scott Harris, of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, represented Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Dell and Sprint-Nextel.
All three Obama fundraisers have said they are no longer lobbyists, although the public records office has not posted contract termination reports for any of them.
...
Frank Clark, chairman of Commonwealth Edison, helped lead a $2.2 million congressional effort on nuclear research and waste disposalin 2000, according to a report under his name filed with the Senate. He also raised more than $50,000 for Obama this year. He played an important part trying to persuade state lawmakers to deregulate the energy industry in Illinois.
...
avid Heller and Bruce Heyman are big Obama fundraisers and managing directors at Goldman Sachs. Last year, Goldman Sachs spent $3.3 million on lobbying. The company hired firms such as DLA Piper, Rich Feuer Group, and the Duberstein Group to influence lawmakers.
...
James Dinan, the founder and CEO of York Capital Management, is another Obama bundler. His company hired Dutko Worldwide to lobby on asbestos issues in 2005 and 2006.

So what we have here is a man who is unwilling to congratulate a competitor or even respect them. Instead he slanders her again. What a Uniter. Projection is a problem for this guy.

Another future president showing his true colors. Obama would be way better than this guy, but that divide is closing disturbingly fast.

The Debate on Fox

2008-02-05T21:18:00.000-08:00

Regarding Hillary's request (?) for a debate on Fox News, which had previously been boycotted by the dem candidates due to pressure from the blogosphere, I posted this at The Left Coaster:

The fact is, Hillary is revealing her political brilliance here, once again.

1. Fox news has been pilloried only by the people who have been attacking Hillary NON STOP. If she goes on Fox, who's support does she exactly lose? And she has everything to gain by being seen as coming across the barriers and reaching out to non-progressives. Does that sound familiar, Obama fans? Hmmm? What will you do if Obama refuses to be in a debate on Fox? Applaud him for his 'Post-partisanship'?

2. Being seen on Fox news, she will be attacked by the commentators before and after -- which is no different than the commentators on MSNBC, CNN, et al. Again, what does she lose?

3. This puts Obama's camp into high gear dilemma mode: Do they say they don't want to debate Hillary - appearing scared to Fox viewers and hypocritical to his 'post-partisan' fans? Or does he accept, and get to be seen as hypocritical to many of his other fans (if they know what being hypocritical means, actually).

Is this hypocritical of Hillary to appear on Fox News in a debate? Yes, if she previously said she wouldn't appear on them because of their bias. But after the past few months, it would appear that ALL the networks share that same bias when it comes to her, and her only. In the face of such odds, she's entitled to piss off some people who aren't voting for her anyway.

And if Obama wants to make the mistake of calling Hillary a hypocrite, he can reap the rewards of what her response will include regarding his corporate interests and his voting record, both of which have been completely ignored or obfuscated in the campaign so far.

Hillary has earned the right to choose wherever the hell she wants to debate, earned it in spades.

What flavor do you like?

2008-02-05T20:14:00.000-08:00

Looks like the koolaid might be coming sooner rather than later.

Why I voted for Hillary Today

2008-02-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

I was going to write this huge article on why I voted for Hillary today, and it all came down to the fact that I know who she is, and that everyone voting for her knows who she is.

Very few people supporting Obama know who he is. They like his rhetoric. They love his speeches. They like what he promises: an end to partisanship. That isn't who he is:

Sen. Obama has an impressive progressive voting record, but as I have highlighted below in some detail, he has run a disappointing campaign in multiple respects and there is accumulating evidence that his campaign is dangerously unprepared and unvetted to face the Republican onslaught in the general election. His excessive focus on the politics of compromise and triangulation, his repeated skipping of controversial votes that might reveal his real positions to progressives, his unfortunate, repetitive use of false right-wing talking points to paint progressives or progressive policies in poor light, his false attacks on Sen. Clinton's character, his campaign's mimicry of the fraudulent methods used by the mainstream media to attack Al Gore in order to attack Sen. Clinton, his misleading attacks on Sen. Clinton's campaign contributions, his weakness in policy knowledge and obvious lack of breadth of experience compared to Sen. Clinton are some of the most important reasons why I do not believe he is the best Democratic candidate for President. Sen. Obama has tried to distinguish himself from Sen. Clinton by claiming he had better judgment on Iraq. This is misleading, not just because of the doubts surrounding whether he would have really voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time, but also because his voting record on Iraq in the Senate is virtually identical to Sen. Clinton's voting record. Sen. Obama has tried to create a false impression that Sen. Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution is effectively a vote for war against Iran. Not only did he skip the vote on this allegedly earth-changing resolution, it was a nonbinding resolution that does not legally endorse any actions by the President and contains provisions that Sen. Obama has overtly or tacitly supported at other times. Sen. Obama also tried to assert that Sen. Clinton was a liar based on her sensible position on social security. He then attacked her from the right on her sensible healthcare plan. As Prof. Paul Krugman has noted, Sen. Obama is partly on the wrong side of both issues and is damaging the cause of reform with his unfortunate rhetoric and approach. Sen. Obama also took progressives to task for criticizing Democrats who voted to install ultra-conservative Judge John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. These are all indications to me that despite his charisma and "non-ideological" approach to politics, Sen. Obama is not the best Democratic candidate for President today, even though he is better than the Republican candidates for President.

I find myself thinking of the 2000 election where the press and media decided our candidate for us. Looks like it's happening again, and I find myself deeply afraid of what the repercussions will be this time.

Once again we are electing a man with very little experience in a national office, one who cites religion as his driving force, one who claims he will cross the divide and reach out to the other party with compassion. A uniter, not a divider.

I voted for Hillary today for many reasons. But the most important one is that I know Hillary. I grew up with her. The fact that she doesn't ask us to "Trust Her" makes me trust her all the more.

If Obama takes the crown today or next week or next month, I will sidle up to the folding table and drink the koolaid offered up, but it will taste bitter and saccharine, because I'll know that once again, as in 2004, the better candidate was left behind.

More here.

Good Production Values

2008-02-05T09:00:00.000-08:00

Whenever I send out a good link (with sources) showing how Hillary is the best candidate for America, I get this sent in return:

And yet I can't help but think about this when I see it:

Obama the third party candidate?

2008-02-05T08:30:00.000-08:00

In light of this:

and his mentorship with Joe "screw the democratic party" Lieberman, is it out of question that Obama would pursue a third party run?

I could certainly see his followers supporting such a travesty, in the name of 'unity'.

Oh, for Chrissake...

2008-02-03T09:26:00.000-08:00

Last night my wife was almost - ALMOST - convinced to vote for Obama because Hillary was the chosen candidate of the BUSH CRIME FAMILY.

The persuader / evangelist is an old friend, earnest and very intelligent. I wish I had been there to add some reality to the equation, or at least some common sense.

Look: Even if the Clintons ARE the second coming of Hitler in secret, what they DO is what matters to me the most. Bill Clinton was arguably the most effectively progressive president in the past 40 years. He made the United States a better place to live in. If Hillary is going to do more of this 'evil', well hand me a black candle and a holocaust cloak: I'm now a part of the vast conspiracy to make the world a better place.

BTW has anyone even NOTICED that all the usual right wing bloviators are supporting Obama? Does anybody even lend that any weight? Sure, Hillary has Ann Coulter supporting her, but only in the sense that she hates McCain more (and there is that pesky woman thing). Most of the D.C. establishment, the right wing talk radio set, and the 'Liberal' media support Obama. Since when is the status quo that interested in ending its reign? The answer is: IT ISN'T. Obama is the choice of the status quo.

Been wandering

2008-02-02T21:12:00.001-08:00

I find that it is likely a lot of normally sensible dem heads are going to be exploding come Tuesday night.

My head won't explode if Obama pulls it out on Soop Tuesday, but I will be saddened that once again style won over substance. (see Gore versus Bush, 2000).

Troll Prophylactic: I'm NOT saying Obama is Bush. I'm saying everyone seems so enamored with him for all the wrong reasons, and hate Hillary because of overwhelmingly bad media.

Louise is getting Hairy

2008-02-01T10:40:00.000-08:00

My Version:

Via Krugman. Also here.

Whatever it is you're looking for...

2008-01-28T09:17:00.001-08:00

... you'll always find it.

There is no finite amount of statistics, facts, innuendos, rumors or just plain batshittery for people looking to justify what it is they're trying to prove.

If Hillary wins the nomination, it will be in flat out defiance of a media striving to destroy her, with several high-powered blog accomplices who may or may not be claiming to be unbiased in this matter. Yes, you may have ostensible shills for Hillary too, at The Left Coaster, Talk Left and so on, but those really don't pile as high as Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo or Daily Kos, not by a long shot. You just have to go to the two former samples to see how an unbiased news digest can go off the rails, and Dkos' diaries are an example of mass hysteria masquerading as a movement.

If Hillary wins the nomination (to say nothing of the general election) it will be 100% from the people. No media will have helped her, to be damn sure. And maybe that's fitting, seeing what they did to her in the 90's.

If Hillary wins the nomination against an opponent whom she isn't allowed to attack, you'll know damn sure she can handle herself against an opponent that the media supposedly WILL allow her to attack.

Maturity... It's what's for Dinner

2008-01-25T17:23:00.000-08:00

Busy busy busy

2008-01-25T09:04:00.000-08:00

That's a good word for a freelancer, I just wish it was more of a billable kind than it is. So I have a thousand ideas for cartoons, but can't touch them yet. Grr.

In the meantime, I offer you this:

Now if you're tired of the 'found footage' device in film these days, I don't blame you. But this still looks GOOD.

Show Me

2008-01-24T12:12:00.000-08:00

I'm getting a little sick and tired of this kind of driveling hyperbole:

TPM Reader AK ...

I've been more than a little saddened by the way that you've "gentlemanly" sat on your hands and (for the most part) reserved extensive comment on the venom Bill Clinton has been unleashing on his wife's behalf. If Hillary wins this nomination in this fashion, the Democratic party will be destroyed. After seeing this side of the Clinton machine, I have zero interest in supporting their dynasty. Not only will the entire R-side of the country be in full-throated opposition to 8 more years of Bill (at this point Hillary is sadly almost an afterthought), but my instinct is that you can count on a very deflated and divided Democratic party not exactly rallying around Team Clinton.
It's crushing, but it's true. If she wins by letting Bill kill the future of the Democratic party, the Ds are done.

This piece of filth can be found at Josh Marshall's TPM.

I have witnessed a lot of this going on, and all I can say is that the Democratic Party is going to be just fine whether Hillary gets elected or not. All this talk about 'Dynasties' is just sour grapes from people who wouldn't object to Obama's wife running if he'd just finished 8 years in the big chair. Its a front, an excuse, for people who really seem to be suffering from a Clinton Derangement Syndrome of their own.

Let me state it this way folks: Hillary's supporters intend to vote for the Democratic Nominee even if it isn't their fave, Hillary. They hold the future of the country above and beyond who they want personally to fill the role. Obama's supporters can't say the same thing; they would rather dump another GOP destroyer into the big chair just to spite everyone else, and laughingly call it a 'conscience vote'. Does this sound like any other candidate's supporter?

Grow up and admit to your own insecurities before you do some serious damage. "the D's are done"? How about, the Americans are done? We are in such a pivotal time in history (environmental, global war, etc) that to see people act so selfishly just boggles the mind.

SHOW ME how Hillary and Bill will destroy the D's. PROVE IT. We have ample proof that Obama is just as much of a lying shill you claim the Clintons are. PROOF, as in EVIDENCE, not just hyperbolic rhetoric.

PS. You do realize that once the heartlanders see that the Espresso-swilling, sartre-worshipping, poli-science-majors just out of college far far lefty types hate Hillary with such passion, it might make them consider her all the more. If you want to leave the party, you're welcome to join the 3rd party balkans.

[pant pant, breathe DEEP, whooo]

Quick response about Hillary's experience

2008-01-19T08:35:00.000-08:00

I responded to a commenter on this story at Skippy's by saying:

Wow, how long did that take?

Feel the unfocused distaste - not yet hatred - of Hillary.

Do some research, friend, and enjoy the revelations that Hillary has every bit the experience she says she does. She had a strong political life before hooking up with Bill, and if you think she was off baking cookies while he ran the country, well it must be fun to live in that world.

In actuality, I'll let someone else say it:

"If you think Hillary skated to power on Bill's coattails, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Hillary's career took off before Bill's did. Hillary was asked to be on the panel drawing up charges against Richard Nixon - not Bill. And that came about because of the work she had done in Texas. Next, she was invited to be on the board of the Children's Defense Fund becausee of the work SHE did in law school. Lastly, Carter appointed her (not Bill) to the board of the Legal Services. That was her resume when she married Bill, and it was more impressive than anything he had at the time. It's so weird how Clinton haters are determined to ignore her actual history. Once she married him, she continued to work on projects that are clearly rooted in the work she did on her own."

I found this in a comment board that had mostly people like you, who think that Hillary had about as much experience in the WH 'as the pastry chef'. I can't think of a more cynical and, yes, sexist and dismissive attitude towards someone who deserves a lot more than the usual GOP smears that many Dems are repeating.

When Hillary gets the nomination (and yes that will happen if the national polls can be considered accurate- heh), she won't just have to worry about FoxNews, the GOP candidate or the Talk Radio know-nothings repeating GOP slime. She has a whole legion of Obama and Edwards supporters doing it too.

Do your research and don't go for the easy route. Learn something and then make an educated decision, for chrissake. If you still don't support Hillary because of her NIE vote, then I can accept that as a reasonable position, but don't base it on your playground knowledge of Hillary's experience.

ADDENDUM: Funny how quickly people forget the perjorative 'Billary' that was bandied about during the administration. It was meant to say that the 'ambitious' Hillary had become a co-president because of all the influence she was believed to have had. So now none of that matters, or that she was a co-president of making cookies? Pfah.

November 5th, 2008

2008-01-15T16:47:00.000-08:00

A Week Later at Psychic Olga's...

2008-01-13T22:07:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama: The Bend Over Candidate

2008-01-13T00:29:00.000-08:00

Similar to the Manchurian Candidate, except this one has the endorsement of all the wrong people:

Kristol, Sullivan, Brooks, Broderella, Lieberman, Nelson, Daschle… What’s not to like? Plus, now John Kerry!

Lambert is onto something there... how many bad eggs, despised people and just plain idiots have to endorse / support Obama before we start to see that maybe, just maybe, they're seeing something we are not? Or a better way to look at it is are they NOT seeing something that we are? Like not seeing a great rhetorician, but instead a willing tool of the status quo.

Even the initials work: Barack Obama is the Bend Over Candidate, following in the footsteps of Tom Daschle, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman... and John Kerry.

Bend Over in '08!

Kerry Endorses Obama

2008-01-10T09:02:00.000-08:00

Figures. These 'I will not lower myself to defend myself' types have to stick together.

Actually, that's not fair to Obama. He can defend himself, to a degree, but he just seems to believe that his fanfare will solve the bipartisan problems, when it won't. And he has no other solution to that problem. He has no idea what he's in for when it comes to partisan bickering and all out slime warfare, just like Kerry.

Kerry couldn't have been a more apt endorsement.

Mac-Cula

2008-01-08T09:22:00.000-08:00

Third Cartoon: Chuckabee 08!

2008-01-06T12:23:00.000-08:00

I figured I should pump this out before he gets tromped by McCain in NH...

Obama, Security, and Ghosts of Great men

2008-01-05T11:46:00.000-08:00

Read this, top to bottom.

Assuming that Obama is our Presidential Candidate: All this means is that WE ARE ALL OBAMA'S BODYGUARDS.

You go to see him in person? You should be listening to him and looking at everyone and everywhere around you.

Some guy sidles up next to you whispering to himself and clutching a bag? You bump him, poke him, stare at him.

NOT to say every white guy is an automatic suspect. The powers-that-be would be ecstatic to have it in the headlines that a black man killed Obama.

WE ARE OBAMA'S SECURITY NOW. If anything happens to him, it will have to be away from the people, because we will capture ~~tear apart~~ anybody who does anything remotely sinister in his direction. WE ARE TIRED OF TRAGEDY.

The people who killed those other great figures? They were the true terrorists, causing terror in the hearts and minds of people who hope for a better world.

[updated to tone down rage and add video]

Here's the Next One

2008-01-03T18:27:00.000-08:00

I don't think I'm setting a good pace by doing two in two days... hehe

Blogtopus Premieres New Cartoon

2008-01-02T22:04:00.000-08:00

The Miracle of InvisAlign

2008-01-02T10:27:00.001-08:00

The wonderful thing about InvisAlign is that, because it is home-administered and users are encouraged to keep all their past trays labeled and in order, a person who is dissatisfied with the results can completely reverse the procedure.

I don't like my teeth straight anymore. LET'S GO BACK TO CROOKED.

Irony of the Election

2007-12-30T08:47:00.000-08:00

I can't provide links (big sin for a blog, sue me), but I've read enough around the net to convince me that the candidate which has the biggest potential to make the biggest change... isn't a woman, isn't a black man, but is in fact... a white male.

And is also a trial lawyer. Edwards just convinces me that he is ready to kill the relationship between corporations and government.

It makes sense, in a weird way: A guy who spent his time contesting corporate greed, attacking them for the slightest or most egregious lapses in morality, wants to protect another client from corporate greed: The United States Government.

I'd be happy for any of the dem candidates to win, but more and more I'm becoming convinced that while it may not make history in one sense, electing Edwards might set up much more historical changes during his administration.

Oh Man Why Do I Think of This Stuff?

2007-12-29T10:32:00.001-08:00

There seems to be some back and forth about how long (if at all) a severed head will retain consciousness.

According to Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope:

Then I received a note from a U.S. Army veteran who had been stationed in Korea. In June 1989 the taxi he and a friend were riding in collided with a truck. My correspondent was pinned in the wreckage. The friend was decapitated. Here's what happened:
My friend's head came to rest face up, and (from my angle) upside-down. As I watched, his mouth opened and closed no less than two times. The facial expressions he displayed were first of shock or confusion, followed by terror or grief. I cannot exaggerate and say that he was looking all around, but he did display ocular movement in that his eyes moved from me, to his body, and back to me. He had direct eye contact with me when his eyes took on a hazy, absent expression . . . and he was dead.
I have spoken with the author and am satisfied that the event occurred as described. One can of course never be certain about these things. Nonetheless I repent my previous skepticism.

Here we have ACTUAL VIDEO of a severed head (a dog's) being kept alive in a Soviet experiment. I won't embed it, you have to click to see it. I don't think I need to warn you about the nature of this, and it is even more pathetic and sad than you think, especially if, like me, you live with a dog.

The point of all this, where this is leading to, is to postulate that somewhere, in this wide world of ours, MUST be a severed human head in a lab, laying in a sauce pan, blinking messages to its keepers / captors.

I am making the announcement, here, on this blog, today: I will support any Candidate who will make it their sole duty to hunt down and find this disembodied head and free it. Forget Iraq, forget China: I want this head talking to Katie Couric about how hard it was to blink the message "change the channel," or "get this hat off me."

Let the true primary begin.

New Year's Survival Tip: Starting a Fire with Water...

2007-12-27T08:57:00.001-08:00

...and a little Saran Wrap.

I've always fantasized about becoming a contestant/victim on Survivor*; this is one of those tricks that would really amaze the audience.

*until I learned that I enjoy my life.

Merry Christmas, Good Will Towards Everyone

2007-12-24T08:27:00.000-08:00

Hey Folks, just here to say that I'm damn happy not to be in some Gulag, or fighting a war based on a lie, or dying of some curable illness because my HMO wants to save some pennies, or homeless because a predatory lender decided it was ok to ok a 108% interest loan for a house, or any of the other crazy shit that could happen to your average American nowadays.

Think about having an effect on your local community. My wife and I are going to Costco today to buy turkeys and hams for the local Second Harvest food bank. Times are tough for food banks and they're only going to get worse as more ostensibly middle class families hit the streets in the future economic crash. Think about dedicating a little time or money to help out those who are less fortunate.

And if you can't because you don't have the time or the money to spare, then God Bless You.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings.

-The Blogtopus Family

UPDATE: God that felt good. Six Turkeys and three hams for people who otherwise wouldn't have it. :-)

Thought of the Day / Week / Month ad nauseum

2007-12-16T10:57:00.000-08:00

What do you think would happen to the world's religions if it could be scientifically proven that just ONE of those religions is for real? That all their tales of magic and miracles could be verified and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that their idea for the afterlife is discovered to be a reality? And that one religion is one that has maybe 10,000 followers at most?

More importantly: What do you think the world's religions would do to followers of that one religion? Would people flock to join it, or would all the great powers of the world swoop down on them and obliterate all signs they existed? Or Both?

There's a book in there somewhere. Maybe this guy can write it:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/religion-versus-science.html

BONUS: Awesome Thread
http://atheistagnostic.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/67870/

The Source

2007-12-13T19:11:00.001-08:00

Via Arnocorps, I have found the source of all hair metal in the 80's.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you THOR vs. SATAN

Versus Patton:

patton oswalt on 80s metal

Obama and Oprah

2007-11-26T17:11:00.000-08:00

Just a few notes this announcement brought up in my head.

1. If you are frightened of an Obama Democratic Nomination, you aren't alone. So far he has proven himself to be quite inept at defending himself, and is not a very media-savvy candidate, or even a politically savvy candidate (Social Security Crisis? AGAIN?). He does, however, have a beautiful message and one that I will be happy to accept if he does become the Dem Nominee. Just as I was able to embrace John Kerry when he got the nomination instead of Dean. Ahem.

2. I hope that Oprah has the balls to put her show and audience on the line because she'll be expected to defend Obama where he is unwilling to. When the nattering nabobs get on their shows and peck peck peck away at whatever fake scandal or faux pas Obama made THIS week, she'll have to stand up and say BULLSHIT. Otherwise all she'll be doing is enabling another weak sauce candidate who doesn't want to 'demean himself' by defending himself.

3. I personally endorse Clinton for the candidate. By that, I don't mean Hillary. I mean CLINTON, one entity, two presidents. Say what you will about Capitulation, Fornication, Centrification. She knows how to handle an audience, knows how to handle the media, and knows how to live in the White House (all that and she still holds most of my beliefs). If you think her experience is limited only to her being the First Lady, you need to look at her history before 1992. And you'll need to ask yourself what the 'only' means when you say the words 'Only First Lady.'

Personal perceptions aside, I think that if there are people out there who just CAN'T bring themselves to hold their nose and vote for someone who doesn't have THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS at heart, then I have a great idea for you. Take all that effort, all that frustration, all that rage and indignation, and put that into getting the VOTING SYSTEM CHANGED. Instant Runoff voting would ensure that your voice is heard, and counted, and the candidate most appreciated across the country would get the votes. No spoiler candidates. No splitters. Kucinich would be a power again.

Or, go ahead and vote for Kucinich. Just remember that there are other candidates hoping that you'll vote for Kucinich, too.

The Mist is BLEAK

2007-11-21T18:31:00.000-08:00

If you're looking for something to take your family to, and you are used to taking your family to R-rated films? DON'T take them to see the Mist. Go see Beowulf.

The Mist is for a tougher audience. Emotional torture but real and raw.

Me? I loved it. I was glad they took the subject seriously. I can't wait to see it again... in 6 months.

I'll need that time to recuperate. I've NEVER had a film blindside me as much as this one did. This is NOT the same director who did Shawshank. Can't be.

The Stain that Remains (on the plains in Spain)

2007-11-02T08:36:00.000-07:00

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
-Mark Twain

Truthiness Attacks again:

As Media Matters for America documented, a November 1 article in the print edition of The Hill newspaper falsely claimed that "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) skipped an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday [October 31] that she called for earlier this year" and that Clinton "was nowhere to be seen at Wednesday's hearing." The same day, The Hill posted a correction on its website, acknowledging that Clinton had, in fact, "attended and asked questions" at the hearing.

Well if it ain't true, it oughtta. [/Village Idiot]

Twain's observation is very true, but I think maybe a more accurate description of current 'journalism' is:

You may be able to clean the sheets after shitting the bed, but the stain will always remain.

-Blogtopus

Journalism continuously shits the bed in our memories, coyly puts its hand up to its mouth and giggles 'oopsy', and then runs off, dribbling filth down the hallway while the internet community cleans up the mess. And the damage is done, because this story will continue to make its appearances on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and your relatives 'insightful' email forwards.

(apologies for formatting -- blogger seems to be working in kinder-mode)

Two Tix for Joe Klein and his Irrational Fear, Please.

2007-10-26T12:05:00.001-07:00

Coming Soon to every Neo-Con's Netflix Queue (because they spent their yearly theater budget seeing RAMBO 20 times): The Tripper.

Featuring a totally unrecognizable Jason Mewes (from Jay and Silent Bob fame), Paul Reubens, and my new favorite actor: Thomas Jane.

This was filmed about 15 miles away from where I live, too. Awesome.

Dear Senator Feinstein: Again, F**k You.

2007-10-20T23:15:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I wrote before that I would abandon you and vote for someone else (pending a primary challenger) if you continued to embrace the Bush Administration's anti-constitutional policies. Yet you did, and so I vowed never to vote for you again.

And now, you have buried any redemption you may have had, but not without a price: I will actively encourage ANY democrat/progressive to vote for any primary challenger you have (and I assure you, this is no doubt in the works in the wake of this latest tragedy).

You have truly come full circle, Ms. Feinstein. You have supported women's rights and their fight for equality, yet you have proven that equality is consistent in all avenues: You are as corrupt and deplorable as any of your male counterparts across the aisle. Congratulations.

Shame on you for voting against your constituents' rights in court against those who defy the 4th amendment. Shame on you, Senator.

Send Your Thoughts about THIS

Thursday Night Clips - Mean Green Mother

2007-10-18T19:16:00.000-07:00

Enjoy!

A Glimpse at 11:59pm

2007-10-12T09:19:00.000-07:00

A British survey taken with the premise of a killer asteroid coming in one hour to destroy all life on earth...

But the survey revealed a strong hedonistic streak -- 13 percent would sit back, accept the inevitable and reach for a glass of champagne.

Sex appealed to only nine percent while just three percent would turn to prayer.

Wow, very nice. Three times as many people would choose a filthy turn in the sheets to preparing for their launch into the afterlife.

Two percent intriguingly said they would reach for some fatty food while another two percent decided, with just an hour's life to go, that it was time to start looting.

HA ha!

Shisse!!!

2007-10-11T22:44:00.000-07:00

I haven't seen Eastern Promises yet, but its #1 on my list. Today I was reading an interview with Cronenberg, the director, and he dropped a MAJOR SPOILER about Viggo's character.

If you haven't seen the movie yet, and you intend to, DON'T READ ANY INTERVIEWS FROM CRONENBERG.

Agh. That sucks.

The Shock Doctrine

2007-10-01T08:37:00.001-07:00

Damned if I won't buy this book for my financial planning father in law...

Hat Tip Skippy!

A little experiment

2007-09-27T19:55:00.001-07:00

For any of you coming here from the post that Big Blue pointed to... drop a line. I'm curious to see what the influx is from a stupid comment (mine) on a small blog that was graced by HIS BLUENESS.

Oh, and here's a great video:

Electoral Points and Christmas

2007-08-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

Every few years I'm sure every one of us just wishes "Can't we all just stop giving gifts to each other and enjoy the season?" Well, I mean to say everyone who celebrates Christmas by shelling out cash to buy gifts that are more or less mandatory unless you want to be seen as some kind of Scrooge.

Nobody really can stop unless EVERYBODY stops. Its a race we all have to agree to end at the same time.

That's how I feel about the Electoral split that's making all the headlines in California. Basically, the state republicans want to enable it so all the districts in CA that vote Republican get to deliver their electoral votes to their candidate. So far only Maine and Nebraska do this. With a whopping 55 electoral points, California is the biggest, and having 19 districts as solid republican strongholds would mean a swing of 38 electoral points in an election. That's like taking several states in the midwest.

Of course, I think that it might be a great idea, in the same sense that Instant Runoff Voting would make the people's voices heard much more. In a perfect world, getting rid of the electoral college would be a great idea, too, but since we're dealing with yet another Republican Power Grab (TM) let's look at how this works.

Say California decides to split the baby, shall we say, and award specific points based on the districts that win Republican votes, send those to the Republican Presidential Candidate. That sounds fair.

That sounds fair just like "I don't celebrate Christmas so I don't give gifts" sounds fair. But it still means that some people end up giving you gifts who were expecting something in return (disingenuous, yes, but you know you think like that). So you end up, shall we say, in the plus column, leaving others in the red. That sounds very, um, Republican doesn't it?

And that's what's happening here. California wants to reward specific points? Fine. But let's split the points up in all the other states too, just to be fair. And at the same time.

Said Republican states (voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004):
Texas: 34
Florida: 27
Ohio: 20

Of course, they'd have access to such strongholds as NY (31), and PA (21), but one needs only to look at this map to see all that would open up to Democrats if the Republicans were a little more egalitarian about their plans. And you know that is never the case.

So I think it would be good to have an amendment on any legislation for this ballot proposal, an amendment which would only allow this legislation to go into effect if, and only if, the other 49 states opted for the same plan. Otherwise, no way.

We all have to agree to stop giving gifts. And we've been giving too many gifts to the GOP lately, with nothing in return.

Dear Senator Feinstein: F**k Off.

2007-08-06T22:19:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Feinstein,

Given the choice between re-electing you and electing a Republican, I really am not sure what I would do. You have become tone-deaf to your constituents, and taken your ear off the ground.

It appears that you have been 'bamboozled' by the 'intelligence' community. You fail to understand that for the past few years every time Republicans wanted something their way, they 'hinted' that something bad might happen if it doesn't go their way, under the guise of 'increasing chatter'. That sounds an awful lot like extortion, and you fell for it. Again.

If you stop supporting something that they want, and something bad happens, you investigate it as an act of terrorism perpetrated by the GOP, because that's the exact party who orchestrated or allowed it to happen. Common sense MUST have taught you this a long time ago. They have been complicit in every attack on our soil since Bill Clinton left office. The fact that you don't even take this into account when you vote is a sign that someone else must stand up for us.

Unless California is in danger of electing a retarded Pit Bull on Crack who owns an Oil Company, I have no intention of voting for you unless you do something that reverses or rectifies your shameful vote on FISA. You had an excuse with the Patriot Act, nobody knew how far the GOP would abuse it. You have no excuse for this.

Best Use of CGI I've seen in a while

2007-06-26T09:02:00.000-07:00

Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007

2007-06-07T16:08:00.000-07:00

I know that online petitions don't do nearly as well as real signed-paper ones, but this is more to let you know what's happening with congress next week.

Despite the fact that we hold a shaky majority, the dems seem to be allowing this bill to pass. We really can't allow that to happen. I got this from the site where I signed the online petition:
--------

Congress could vote in the next fews weeks on a bill that would double our greenhouse gas emissions from planes and cars. It sounds crazy, but this is exactly what will happen if a current plan to use "liquid coal" passes. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and we have a serious global warming problem.

I signed a petition urging Congress to vote no on tax breaks and subsidies on coal. Can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/stopkingcoal/?r_by=&rc=paste

Thanks!

--------
If you know anyone in a state with these senators and who cares global warming, please pass this on. I know that the Dems on the list are most likely doing it because it would benefit their state (like Sen. Obama, for instance). Why can't they follow California's lead and try to reduce greenhouse gases instead of increase them for temporary profit? Let them know this is going to just make an incredible mess even worse. Many people don't even know about this bill.

Sponsor:
Sen. Jim Bunning [R-KY]

Cosponsors
Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]
Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV]
Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID]
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D-ND]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Craig Thomas [R-WY]