Sometimes Paranoia is Wise

Honestly.  It is somewhat heartening to know that my racial paranoia is grounded in reality.

Mark Krikorian, writing for the National Review Online's blog The Corner, has a snotty "Hmmm.  Coincidence?" post about WaMu's failure and their strong practice of diversity.

This concept has been picked up and there is a dash toward the end zone:  blame for the present financial crisis should fall on ill-abled minorities buying houses in the sub-prime market, bolstered by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Rep. Michele Bachmann said as much during a Senate hearing on Thursday.  From ThinkProgress:

During a Senate hearing on Thursday, Rep. Michele Bachmann pinned blame for financial crisis on President Clinton, “blacks,” and “other minorities.” To make her point, she read from an article written by Terry Jones in the right-wing publication Investor’s Business Daily. Jones criticized the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and said Clinton was misguided for pushing “homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.” Watch Bachmann’s speech, followed by sharp criticism from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) here.

Yeah.  She actually said that out loud in the Senate, for God's sake.  I'm feeling awfully strange fruity.

This theory has been debunked by conservative UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge:

When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom [ed.-my favorite minority minority hater Michelle] Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian.

I cannot bring myself to link to Malkin.  Google her.  By the way, that's over-represented in relationship to percentage of the whole U.S. population, not in sub-prime loans.

So, if I understand Rep. Bachmann's concern, it is the 16.2% deadbeat subprime Negroes and Messcans that tipped the scale into this mess, not the 72.5% of whites.  Are we assuming that the whole 16.2% Negroes and Messcans were deadbeats?  Well, of course they were.  They would have to be for this mess to be happening.  And the whole 72.5% of whites were not...obviously.

In what they are saying, though, I think it is not the deadbeat minorities that are being totally blamed, but the Act compelling banks to lend money to them.

See, here is where dominoes start falling in my head.  It is a given to me, racial paranoia firmly in hand, that the umbrella white male ruling class will, for the most part, not do the right thing unless compelled to do so or unless they get something substantial out of it.  As I see it, every gain in equality garnered by minorities, women, homosexuals, has to be legislated to death before an inch of territory is relinquished.  They don't do it unless you make them.

If banks, successful high-falutin' ones, had in their core principles, a socially (not socialist) responsible business mandate to assure home-ownership for all people, structured in a way that was satisfactory to the lender as well as the borrower, then the CRA would not have been necessary.  Don't talk to me about how they couldn't do it.  Somehow they come up with exorbitant salaries for executives.  Knock off a million or two and give some little folks a loan that can be paid.  This is an example and I'm sure very unsophisticated, but again, I'm in the "I refuse to believe" roundhouse.  Of course it could be done.  It's just that it wasn't part of their business model to do so.

So CRA was created to make it so.

That is the fundamental difference, I suppose, between conservative thinking and liberal thinking.  I agree with Sen. Obama.  From their point of view, you're on your own.  That is, of course, until $700,000,000,000 is needed.  Then we're all in this mess together.

And it's the negroes' and messcans' fault.

UPDATE:  Read this Ta-Nehisi Coates blog entry, particularly the comments.  They have a much more sophisticated grasp on the insult than I.

McCain's Choice and The People I Adore

Ouch!  Frank Rich writes a scathing criticism of Sen. McCain, complete with snarky asides and links to prove his point.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Damn, Frank.  Uncle.  Uuuunncle.

I bring this nasty little post from Frank Rich up because, in reading the entire article, facts and incidents that I had read about were reaffirmed.  As Sen. McCain "suspended" his campaign (but not really), I wondered what the frak was on his mind.  Even at my most critical of Sen. McCain, I would be hard pressed to pull out all stops on the obnoxious snark in criticizing him.  I think, as I believe Sen. Obama does, that it serves no purpose other than bringing the snarker down.  That's not to say I don't politely dance around the snark, but even was I able to write like Mr. Rich, I don't think I would.

I wouldn't because there are people that I know, admire and adore who support Sen. McCain.  They also read this blog simply because I write it.  That means something to me.  This is no salvo across their bow, but rather something I think that I would never discuss with them in person; not that they should care.  Did I mention that they are people I admire and adore?

All currency held by Sen. McCain with me has been spent.

It's not McCain's ostensibly suspending his campaign to work on a deal he had no opinion of or even timely read that did it.  It's not for his drama regarding his appearance at the debate.  It's not for his sneering condescension to Sen. Obama in the debate.  He has every right to follow the path of his choosing.  And frankly, I think Obama should be able to deal with it or get out of the race.  This is the time that tests their mettle.

It is for McCain's VP choice alone, all respect that I had for him, was spent.  It says something not very admirable about his judgment and ambition that Gov. Palin is his choice.

There can be no defense of this point to me, even from people that I know, admire and adore because many are lawyers; lawyers who would eviscerate McCain's VP choice were she to be a deponent.  And then they would all come back to the office and slap each other on the back about how simple she was.  They would never stand for such meandering equivocating unthoughtful responses; nor should they.  That they believe it is okay in McCain's choice for a vice-presidential candidate, something infinitely more important than a weaselly money-grubbing malingering plaintiff, is something I have a difficult time accepting.

I'll never bring this up...in person.  But just so it's fair, if you are any of the ones I know, admire and adore and have something to say, you can use the comments.  You can even comment anonymously.

Are My Hands Clean?*

Sen. Clinton in the New York Times addresses the Department of Health and Human Services proposed new rule:

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

[...]

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

What bothers me most about this proposed rule is that it applies, as Sen. Clinton says, to an ideology and not equity. Look, everyone living in America, because of the interconnectedness of our society has their finger in some nasty little pie. It can't be helped. I work for a large multi-national company with, I would venture to guess, some nasty clients with nasty agendas. Anyone in a service business, as health care should be, is subject to assisting people they don't like or people they don't respect or people they downright despise. I know I do. Would the Bush Administration protect my conscience against helping a greedy unprincipled unreasonable mogul from suing some poor schlub with the temerity to question his business practices. I think not.

My example, by the way, is hypothetical. All of our clients are above-reproach, of course...and I'm keeping my job.

Past anyone in else in America's employment, and indeed living life, none of their hands are clean. How are your clothes made? Where is your food manufactured? Who owns the convenience store on the corner? Who is investing in your favorite restaurant? Is every stop along the way that gets you what you want free from everything that would challenge your conscience? Are every one of the people you service free of objectionable practices? Are you?

The point is that if an employee is working for a business that has ethics the employee does not believe in, such employee is certainly welcome to not work there. This mandate is inequitable governmental interference designed to bend my will to theirs.

Hmmm. Rather conservative sounding, methinks. Good lord. Quick! Someone convince me otherwise.

*From Sweet Honey In The Rock at Carnegie Hall.

Cross-posted at Attackerman.

Year of the Gentleman

I could never get into Ne-Yo. His voice just annoyed me, hovering on a kind of Keith Sweat "ooh, baby baby" whine. I much preferred Joe. Or Jaheim. If you're going to "ooh baby baby" me, I want my bones to rattle a bit and frankly, you do too.

So, I steered away from Ne-Yo the singer, yet giving much props to his writing abilities.

"Year of the Gentleman" is Ne-Yo I can appreciate for what can only amount to disturbingly self-involved reasons. The album -- sigh, I remember vinyl -- is wall to wall woman appreciation. What mumble mumble year old self-sustaining woman wouldn't adore "Miss Independent," an ode to a woman in charge of her life, particularly coming from such a sweet voiced (yeah, now he's sweet voiced) young man. This is what I love about youth. It hasn't faced all those years of experience that indicate that living with independence in another can be trying.

The songwriting on the album (hee) is impressive, tackling interesting scenarios and circumstances with more than just "ooh, baby baby." "Back to What You Know" is a song about surrender; giving up on a love that loves someone else. (The Dixie Chicks had a perfect line for it on "Fly;" "the beauty of just letting go.") Acoustic guitar, maybe, in the background gives the rhythm and the words are astute: "This is impossible/We'll never work 'cause you don't want it, girl/You belong with him/So go back to what you know."

Club life is gone for me now. I always feel like I'm everyone's mom. But were I into more than dancing in the reflection of my living room windows, the minute "Nobody" came on, I'd grab the nearest puzzle piece and make him dance with me, doing my best to live up to "Nobody strut like her/Can't nobody touch her/Nobody cut like her." Rote and kind of a JT knockoff but much more melodic. Lots going on in the background...a lot like Quincy Jones. The club's loss in my living room windows' gain because I just danced to it twice.

Scenarios. Fights ("Mad"). Taking a woman for granted ("Why Does She Stay"). Another hot woman controlling things song that would send dear Tucker Bounds into peals of giggles ("Closer"). Heartbreak sucks but life goes on and oh by the way I can sing ear honey ("So You Can Cry"). A lovely recounting of all the things to love about a woman in an interesting minor key (I think) ("Part of the List"). A guy unwilling to shout "Elaine" attending the girl's wedding ("Fade Into The Background").

But slather me up some wry self-delusion and I'll play the song ("Lie To Me") over and over the whole 18 mile hour commute home. "I don't want to know what I know to be true/What I need you to do/Tell me another lie." Saddest shit I ever heard.

But sweetly sung and barely a whine.

Cross-posted to Attackerman.

Heart Of The Matter

When asked about the AIG bailout, Gov. Sarah Palin responded:

Dissapointed that taxpayers are called upon to bailout another one. Certainly AIG though with the construction bonds that they’re holding and with the insurance that they are holding very, very impactful to Americans so you know the shot that has been called by the Feds its understandable but very, very disappointing that taxpayers are called upon for another one.

Huh? This from a person who claims the teleprompter was down and she had to wing it at the Republican National Convention? No, Gov. Palin. I don't believe that one, either.

I'm not one to snipe at Gov. Palin for her vagina alone. I've got one. It's kind of cool and comes in handy. I know its power and resilience, though my childless ass doesn't know from resilience like a mother of five does. Nonetheless, that she is a woman is no more important than Sen. Clinton is a woman or Sen. Obama is black or Sen. Biden can be tactless or Sen. McCain is old(er). These assignments mean nothing regarding the personage necessary to lead our country to what it should and can be. It's the character, wisdom, strength, intelligence, respect and most importantly leadership, that will get us there.

So, here I snipe at Gov. Palin, the person; the human being. Not because she's a woman, but because she did not put the good of her country before her ambition. Not because she is a woman but because she is woefully unprepared. Not because she is a woman but because her ill-conceived ambition for this office has prevented her from seeing or admitting how very unprepared she is. She and Sen. McCain have no problem putting the country in the position of what amounts to offering her a civic internship. They should both know better than to bandy such a cavalier front in this precarious world. "Thanks, but no thanks" indeed. This is not a game.

That's not to say that she would never be prepared, though by the above quote, I wonder. In light of all that I'm learning about her, I don't believe I could ever vote for her. However, was she more than gratuitous, I would at least take her seriously. More importantly, I would believe she took me, the voter, seriously as well.

Cross-posted to Attackerman.

Roll With It, Baby

From writer Reaper0Bot0 via Jack and Jill Politics, MyDD and The Motley Moose:

There are too many people, far too many white people, who would like nothing better than to be able to see Barack as another angry black man demanding what (such people would insist) he hasn’t earned. Such crass bullshit has a way of becoming conventional wisdom altogether too quickly. And yes, I’m speaking ill of a sub-set of my fellow caucasians. Back home in South Carolina this sort of thing is more common than it should be.

All that being said, I think a lot of Kossacks, a lot of members of the Netroots more generally, we seem to miss a fundamental truth. He can’t bring down the angry fist of justice on them, no matter how right it would be for him to do so, no matter how just. We can, and we should. We can be angry, we can be brazen, bold, and brash.

Please stop hoping, and for fuck’s sake stop asking Barack to lay the smackdown on John McCain and friends. In a moment of truth, of furious and righteous anger, Barack would disarm himself.

In the uncharted waters of presidential victory for a person of color, one cannot navigate without the dance. The trick is to do it well enough to get you where you need to be but not so well that those not of color realize that you dance (think, politic, educate, reason, listen, answer, compromise, organize, plan, garner, inspire, parent) better than they. It seems a tricky step, but if you do it enough in your lifetime, it's mastered. Much like the Electric Slide.

Break out in some off-time half-step down-beat boogaloo and you might as well yell "Ungawa."

With much respect to Joy Engel below, as well as others who have called for Obama's campaign to "grow a pair," I gotta suggest that perhaps you're not listening to the clanking steel it takes to focus on what's necessary to achieve what's necessary. Even in the face of lies told and pancake boxes sold. And accomplished without bartering self or objectives.

This country doesn't need me like I believe it needs Sen. Obama; my troubles ain't like his. But I sympathize with him because I know this dance real real well. It hurts making a point with any kind of fervor, a point you're dead to rights on I might add, and being dismissed as an angry black woman.

Right, together, right, step; left, together, left, step; back, two, three, step...

Cross-posted to Attackerman.

So Much Better When Everyone Is In / Are You In?

I volunteered my secretarial skills at the Obama for America - California headquarters today.  It's in a second floor walk-up office building on a moderately busy street.  All volunteers are greeted as soon as they walk in the door.  They find out what you want to do and make it their business to get you to the proper person.

There was a young woman whose purpose was to give a training on phoning the battleground state of Nevada to anyone new who walked it.  She must have done it at least 20 times while I was there and she never sounded rote or bored.  

The phone bank training, though brief, was simple.  The calls, to Nevada mostly I believe, were to get information, i.e. who are you predisposed to vote for, what issues matter most to you, is there anything about Sen. Obama's campaign that confuses you or you have questions about.  It is not the time to try and talk anyone into voting for Sen. Obama.  Right now, it's information gathering from those who are open to the possibility that Obama is not a manchurian candidate child exploiting muslim black liberation christian with a power to the people wife.  Everyone who volunteered the phone banks was pleasant, friendly, helpful and most of all, enthusiastic.  Really.  Everyone seemed glad to be there to help.

Baby, I Don't Care

From the Michigan Messenger, via The Jed Report:

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

Really? They want to make sure procedures are followed? I say they are liars. They don't give a shit about "procedures." They want to make sure the GOP wins in the only way they seem to appreciate winning; by any underhanded means necessary. And there are people who go along with this; think it's perfectly fine. The ding ding ding ding to my racial paranoia? Disproportionately, those foreclosed homes are residences of African American voters.

Also, does it not seem ludicrous that if one is a citizen who has a foreclosed home, by this method of voter challenge, the right to vote to make a change in representation which may be to one's benefit is abridged?

Honestly. I don't know how they live with themselves.

Cross-posted to Attackerman.

It Wasn't Me

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

Lookit here, Joe Bob. Lest it be misunderstood, do not, at any time, refer to me or mine as "uppity." You good ol' boys had your time slinging invectives around like ropes over branches and you lost that fight. You lost it. By the community getting together, setting their eyes on the prize and organizing, I might note.

Further, your baleful "What? Who, me?" defense has to be the lamest move of all time. You say it. You know what you mean. I know what you mean. And you stand there in my face and try to tell me the verbal cow I'm looking at is a horse.

It's no wonder you feel safe in this insult and lie. This administration has done the same for 8 years without price or punishment levied. That, I believe, is about to change. I'm working hard to make it so.

And frankly, you really don't want to compel throngs to actually get uppity on your ass. You think newscasters and politicians cornered the market? Ha ha haha. You haven't seen uppity until you've been given the hairy eyeball by a well-dressed church matron disapproving of just about everything about you. You will truly then feel your absence of measure in comparison.

So stop.

It's A Shame

I don't get Dane Cook and he's got a caricature in Rolling Stone's Comedy Issue. Chris Rock, Don Rickles, Billy Crystal, Eric Idle, even Larry David who gets on my last nerve - those guys, okay, I can see why they're there. But Dane Cook? Dane Cook?

Okay, he has one funny piece. Dane Cook offers his worst bomb:

I was in a New York City nightclub, midstory, when I see a guy run to the bathroom and close the door. And it's so quiet, the entire crowd can hear the vomiting. The guy finally exits the bathroom, and I'm a little miffed. As he's walking right in front of the stage, in front of the spotlight, I say, "You OK there, pal? I heard you throwing up." And with near-perfect timing, he says, "Yeah. I got ahold of some bad comedy."

Best favorite joke is my pretend boyfriend, Craig "Please Whisper That Burr In My Ear" Ferguson's:

Traveling salesman knocks on a house door, and it's answered by a 10-year-old in a bra and panties, smoking a cigar. Salesman asks, "Are Mommy and Daddy home?" And the kid says, "What the fuck do you think?"

The Killing Kind

I read in terminals and on planes, magazines preferably, and for their own reasons, ESPN Magazine, Rolling Stone and Esquire. ESPN because though I don't follow sports, I love sports writing. Rolling Stone because off and on, I've had a subscription to the magazine more years than I care to mention. Okay, since the "classic" rock RockRichard reveres didn't have a qualifier in front of it.

But my heart belongs to Esquire. I don't care who knows. The glossy pages of rat packish sartorial hedonism remind me of sitting cross-legged on the toilet watching the mysterious ritual of my dad shaving, with my chin thrust out, or mouth twisted to the east, or cheeks bellowed in mimicry and assistance. Jesus. Girls need their dads.

The September issue has a 17 page spread on steak, complete with you're-too-much-of-a-punk-to-try-it recipes (seriously...poaching steak in 3 pounds of clarified butter!?) and essays ranging from the effects of a slaughterhouse visit to an article by Tom Chiarella on his experiment working as a butcher at Kincaids in Indianapolis, appropriately entitled "Butcher."

You can ask butchers anything and they will deconstruct your need. Ask for a porterhouse and trust that they will pick through the T-bones to get you a good one. Or ask what a porterhouse is and they will take out a T-bone to explain that if the short-loin portion is a good bit thicker than an inch, it's a porterhouse. Or ask if a porterhouse is what you want in the first place. They'll ask how you're cooking it, what you're serving with it, how much room you have on your cooking surface. They'll find the answer. And whether it's the apron or the smudges of blood or the enormous weight of the counter or the sheer mass of the product, you believe a butcher. He knows.

Yeah, I know. If you think about it, it can be heartbreaking eating murdered beings with a parent and a face. But swear to God, sometimes absolutely nothing will do but a medium rare hunk of flesh and I'll believe that until I die, most likely hastened by the effects of that medium rare hunk of flesh.

Esquire reminded me of that, too.

Cross posted at Attackerman.

Make Me Whole

I am back from the midwest visiting my recuperating one-legged mom and encounter Robert Samuelson's draconian statistics boogie. This drives me nuts:

Another reason is the skewing of health spending toward the very sick; 10 percent of patients account for two-thirds of spending. Regardless of income, people get thrust onto a conveyor belt of costly care: long hospital stays, many tests, therapies and surgeries.

That includes the uninsured. In 2008, their care will cost about $86 billion, estimates a study for the Kaiser Family Foundation. The uninsured pay about $30 billion themselves; the rest is uncompensated. Of course, no sane person wants to be without health insurance, and the uninsured receive less care and, by some studies, suffer abnormally high death rates. But other studies suggest only minor disadvantages for the uninsured. One study compared the insured and uninsured after the onset of a chronic illness -- say, heart disease or diabetes. Outcomes differed little. After about six months, 20.4 percent of the insured and 20.9 percent of the uninsured judged themselves "better"; 32.2 percent of the insured and 35.2 percent of the uninsured rated themselves "worse." The rest saw no change.

Who else would you spend health dollars on but the sick? Don't "abnormally high death rates" for the uninsured somewhat trump "minor disadvantages" no matter the study? And those "outcome" numbers he's smacking me in the face with? Do they take into consideration what devastation, other than health, is visited upon those who receive care without adequate coverage? Say losing a house or savings to pay for that financially equitable health care.  What exactly is he suggesting?

The author must be insured.

The Only Joy In Town

From Paul Krugman at the New York Times: 

By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters - the candidate's high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor - have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn't surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain "celebrity" ad. It didn't make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama's star quality. 

Watching the Right lose their natural minds over what I consider to be the badassedness of Sen. Obama has been hilarious to me.  I think Mr. Krugman is being kind ascribing "resentment" to it, though not particularly untrue.   I'll come honest and say I believe it's envy...craven envy...that has compelled conservatives to paint a high-achieving thoughtful smarter-than-most man, from very modest means mind you, "elitist."  I think they think the province of remarkable excellence is theirs to govern, though examples on the Right are few.  That Obama has mastered it, nay, is better at it, puts them at sixes and sevens.

(Excuse the Anonymous Sec's self-promotion but I've addressed it often.)

Cross posted at Attackerman. 

Shades of Scarlet Conquering

Looking out onto the sea of bright shining faces of the RNC, I cannot help but notice that few look like me. It stood in stark contrast to the DNC, wherein there was a lot of shuffle around the racial rainbow. There is where my ideal comfort zone lies. Where I don’t feel like one of the few dark specks in a tub of Hagen Dazs, noting for faintly paranoid self-security that all around me is dilution of my flavor.

Watching Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech reflecting from all those faces resembling hers, I thought how comfortable she must be amongst her welcoming own. The things that disturb me about her, things available to anyone interested enough to look, weren’t even a consideration to the sea of same-as-she. They reveled in her conveyance of the careworn concept that they alone hold the country and its ideals in the proper esteem.

She was comfortable telling her story cribbed from the Wikipedia entry edited to soft-focus the corruption and vitriol of bridges and vendetta because she knew that it didn’t matter to the mostly filled building of people dedicated to the idea that…We…Are…Right. We. Are. Right. She adorably wrinkled her nose in anger or grit to absolve them of eight scofflaw years of lies and torture and they each turned to their conservative kith, pleased to freely celebrate.

Hee hee hee. To quote Sen. Clay Davis, “Sheeeee-it,” Maureen Down ain’t got nothin’ on me.

Cross-posted to Attackerman.

Good Opportunity

My friend Spencer Ackerman is going to Afganistan for two weeks to do his national security reporting thing.  I cannot stress enough what a better man than I he is.  Not that I know anything about the region and what reportage from a dangerous part of the world entails, but I gave him the best advice a former DOOM addict could give.  (Really...whole weekends lost playing from 7:00 a.m. to midnight.)  "Head down, wits about you, back to the wall, eyes on the corners and internal GPS full on."  Yeah.  Not the same thing but at least keeping said advice in the back of your mind cannot be all lame.

He's asked some of his friends, of which I am honored to be one, to take up the slack at Attackerman while he's gone.  So, I'll be cross-posting from September 3 to September 18 there.  Of course, read mine, but this is also a good opportunity for you to read some of the other writers that Spence has called on.

Pot Meet Kettle

This man:

called Joe Biden a doofus.