Anonymous Sec's' iTunes Spotlight

I need a palate cleanser from all the political stuff.

One of my favorite albums is "What Up, Dog?" by Don and David Was' amalgamation of artists, Was (Not Was).  It's a funky, eclectic mix of music styles including disco with heart.  Somewhere In America Is A Street is one of the tenderest and most sinister songs you'll ever hear of the times.  For the sake of reference, note that the album was released in 1988.  Ronald Reagan was leaving office.  The McMartin day care trial had been going on for 4 of the 6 years it lasted.  Folks were shooting up fast food joints on the regular.

Listening to the song now to write this, I'm compelled to write the lyrics of the whole song because it's so darn, I don't know, darkly and subversively wholesome.  To whit:

At night only crickets

No prowlers, no sirens

No pinkie-ring hustlers

No angel dust Byrons

No bars on the windows

No sabre-toothed neighbors

Just good simple folks

In a rainbow of flavors.

Somewhere

In America

There's a street named after my dad,

And the home we never had.

I'll work for Mr. Fowler

Making 50 cents an hour

And I'll save what I can

So I can get a piece of land.

I'll raise some cows and carrots.

Get ahead on my own merits.

And if I fall

I'll take it

Like a man.

Somewhere

In America

There's a street named after my dad,

And the home we never had.

No more bland TV dinners.

No ten car collisions.

No show biz beginners

Making global decisions.

No day care Fellinis.

No fast food assassins.

No billboard bikinis.

Just truth and compassion.

Somewhere

In America

There's a street named after my dad,

And the home we never had.

Universal Music Group won't allow embedding, but here's the link to watch the video.

That's how the album starts.  It ends with Hello Dad, I'm in Jail, a screaming screed from a son who's...in jail.

In between is Out Come The Freaks, a Hollywood story.  "Little Rita and her sister Betty/Met some mook who drove a purple Chevy/He took them for a ride/One summer night."  Yeah.  Woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks.

Earth To Doris, a melody-less beatnik story telling with percussion, recites a smarmy hook-up at a "loveless hotel and restaurant out on highway 33."

The "hit" Walk The Dinosaur.  "Boom/Boom/Ackalacka Acka Boom"

Spy In The House of Love, is sung by my favorite artist on the album and frequent Don Was collaborator, Sweet Pea Atkinson.

Here's Sweet Pea whose name I love saying, twenty years later but still cool with the fedora.  Watching this confirms that side men are the smoothest futhermuckers on the planet.

I'm Speechless

William Kristol on The Daily Show last night:

First things first.  Bill Kristol is an idiot.  As a working stiff and a wage slave, it is a personal insult that he has gainful employment.  You can't see me, but I'm shaking my head.  I must mean it because I rarely call people names on this, my soapbox.  I am now, however, saying out all loud and wrong that BILL KRISTOL IS AN IDIOT.

Second.  Jon Stewart is a god.  A god so full of common sense and a successful show on which to spill that sense that all of us, really, should bow our heads and give thanks that someone...SOMEONE calls out Kristol's shit for what it is.  Manipulative, inciteful, rhetoric designed to win an election.

Just watch this and see if you don't want to punch Kristol in his bemused, disingenuous face just on GP alone.

Gah!

And see if you don't want to genuflect to Stewart for stating the obvious.

Democratic Process

I'm all about the videos today.  This just warms my cold cold heart.  It's true.  We get to vote however we like.

Beautiful Words Spoken

This doesn't get old either.

Not A Word Spoken

I've watched this more times than is seemly and it just NEVER GETS OLD!

You Ain't Won Yet, Young Son

Spencer reminds:

You remember how you felt in 2000 and 2004, right? And you remember how you felt on 9/11? And how you felt after the invasion of Iraq? And how you felt after Abu Ghraib? And how you felt after Katrina? And you felt when you found out how expensive a COBRA plan was when you had no job? And how you feel when you see the names of the fallen troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? And how you feel when you see the faces of free men like Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri?

Yeah.  I remember.

Vote ehrrbody.

So Cute!

Because it's so goldurn cute and wildly patriotic.

H/T Jack And Jill Politics.

"Gotcha" Journalism

Remember this?

The question was is it fair for health insurance companies to cover Viagra but not cover birth control pills.  It was asked by Maeve Reston, a reporter for the LA Times, on the McCain campaign bus.  Sen. McCain, clearly uncomfortable with the question squirms for a while before summoning the wherewithal to address the topic by saying he doesn't know how he feels or how he voted in the past, but will get back to Ms. Reston.

Reston writes about that exchange vis-a-vis the McCain campaign's now limited access of reporters to the candidate, in the LA Times today.  David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo is snarky about the sad "My Boyfriend Has Changed" tone to the piece but I thought it was a good explanation of why the press has lionized McCain previously, which I just never understood.

This passage is telling.

At the time of that July bus ride with McCain, there was broad disagreement among his staff about whether the endless hours of questions were helping his quest for the White House.

In the driveway of the airport motel on the evening of the Viagra question, McCain's aides made an argument that would shape their attitude over the next four months: If reporters were going to ask about issues that they deemed irrelevant to voters, why should the campaign give them access to the candidate at all?

Salter told me I had made the case for those who thought McCain should curtail his exposure to the press.

McCain aide Brooke Buchanan sarcastically asked whether contraception was next on my agenda. And Steve Duprey, the candidate's usually jovial traveling companion who often visited the press cabin bearing Twizzlers and chocolate, twisted my question into what I interpreted as an accusation of bias: "Are you going to ask Obama if he uses Viagra?"

I find this ridiculous.  That the question made McCain uncomfortable is beside the point.  It is a question that a good percentage of the voters would like an answer to and one a presidential candidate has an obligation to answer, discomfort aside.  McCain should have gotten over it.  He was a POW for God's sake!  This couldn't have been the hardest question he has had to answer.

Another interesting observation is the young vs. the old.  It's interesting that a young woman has no issue with asking the question, and an old man squirms.

Most notable is that the aide Buchanan conflates asking McCain about health care equity with asking if McCain uses Viagra.  This is a manipulation; one that the campaign no doubt used to limit press access of the apparently once garrulous McCain.  And dammit, further -- who are they to decide what is irrelevant to voters.  I'd like to hear his answer.  Just like I'd like to hear a coherent answer from Sarah Palin on just about anything.  But my ire at her pick is making me digress.

I hear a lot of disdain about "Gotcha" journalism.  It's my viewpoint that to avoid gotcha journalism, one has to remain consistent OR have a reasonable explanation for a change.  Pointing out inconsistencies in politicians is the job of the press, IMHO.

My Friend

Is it just me or does every time Sen. McCain says "my friend" it sounds like he's saying "frak you?"

UPDATE:  I've watched this several times and I still don't understand what McCain is saying.  He seems to be saying that when he called for tax adjustments on the wealthy before, the economy was in a different state; that you cannot tax the rich in times of economic meltdown.  Brokaw pointed out the times it has been done and worked, and then McCain says...what, exactly?  Obama sucks?  Brokaw questioning McCain's positions seems to anger him.  It's Meet The Press...they are supposed to ask questions.

Better Than I, But I'm Trying

Alas, A Blog has a shorter more pithy deconstruction of Mark Levin's insane post at The Corner.

The Conservative Soul

I love me some Andrew Sullivan.  He writes and thinks beautifully.  (He, as well as several others, write their blogs the way I am struggling to write mine -- in an unfettered fashion.)  What conservative hinterlands there are in my soul, he speaks to them.  He's made me come to the opinion that there's a difference between being a conservative and being a Republican.  On payday, I'm getting his book The Conservative Soul to figure out why he, a gay, British born man, is conservative to his bones.  I don't get it, but I'm fairly certain he will explain it in a way that I will at least appreciate.

I write him a lot.  He even answered me once.

In a post today, he tells of his attempts to write his endorsement of Sen. Obama, but discovers that an article written a year ago does a good job of it:

If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one ... if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong ...

But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

Yeah, I love me some Andrew Sullivan.

Peeking In The Tent

I spend a great deal of time prowling the internet.  I still like to get both viewpoints because I hold both liberal and conservative views on myriad of topics.  I dress more to the left, clearly, but depending on the correct fit of the outfit, I will dress right.  And so, I come to the National Review Online's group blog, The Corner.  Yesterday, Mark R. Levin wrote what must be the longest screed of obtuse misunderstanding by Right Thinkers to date.  I post the whole dreadful thing because I'd really like you to know what's out there.  I comment because it annoyed me and annoyance for me is a huge motivator.  

Let's start, shall we?

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here.

I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places.

Odd.  The country under the leadership of a Republican administration, has surrendered the spirit, if not sections of the constitution in whole in an effort to subjugate the ephemeral concept of terror.  What is known beyond doubt is that e-mails can be read - the liberty of privacy usurped in this pursuit.  Phone calls can be tapped, without reason or what used to be due process.  People have been imprisoned for years without trial.  Lies have been told.  Torture has been performed.  That is what is known by those who keep just one eye and ear open.  What is not known?

No matter.  Complaining about potential loss of liberty at this point is stupid.  Liberty is lost.  

Levin is correct, though, about liberty's loss being voluntary.  Save for a brave few, of whom I was not one, no one has stood up to condemn loudly what Americans who love liberty should.  We have played along, cowed by the enormity of the task and because, for most of us, it didn't affect us.  We wrote no incendiary e-mails.  Our phone calls were stateside.  We weren't Afghani taxi drivers nor did we know any.

But what if we vented our displeasure with this loss of liberty on a blog or in an e-mail?  Who decides what constitutes incendiary?  Is it equitable all around?  Are the e-mails from AryanSupremacyBrotherhoodNationAndBeerPalace.com as rigorously scrutinized as MarxmanMuslimAnd71Virgins.com?

Recklessness and irrationality must be subjective though, because where I see the reckless ambition of Sen. McCain's campaign, he sees a steady hand; where I see irrational behavior, he sees a Vice President.

I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

The contention here is that newspapers that haven't endorsed a democrat in their history and those whom they considered colleagues and like-thinkers, have been seduced by the pull of...what, exactly?  Obama's Siren Song of National Ruination?  A Siren's Song producing manic endorsements of a candidate who is completely out of the conservative ideological wheelhouse.  A Siren's Song only Levin, his fellow bloggers, and true believers are immune to?  Occam's Razor just leapt to my mind.

(For shits and giggles, let's look a list of all those seduced by Obama's Siren's Song.)

One cannot speak to what would persuade Levin because persuasion is like faith; you can't really say what it is but will know it when you feel it.  But illogical?  I will defend Levin's right to not agree with Colin Powell's reasons for endorsing Obama, but illogical?  No.  To call them so is to glaringly point out how illogical Levin's logic might be.  Even ascribing Powell's endorsement of one brother giving a terrorist fist jab to another sets forth a logic.

I'm trying desperately to not be mean-spirited, so I won't address what Levin might consider intelligent.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world.  I dare say this is ominous stuff.

And yet he cannot point to one crazed Obama follower screaming "Death to the infidels."  "Messiah" is the Right's ascription.  Audience members faint because it's hot.  The flags are pretty.  The seal was stupid.  The graphic is, dare I say, hopeful.  The same singing children can say the Pledge of Allegiance.  The teenagers' behavior is rooted in African-American fraternities step shows, something about which he knows NOTHING, and what's wrong with professions they see as now open to them because of Obama's candidacy.  Don't criticize lack of world travel and not like it when it happens.  And where the fuck does Levin's citizenry hail from?  Mars?

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny.

It's been said before by those more eloquent than I, but Rev. Wright's sound bite was taken out of context by those eager to paint a stripe on Obama that is not there.  Rev. Wright is an ex-marine who at one time was responsible in part for the health of a president, who served his country and his congregation well.  Levin knows NOTHING of black liberation theology as evidenced by his discounting of its existence as unpatriotic.  When a faction of society in recognizing its needs chooses to extol all in itself that makes it valuable, pulls itself up by the proverbial bootstraps, cognizant of and dedicated to avoiding the tricks and traps in its path, yet does not lay silent about their existence...some people get uncomfortable.  They aren't used to people standing up and calling what they see what they see.

Plus, Levin clearly hasn't been to a black church, or a spirited white church for that matter, where it gets good to the pastor and he says things you don't agree with, but it's your fellowship community.  You take what you can use and leave the rest.  It may be presumptuous for me to assume that Levin is Jewish, but I've been to Temple where the cantor sings so sweetly I could cry and then the rabbi says something about the role of women that flints off my backbone.  You take what you can use and leave the rest.  Does he agree with every single solitary thing his rabbi says?

Obama has subjected himself to scrutiny, explained his relationships, and disavowed a friend when he acted a fool.  News sources, outside of those Levin deems non-traditional, know this.  In a 24-hour news cycle, the story of Obama's relationships had its heyday.  Is it possible that a news culture, desperate for any drama for the sake of its ratings, would ignore a legitimate story if it was there?  It's certainly Levin's right to keep screeching, but honestly...Occam's Razor!

And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama. But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization.

Where to begin.  Obama, bless his heart, does not and has not and probably will not address racism in the context of causing him to lose an election.  He has always maintained that yes, there are people who will not vote for him because he's black, but to concern oneself with that is self-defeating.  The media calls racism when it encounters it.  To deny that racism may be part of an Obama defeat is stupid.  Of course it is, though it may not be the main reason.  But it is still there.  None of the articles Levin may refer to point to racism as the sole reason for an Obama loss.

Experience may be lacking in both Obama and Palin, but one thinks and the other winks.  (Sorry.  It sometimes writes itself.)

As to Palin's humiliation, did Levin watch the interviews?  Gibson and Couric had to do nothing but ask questions.  Palin humiliated herself all on her own.  They have been parsed to death, but if after listening to Palin's answers, you do not walk away thinking that her thought processes are seriously challenged, then I'm going to go all elitist on you and say that your thought processes are seriously challenged.  Or you're denying reality to suit your party's purpose.

A demagogue is defined as:  an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.  I will give Levin the point that Obama has aroused emotions and passions in people.  To look at the volunteer force of Obama is to see what has been awakened in the populace.  A need to be involved.  Levin continually points to positive attributes as negative.  I will not concede that he inflames the prejudices of the people.  That province is held by the McCain/Palin campaign alone.  They seem to only make a point about themselves by criticizing Obama.

Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government.

Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good.

The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual. Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands. The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others.

And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

It's interesting that the author of this toe-the-lining screed calls Obama an ideologue, but whatever.  I've grown weary.  I would make the same points over and over again, as Mr. Levin does.  When I go to vote on November 4th, I will do my best to not anticipate what further ludicrous illogic will be forthcoming from Mr. Levin and the "thinkers" at The Corner.

What's To Be Done

Riffing off of David Ignatius' column in WaPo about negotiations with the Taliban, Spencer Ackerman brainstorms about what's to be done.  Addressing what the Taliban wants coming to the table, Spencer posits:

There are concerns about all of these, and, above all, a meta-concern about the Taliban's seriousness in negotiating. Since coming back from Afghanistan, I've been experimenting with a prospective policy: bolster U.S. forces and concentrate entirely on the east, where the U.S. command has the greatest and most direct influence, and where the first-order threat -- Taliban and al-Qaeda elements -- either are, or border, or infiltrate into. This involves essentially ignoring the rest of Afghanistan, which is the biggest flaw in my argument. But anyway -- COIN the hell out of the east, as much as specific conditions allow: my interviews with Afghans in Paktia and Khost suggest to me that there's a base of support for U.S. troops provided that they're seen as actively improving the security of the populace, and delivering results. Take that opportunity for the next one to three years. In Year One, intensify calls to Taliban and affiliated elements for reconciliation with the national government (Karzai or otherwise). That way, the choice posed to the insurgency is fairly clear -- you can fight and die, or you can have a piece of the action. And you publicly announce that the prize for a thoroughgoing reconciliation with the Afghan government -- judged by whatever mechanism can be created -- is a U.S. withdrawal. The flip side to that is if the Taliban doesn't come to the table, we stay and fight.

This is above my pay grade, but I think it's a good thing that there is more thought put into strategy in Afghanistan than Hulk Crush.  It didn't work in Iraq.

Wassup?!

Deconstruction unnecessary.  H/T Andrew:

UPDATE:  The original.  H/T The Huffington Post.

Please Vote No on Prop 8

This funny video is way down on this blog, but I thought it important to repost.  The California Supreme Court cited Loving v. Virginia in its ruling that struck down the ban for same sex marriage.  Loving v. Virginia struck down miscegenation laws -- laws making interracial marriage a crime.  I concur with the California Supreme Court.  I see it as a civil rights issue; one that, to me, is directly on point with Loving v. Virginia.  Adults should decide who they love and who they wish to commit to, in front of the world with the benefits and sorrows that it entails.

Religion is a personal issue and has no part in civil discourse of a contract.

Those who set forth the concept that part of the reason for marriage is to propagate the species and gay people cannot do that, I would counter that women and men who are infertile or are senior citizens or disabled in ways that make procreation impossible cannot either.  Should they not be able to marry?  I urge you to vote no on Prop 8.

Not Safe For Work.

They Are Who We Thought They Were

I'm still thinking about all the in the face racism sloshing around out there.  I haven't figured out how to express myself correctly, but it's coming.

We Dress Up

The headline is a line from a play I did a hundred years ago.  I think it was "Spell 7" by Ntozake Shange.

I blame Palin and the RNC for a lot of stuff, but I don't blame them for spending 150K to dress her up.  You get picked to be VP, you can't show up in the Twin Cities in mukluks, track suit and Canada Goose parka.  Realistically, that Nancy Reagan red jacket she's been wearing is at least $450 if it's a dime.  You gotta spend money.  I get that.

What I do blame Palin and the RNC for is the sneering condemnation of "elitism" and pronouncing themselves "real" Americans while wearing $5K on their backs.  (Did you see these badass boots she wore?)  To call it hypocritical is mild.  It's the culture war shell game.  You don't see what you know you saw.

UPDATE:  You know, if they were so keen to make the point that Palin and the RNC were really just regular folks, they would have sent her out there to sneer at community organizers in the mukluks, track suit and parka.

Give 'Em Hell, Hussein!

For those hankering for Sen. Obama to get irate, I believe this is the closest you're going to come.  Interesting.  Did something happen that we're not hip to, because this is his strongest impression of anger I've seen him give.  I say "impression" because I don't think Obama does anything without thinking about it six ways from Sunday; he's the anti-McCain.

Did Sen. McCain calling him a socialist get his dander up?

Is this when we get to see the righteous anger about the country's condition from Obama?  Is the nation now ready to see a black man angry...IF it's angry on their behalf?  Is his near fury that CEOs are "making out like bandits" and McCain doesn't want to "give you a dime" in tax relief all but the Magic Negro reads the carpetbaggers and looters of the 401K on the nation's behalf?

Very, very interesting.

They Are Who We Thought They Were

A newsletter mailed out from a California local Republican Party Office:

Yep.  I've definitely lost my sense of humor.  More on this later.

So What Was All This Really?

Two videos from last night's Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner.  In order of appearance, first up, Sen. McCain and then Sen. Obama:

McCain was more at ease and frankly funnier, not that Obama embarrassed himself.  He was funny, too.  His line about being "awesome" had me laughing for 5 minutes.

But here is what irritates me.  Why couldn't the campaign have had this kind of esprit de corps?  Was it all some in-joke among politicians on how to manipulate the public?  Lookit, I'm as irreverent and obnoxious as the next loudmouth.  Those whom I work with can vouch for this.  But I don't have the fate of a country hanging on my words and actions.  And I am sure the Alfred E. Smith is a worthy charity, but something mildly turns my stomach watching combatants from all corners dressed up in white tie and tails, with heavy silver service, Wedgewood bone china, Lalique crystal and linen table cloths snarking it up on each other weeks before the election.

And as for McCain, clearly this is the man the press continues to give homage, despite his campaign not reflecting one iota of what this man supposedly is.  Which begs the question...  If McCain cannot keep his campaign on message and in line with his ideals, bowing instead to party pressure or ambition or whatever the fuck supposedly compelled him to sell his soul, how can I trust that he would not do the same running the country?

I've lost my sense of humor.  I wonder why.

WTF!?

I...  I just don't know what to say.  I need a crazy-face master cleanse.  Ah!  Here we go. 

Asked and Answered

This exchange below between a plumber and Sen. Obama is impressive.

Since I have absolutely no head for numbers, much of this went over my head.  I just pay my bills every month.  That Obama has an answer to a specific question by a voter knocks my socks off.  He doesn't issue platitudes; he answers this gentleman's question.

In Sen. Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC, he put forth the case for liberal thinking.  You work hard until you get in a position to be able to kick in more...to help those who are in the position you were in when you started out.  As a wage slave, I've never begrudged someone driving their Mercedes; I just don't want them to make it hard for me to have my Camry.

I'm trying to be equitable, here, but I cannot imagine Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin answering this man in this fashion.  President Bush, of course, would be completely in the weeds.

A Nerd We Can Believe In

Yeah, clever guy below.  No screed from me.

Sense and Sensibility

See.  This drives me nuts.

John Lewis, Democratic Representative from Georgia, wrote a "harsh appraisal" of the tone that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin's rallies have taken of late.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

McCain was hurt by these comments, most likely because at the Saddleback Church Forum held earlier in the summer, he specifically referenced Lewis as a person he admired.

This is understandable.  To have one's object of admiration criticize one's behavior is bracing.  Accordingly, McCain issued the following statement:

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale.  The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.

"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."

This misses so many points, it's hard to know where to begin.

Rep. Lewis is a grown man with his own opinions.  To call on Sen. Obama to "repudiate" them is ludicrous.  Why should he?  Because they are both in politics?  McCain has defended himself ably.  Because they are both male?  Again,  McCain emphatically and Palin winkingly, have done nothing but express the conviction that he is manly enough to drill and bomb, if that be the measure.  That, of course, leaves one other ludicrous option.

That McCain would call for Obama to repudiate another adult leveling criticism McCain's way is astonishingly obtuse.  Lewis, as witness to what can happen, admonishes the danger of doing nothing when your supporters are calling for unfathomable things, when it is within your power to do so.  Must it be expressly said that McCain's argument is with Lewis, not Obama?  To lump them into one category calling for one to be responsible for another based on a gene gives credence to the frenzy; McCain believes one is the same as the other.  That he doesn't see that is maddening and indicative of the kind of thinking that says these things and allows them to be said.

No one's arguing that criticisms of Obama are out of bounds.  Lewis is taking exception to McCain's standing silent and doing nothing while the vocal behavior of his supporters becomes dangerous and threatening.  His point is that all Wallace had to do was allow the worst to emerge and do nothing.  If McCain has, as he professes, the true understanding and respect for what Lewis endured then he should not be surprised at Lewis' reaction to the verbal aggressions expressed at his rallies.

Puppies!

This is a video that made my day.  It's entitled "My Dogs Greeting Me After 14 Months In Iraq."  It was prearranged but set me bawling on my keyboard at work.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan via Nicola Karras).

Now I'm in a good frame of mind to read Charles Krauthammer.

Chucky's Back In His Envy Wheelhouse--I think

I skimmed this article by my misguided boyfriend Charles Krauthammer and want to write about it but will have to do it this weekend.  I'm a wage slave and have to go to work.  Read it and tell me what you think.

Yeah, We Know How It's Done

The Jed Report put up an interesting video of Sen. Obama from July.  With YouTube, politicians cannot do or say anything that someone won't find and either proves or disproves what they do or say.  Jed Lewison makes it his mission to not only find these videos but also composes some to reflect his point of view.  And he's a wild Obama supporter.

Note that Obama knows how this campaign shizzat is done and can therefore prepare for it.  He's completely got Sen. McCain's number.  Watch and chuckle.

This is the kind of stuff that gets McCain spitting mad...when you point out how transparent he is.  I must say, though, it's not fun to watch a man prostitute his public reputation to win an election.  I say public because I don't know how he really feels.  But McCain has branded himself for years (a brand I bought because I was only superficially interested in politics) and except for his most ardent supporters, everyone can see that he has thrown that brand on the heap.

This Is How We Do It

***Note that this is from my guest-post on Attackerman yesterday.  Dear Spencer was celebrating Yom Kippur***

Good morning! I'm very glad to fill in for Spencer again. I didn't get a chance to express to you, Attackerman's legion, how grateful I was for your engagement with me during my last guest-blogging stint. Thank you. You're some of the smartest folks around and I'm honored that you have me so graciously.

Now...forgive my early morning ramble:

I can't seem to figure out how to embed it, but there is video of Michelle Obama on Larry King (h/t This Week With Barack Obama). It's long -- 22 minutes -- but I think worth it.

Unsurprisingly, she is an excellent example of how to behave as a public political figure. She's prepared. She answers questions without holding forth on talking points, unless the talking points are directly applicable. What is most admirable is how she says she deals with what I term as "lying vitriol." She says she rolls with it, which honestly, can be the only way to deal. She is a better man than I am. As is Sen. Obama.

The McCain campaign's well-worn GOP strategy to win by using inflammatory tactics makes me grieve for meaningful political discourse. (See what I did there?) This behavior is nothing new but I now admit to being naive. I thought surely this year, with so much dangerously amiss with our country, the candidates will be forced to deal with issues. Hahahahahahahahaaaa. And yet...Mrs. Obama graciously waves off the McCain attack without assigning blame to either Sen. McCain, Cindy McCain or Gov. Palin.

Of course, this is poli-speak, but her reaction gives me the opinion that even when hearing the lying vitriol in the privacy and comfort of her own home, she merely shakes her head and "mmm, mmm, mmm's." Which, I venture to say, is what gets Sen. McCain's goat. Neither Sen. Obama nor Michelle Obama will engage in those tactics completely undermining his scorched-earth strategy. (Did I do it again?) Sen. McCain is bombing barren territory; no one is there to either be harmed or fight back. They're somewhere else dealing with something else. My mother was right. If you walk away from a bully, you take away his armament.

That's not to say that I believe Sen. Obama can't throw down when it's necessary. Part of the reason I support him is also because he's no punk. I suspect, though, his throwing down is performed with surgical instruments. If you watched during the debate as Sen. McCain was angrily prowling the stage issuing (untrue) attacks, Sen. Obama sat there in his chair, long legs splayed assuredly, with a benign smile betraying no animosity whatsoever. Good lord, that's the man I want across the table from those who would murder us -- smile on his face, thinking 3 moves ahead with Petraeus in his pocket.

Happy new year, Spencer.

Hunting Wolves in Alaska

I can't watch this all the way through.  Aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska is a practice endorsed by Sarah Palin.  Because of her endorsement, the Humane Society Legislative Fund (the branch of the Humane Society of the United States that can endorse candidates)  has, for the first time, endorsed a presidential candidate.  They endorsed Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama has also been endorsed by the Defenders of Wildlife Fund.

I don't get hunting.  I mean, I do if it's for food or protection.  And even if wolves were an endangerment to society, shouldn't it be mano a canus?  Eeccch.

Was the video bad?

America's Cocktail Waitress

I linked below but thought it should be posted more prominently.  Rich Lowry at the National Review Online wrote the following review of Sarah Palin's performance in the debate:

A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic posted the following letter he received (he doesn't do comments).

In reaction to Rich Lowry, I'm sure I'm not the only woman who, upon reading his words, sat up a little straighter and said, "Is he kidding? Is he goddamn kidding me?"Is this the kind of reaction the women in this country should want men to have to the possible first female Vice Presidential candidate in history? Holy hell.

I thought Palin's performance at the debate was downright embarrassing and on top of that I have to read this clown's blog, stating more or less that Palin gave him an erection? Little starbursts my ass. Here's what I thought when Palin "dropped" that first wink at us: "Did she just wink at us like she was America's cocktail waitress?" Rich Lowry is on the verge of slapping Sarah Palin on the ass and asking her for another of those fantastic whiskey sours.

Exactly.  This is why I bristle at the whole conservative "family values" schtick.  That seemingly serious men are agog with her vapidity makes me think that's how they prefer their women.  Winking, giggling, fertile and vacuous.

And it's why I'm happily single.

Odds and Ends

Rebecca Traister does not feel sorry for Gov. Palin.

It looks like Ta-Nehisi Coates does, but he doesn't.

My misguided boyfriend Charles Krauthammer is still envious but knows stupid when he sees it...only in a woman because it completely escaped him in Bush.  (How double entendre was that?)

The Field Negro wasn't impressed.

You wanna be CIC, you gotta know the generals...so sayeth VetVoice.

I understand little about Pakistan.  Fortunately, I have friends and people I wish were friends, who do.

Rich...honey...she winked at ME.

Funny.

Funnier.

Funniest.  NSFW (Not Safe For Work).

It Only Matters If You're Not...

I've been sidelined with a wicked nasty cold that laid me flat out for a week.  I don't remember Monday through Wednesday.  Apparently I went to the grocery store though, because there are several bags of cranberry juice on my kitchen floor.  Wow.

I saw the headline of this article by Scott Shane in the NYT -- Obama Has Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close -- and went "uh-oh."  Does the desperate smear start here?

It's mostly an accounting of all the ways that William Ayers,  who helped found the sixties militant group the Weatherman, is not in Obama's life.  You really couldn't tell from the headline, but whatever.

This paragraph caught my eye, though.  Quoting Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, 

“I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.

“If you’re in public life, you ought to say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with this guy,”’ Mr. Chapman said. “If John McCain had a long association with a guy who’d bombed abortion clinics, I don’t think people would say, ‘That’s ancient history.”’

Yes, Mr. Chapman, that's exactly what people would say.  They would regale Sen. McCain's dedication to the culture of life, bemoan the fact that people make mistakes, assert that Sen. McCain was a POW when clinics were bombed, and call you a traitor for bringing it up.