Imagine, for just a moment, that McCain said this...

The following words, spoken by Hillary Clinton yesterday, are probably the most objectionable things she's said in this campaign (and there's some pretty decent competition for that title). They are powerfully, deeply offensive. They should not be tolerated by any Democrat. Imagine, if you will, that Senator McCain had said the following:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

If Senator McCain--or any Republican--had said that, he'd be castigated as an out-and-out racist, a desperate relic of America's shameful past trying to curry favor with people who would still refuse to vote for a man simply because of the color of his skin. Yet here they are spoken by a leading member of the Democratic party. Why should the reaction be any different? If anything, we should be MORE outraged because the political calculation behind the remarks is so naked, so obvious.

People read these remarks and say, "Well, is Hillary Clinton a racist?" Past a certain point, the question doesn't even matter. She may not be a racist, per se, but when your remarks are so clearly trying to gain the support of those who are, what's the difference?

Memo to Hillary: Time to End this Thing

"This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country -- probably even a lot of the world -- is looking to see what North Carolina decides,"
--Hillary Clinton, May 2

Tonight:
North Carolina:
Obama 56%
Clinton 42%

Those numbers are embarrassing, Hillary, for a state you called a "game changer" just a few days ago. Honestly, it's time to drop out.

Irony: the one word sportswriters should never, ever use

For the past twenty years or so, I've nursed within my heart a small but passionate thirst for vengeance against those who continually misuse the term "irony." Granted, the word itself is difficult to define--many people simply rely upon a Potter Stewart-esque "I know it when I see it" definition. That being said, I have found that sportswriters and announcers are among the most frequent abusers of the term. Too often, they say "ironic" when they should simply say "coincidental." Let's take today's example, from a piece on the tragic Kentucky Derby breakdown of Eight Belles. Take it away, ESPN:

In '06, we had the Barbaro disaster at the Preakness, followed by the long and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to save the Derby champion's life. While that was still ongoing, we saw Pine Island's fatal breakdown in the Breeders' Cup Distaff that fall at Churchill Downs. In a savage bit of irony, the Distaff race was won by Round Pond, who was trained by Michael Matz -- the same man who conditioned Barbaro.

Really, what is ironic about that? The winner of one race was trained by the same guy who trained a horse that broke down in another race. That is...coincidental? Is it even a coincidence? I don't even think it's that--it's something approaching an interesting confluence of circumstances, but hardly coincidental, and certainly not ironic.

Please, journalism industry, I'm begging you: send your writers to an Irony for Beginners class. It's the only way I can stay sane.

Laura Bush says Myanmar government inaction exacerbated cyclone relief efforts. In other news, irony gives up, throws up hands, jumps off a bridge.

Everyone who's anyone knows I hate the Bush administration with every fiber of my being, but I have to admire them for having the brass talks to some up with something like THIS:

U.S. first lady Laura Bush, who has a long-standing interest in Myanmar, urged the government to allow the team into the country, saying she expected Washington would provide "substantial" aid if it could conduct its own assessment of the situation on the ground.

And she blasted the junta, saying the lack of warning before a deadly cyclone hit on Friday was the latest example of "the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs."

I mean, look, Myanmar has what is without doubt one of the most--if not THE most--repressive governments on earth. There's no question about that. But there's something brutally ironic and galling about a presidential administration whose initial response to Hurricane Katrina was this:



chiding another government for failing to meet the basic needs of its people.

Sad story from Portland: long-time Hawthorne business closes to be replaced by...condo parking. Ugh.

There have been rumors for a while, but now it looks like it's official: long time Hawthorne resident Bowers Bakery is closing because the landlord wants to tear down the building and turn it into a parking lot for fancy condos he's building above Noah's bagels. As you can see below, the building also houses FuJin restaurant and Chez Machin, a decent crepe place. Presumably they would get the heave as well.

None of these three are among Portland's elite restaurants, but they are familiar and welcome faces to residents of the neighborhood: my wife and I ate our first meal in Portland at FuJin, wolfing down a plate of their legendary crispy eggplant as we took a moment's rest from our hectic apartment hunting.


View Larger Map

How distasteful is the idea that something like this could be torn down to provide parking for idiots who will move into fancy condos above a bagel store? It's such a typical sequence of events: the dedicated businesspeople who toil for years and make an area "hip" are pushed out by landlords willing to ruin the entire feel of an area just so they can make a quick buck. Lame.

It also creates an interesting conflict between the city's desire for walkable neighborhoods with the city's desire for increased density. Of course, the apartments now above Noah's will be converted into condos, so it's not like the area is going to become more dense. So, will the city just let a building be razed to build parking? I certainly hope not.

Irony alert: "Free Tibet" flags actually made in China

When the actual, real-life news starts to resemble The Onion, you know things have gone sideways.

Take it away, BBC:

Police in southern China have discovered a factory manufacturing Free Tibet flags, media reports say.

The factory in Guangdong had been completing overseas orders for the flag of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Pop quiz! This flag:

a) is known as the "Snow Lion flag"
b) represents Tibet's victorious accomplishment of a unified spiritual and secular life
c) represents the "Free Tibet" movement
d) is banned in China
e) is manufactured in China
f) it's obviously all of the above, you jagoff

Hey, that's right, "f" is the right answer. (But you don't have to be so antagonistic about it, damn.)

In which my 18 month old daughter discusses the 2008 election

The one rumor I simply refuse to believe

Ok, look, I admit that I'm a pretty easy-to-fool guy, but I absolutely refuse, categorically, to believe that Dwayne Wade is dating Star Jones. I simply won't consider it. There are a few things in life that are so completely catastrophic, and could have such far-reaching and horrific consequences, that they must be blocked from the mind at all cost. Peak oil is one, and now Dwyane Wade dating Star Jones is another. It can't be real. No way.

One poll number I'm absolutely not worried about, or, why you shouldn't stress about Clinton supporters voting for McCain

In the frenetic back-and-forth between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one oft-reported statistic is the number of each candidates voters who claim that they would vote for John McCain in the general election if their favored candidate does not win the Democratic nomination. This is often presented as bad news for the Democratic party. Here's a representative example of this kind of reporting:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Now, does this spell doom for the Democrats? On the surface, it could be ominous: if you take a random sample of 100 Democrats, and assume that roughly half support Obama and half support Clinton, then 28% of Clinton's supporters would turn out to be somewhere around 12-13 voters. Take those numbers to a state like Florida or Ohio, and they could be worrisome indeed.

However, I'm not at all concerned, for the following reason: this is an extraordinarily unusual primary process, with the race lasting far longer, and with far more bitterness, than you normally see, in either party. Because of this, the committed voters for each candidate have dug in to their positions, and find it hard to imagine that their candidate could lose the election. This makes sense: when you are supporting a candidate in the early days of the primary season, you likely have not supported him/her for that long, and consequently can easily transition to the candidate who gets the nomination.

Clinton and Obama supporters, however, have at this point been in their respective candidate's camp for an extended period of time. There is a good deal of hostility towards the opponent, who at this point is not John McCain. Given this, I'm not at all surprised that so many Clinton supporters claim they would support McCain. It makes sense that more Clinton supporters than Obama supporters claim they would support McCain--Obama, after all, is more likely to win the nomination, so to his supporters the idea of a choice between Hillary and McCain is an abstraction. For Clinton supporters, the eventual choice between Obama and McCain is very likely, and very likely hard to stomach.

Really, at this point those numbers are not a sign of Clinton's strength, but her weakness. The more her supporters come to grips with her likely withdrawl from the race, the higher the "I'll vote for McCain!" number will rise. It is, at this point, a tactic unto itself: they are trying to persuade superdelegates that voting for Obama will drive Democrats to McCain. Will it work? Probably not. Is it a credible threat? Perhaps, but not at the level suggested by those polls. I suspect that there is probably a hardcore element, say 5-6%, of Clinton supporters who will find themselves so disillusioned by an Obama nomination that they will chose to not vote. I doubt they'll support McCain, however.

I could be wrong about all this. But really, I think at this point the high number of Clinton supporters who claim they'll support McCain is more representative of their growing sense of the inevitability of her loss than anything else, and threatening to support McCain in the general is the only weapon at their disposal.

A question about the military's "relaxed standards"

Question: Who will be the first Presidential candidate to get in trouble (with the media, with the Republicans, same difference) for saying that it's perhaps not the greatest thing ever, and that it certainly says nothing good about our country, that we are dramatically increasing the "waivers" we give to people who have committed felonies and who are now applying to enter the military, now admitting them when in past years they would have been summarily excluded?

NY Times snarks on pope's visit

Wow. Guess there were more of those victims than we thought.

How to Ignore the Iraq War, by ABCNews

It was a bad day for US forces in Iraq.

Five soldiers lost their lives, including three in Baghdad, which General David Petraeus assured everyone was a veritable Charlie's Chocolate Factory of zany good times in his presentation before Congress yesterday.

As I write this, my computer's clock says "Wednesday, 3:34 pm." Since Sunday, not that long ago, 17 soldiers have died.

Give the seeming rupture between this bad news and the positive spin that George Bush and John McCain have been putting on the news, you'd expect that the media would be all over this story like flies on dog crap. You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. Check out the front page over at ABC News, gathered about two minutes before I wrote this post. (Click the photo to expand it.)



See that? Or, rather, don't see that? That's right--NOTHING about Iraq. Not a word. There's plenty of room for "Boy monkey says no to Barbie" or "Simon Cowell: Smoking is Good," but a major uptick in violence in Iraq? Borrrrrring.

Sheesh. It's kind of unreal. I mean, yes, I know that it gets depressing day after day to write the same "X US soldiers died today in Iraq, etc." stories, but at the same time, you've got the President, the GOP nominee for President, and the main military official responsible for Iraq all selling the same story, and the "facts on the ground" (as the President is so fond of saying) indicate precisely the opposite. It would be refreshing for the media to pay attention, don't you think?

I'm beginning to understand why "Johm" McCain confuses Iraq and Iran

Isn't "spell your name correctly" one of those skills you have to know by, like, second grade?

Madonna: Insane

Superstars of a certain luminosity evidently reach a point where nobody in their lives is willing to tell them to shut up, and so they just continue on their merry way, their remarks losing great touch with reality and sanity with each passing year. So near as I can figure, Madonna passed this point about a dozen years ago, and so it's not too surprising to discover that nearly everything the woman says is touched by some hint of Teh Crazy. Today, she offered some insight into the plight of Britney Spears, and noted that the starlet's troubled relationship with the paparazzi (or "Pavarottis," to quote a certain wife-beatered, hatted, fertile ex-husband of Britney's) is not unlike, uh, well, something about Africa and witches. Here, take it away, Madge:

When you think about the way people treat each other in Africa, about witchcraft and people inflicting cruelty and pain on each other, then come back here and, you know, people taking pictures of people when they’re in their homes, being taken to hospitals, or suffering, and selling them, getting energy from them, that’s a terrible infliction of cruelty.

“So who’s worse off?

Ok, well, first of all, giving the events in recent years in Rwanda and Sudan, I think "the way people treat eachother in Africa" can occasionally rise above the level of "witchcraft," but, that aside, what the heck is Madonna saying here? Genocide is roughly the equivalent of paparazzi stalking someone eating at Hyde? For real?

News flash: Conservative economist Larry Kudlow would support a war tax!

Ok, well, he didn't come out and say it, but take a look at a couple of passages from his most recent blog post on the execrable "The Corner" blog over at National Review:

Surprise, surprise. Having failed to penetrate General Petraeus’s story about the great improvements on the ground in Iraq, liberals are now trying to make the case that the cost of the Iraq war may have somehow undermined the economy, and even caused the current slowdown. What complete and utter nonsense.

First point: The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that’s a lot of money. But run the numbers and the total cost works out to a miniscule 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It’s miniscule.

Ok, got it. $750 billion over five years is "miniscule."
Next:

Perhaps the anti-war forces should recall the portion of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, where he called on Americans to pay any price, and bear any burden, in order to preserve freedom, liberty, and democracy. Do these folks actually think 1 percent of GDP is too large a price, too heavy a burden? I sure hope not.

You heard it here first. Larry Kudlow, one of the most conservative/brain-dead economists in America, thinks that a $750 billion war tax over 5 years is a small price to pay for freedom. Pretty incredible news. I only hope that President Bush will follow his suggestion.

Oh, heavens! In a fit of pique, John McCain called his wife a "trollop" and a word that rhymes with "runt"

'Tis not always so easy being John "Walnuts" McCain, apparent GOP nominee and winner of the "Presidential Candidate Who Most Closely Resembles a Friend of Grandpa Simpson" contest. Back in the day, he and his wife, the heiress to the lucrative Budweiser distribution franchises in Arizona, had something of a spat. Normally, so what, many couples have meaningless spats. What makes this one somewhat interesting (and hilarious!) is the filthy talk ("straight talk," natch) that came spilling out of his mouth in response to a fairly mild and genial putdown by his wife.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

Yow! First of all, I have to say that the "c-word" is coming back into vogue lately: the key plot moment in "Atonement" owed much to that particular word, and now here we have ol' Walnuts McCain dropping it as well.

However, even more than the c-word is his use of "trollop." Note: if you are attempting to convince voters of your undying youth and vigor, try to avoid using words that even Montgomery Burns himself would find stale and outdated. "Trollop?" Who says that?

John McCain: Hates Trollops

The smartest $10 you'll spend on the internets: Charles Bronson 3-D paper doll

If you haven't wasted hours or weeks of your life wandering around Etsy.com, you owe yourself the chance. It's a website where hundreds if not thousands of independent artists and craftspeople sell all manner of products: t-shirts, art prints, plates, random pieces of wood, you name it. Like most markets, it's got a decent mixture of fantastic stuff and crazy stuff. The following item, however, is definitely one of the strangest (and best) items I've found: a paper figure of legendary action star Charles Bronson. Bronson, far cooler than modern day joke Chuck Norris could ever hope to be, gets the full treatment here, and for a mere $10 this incredible product could be yours. (I'm not affiliated with the artist in any way whatsoever, I just think this is pretty damn cool.)



Etsy.com: Charles Bronson paper toy.

British/US sex-scandal gap grows depressingly wide

Look, the Brits outclass us in many areas. Pop music, for starters. Good TV comedy. CRUMPETS, for crying out loud. But imagine my dismay at discovering that they have done us one better in an area that used to be ours for the keeping: the sex scandal. Sure you've got your Eliot Spitzers and the $750/hour call girl, but, honestly, isn't that whole thing a little played out by now? What has happened to us, America? Have we just gotten fat and content in our old age, no longer determined to bring ingenuity and entrepreneurship to the sex scandal as we did in days gone by? Consider these two recent examples, and tell me which looks like the hungry contender, and which one looks like the self-satisfied champion of yesteryear:

United States

The co-founder and former CEO of the liberal-progressive Democracy Radio and husband of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow was caught in February by a Troy police sting aimed at catching prostitutes, according to a police report.

Thomas L. Athans was stopped Feb. 26 by undercover officers investigating a possible prostitution ring in a room at the Residence Inn near Big Beaver and Interstate 75. Athans paid a 20-year-old prostitute $150 for sex in a Troy hotel but was not arrested, according to police reports obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Detroit News. The police report said officers observed Athans enter a room under surveillance and leave 15 minutes later.

Great Britain

Formula one boss Max Mosley is under pressure to resign after he was exposed by a British tabloid enjoying a Nazi-style orgy with five prostitutes.

Jewish groups condemned the behaviour of Mosley, 67, whose father, Sir Oswald, was the leader of the British Union of Fascists and a friend of Adolf Hitler.

Mr Mosley was caught on video by the News of the World with five women in an underground "torture chamber" in Chelsea, where he spent several hours allegedly indulging in sado-masochistic sex.
...
Mosley reportedly took part in the scene on Friday at a London apartment near his home, according to the News of the World.

In a video on the newspaper's website, it shows a man identified as Mosley arriving at an apartment.

The man is then greeted by a woman playing the role of a prison guard, checking his hair to s ee if he has been kept clean "at the other facility".

Later, another woman in a prisoner's uniform enters the video and the man said to be Mosley is heard speaking German.

Ok, look, no comparison. The whole Nazi angle is really distasteful, yes, but when is a good sex scandal tasteful? Isn't the whole point of a sex scandal that you are shocked? And in a day and age in which kids can really view all manner of indecency on the computer, you have to give Mr. Mosley credit for bringing his A game to the sex scandal arena. The United States showed some creativity, it must be admitted, by having its contestant arrested on Big Beaver Road, but that's about it, as they lose points by the low amount of money exchanged ($150) and the shockingly small amount of time spent on the actual act--15 minutes. Meanwhile the British guy paid God knows how much and spent hours engaged in his dirty business.

For shame, America.

Point/Counterpoint: Bush on Iraq

George W. Bush, today:

"Prime Minister [Nuri al-] Maliki's bold decision -- and it was a bold decision -- to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership and his commitment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner," he said.

"This operation is going to take some time to complete. And the enemy will try to fill the TV screens with violence, but the ultimate result will be this: Terrorists and extremists in Iraq will know they have no place in a free and democratic society."

Reality, also today:

Iraq’s Prime Minister was staring into the abyss today after his operation to crush militia strongholds in Basra stalled, members of his own security forces defected and district after district of his own capital fell to Shia militia gunmen.

With the threat of a civil war looming in the south, Nouri al-Maliki’s police chief in Basra narrowly escaped assassination in the crucial port city, while in Baghdad, the spokesman for the Iraqi side of the US military surge was kidnapped by gunmen and his house burnt to the ground.

Saboteurs also blew up one of Iraq's two main oil pipelines from Basra, cutting at least a third of the exports from the city which provides 80 per cent of government revenue, a clear sign that the militias — who siphon significant sums off the oil smuggling trade — would not stop at mere insurrection.

US military manages to out-parody itself

Congratulations. It couldn't have been easy for spokespeople to come up with something like this. Up is Down! Black is White!

The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a "by-product of the success of the surge."

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said it showed that the Iraqi government and security forces were now confident enough to take the initiative against Shiite extremists in the southern port of Basra.

Don't you get it? It's violent BECAUSE we are winning! That is, it appears that we are losing precisely because we are not losing. Sheesh, why don't you idiots get it?

Our cruel culture: prison prohibits father from visiting dying daughter

As the parent to a young girl, it's impossible to read a story dealing with parenthood and not feel some sort of twinge at the old heart strings. Thus, I'm more affected by the following story than I might have been two years ago. Nevertheless, it's hard to view it as anything other than the product of a culture that increasingly feels no sense of sympathy for those who deserve nothing but care and tenderness.

The facts are simple: a young girl, 10 years old, lies dying of brain cancer in a Nebraska hospital. Her father, meanwhile, is in South Dakota, serving a 4 1/2 year sentence for a drug offense. Leaving aside for a moment the idiocy of prison sentences in our "war on drugs," we are faced with the sad news that the warden of the prison has decided to reject the prisoner's request to be transferred to a prison closer to his daughter so that he might occasionally see her in the final month of her life. That's right: he's not asking to have his sentence commuted or anything of the sort, just that he might be transferred from one prison to another.

Why? Well, the reasons are almost laughably absurd: because the circumstances are "not extraordinary." One wonders what could possibly be more extraordinary or compelling than a child dying of cancer. It's hard to read this story and feel anything other than sheer revulsion at people who could be so heartless--not to the father, although it's cruel to him, too, but to the 10 year old girl facing the last month of her life, and knowing that her father cannot be with her.

What should happen here? Well, it's clear. First, the prison should come to its senses and give this man a chance to see his daughter. Second, the governor of the state, if he has the power, should arrange for a transfer. Thirdly, our beloved President, the man who commuted Scooter Libby's sentence because HIS family had suffered, should intervene to transfer this poor girl's dad to a new prison, one that would allow him the chance to see his daughter.

The most disturbing thing about this story is what it reveals about our culture, one that has developed almost a fetish for seeing "punishment" carried out against people we dislike. Whether it is an innocent man in Guantanamo Bay, kept shackled and isolated for years without even being charged with a crime, or a man being kept apart from his dying daughter, we demand that our systems of justice inflict the most brutal punishments, mental and physical, on prisoners. Why? What possible rehabilitative uses can such punishments serve? Well, none, of course. Keeping this guy away from his daughter will do nothing other than nurture within him a burning rage against society, yet the prison warden keeps his head down and insists on the policy.

It's a shame, an embarrassment, and an outrage.

Al Gore is a political failure when it comes to leadership in the Democratic Party

I'm going to ask a very simple question that has really been bothering me as I contemplate the long-term consequences of the increasingly bitter battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: where the living hell is Al Gore? He is perhaps the sole figure in the Democratic political hierarchy who, by virtue of a speech, conference, or interview, could change the dynamic and propel one of the two candidates towards the nomination. Normally that role would fall to the last Democratic president, but since Bill Clinton is the spouse of one of the two candidates, that is an impossibility. So Gore, with his impressive credentials and widespread popularity (not to mention his having won nearly every non-political award of late other than the Cy Young), is the one guy who could step up to the microphone and urge some way forward.

So what's the problem? Is it that he, for example, doesn't like either Clinton or Obama? That seems possible, but certainly he understands the importance of electing one of them over McCain. (Unless, of course, he's planning his own run for 2012.) Does he feel a sense of loyalty to the Clintons, and is he therefore staying out of the way for fear of stepping on their toes by endorsing Obama? It's hard to say, as he has remained, frustratingly, on the sidelines for the past few months. The party is in dangerous territory here, with one candidate seemingly hell bent on attacking the states, voters, and racial groups that have so far propelled her opponent to the lead. It seems highly unlikely that the Democrats would stand an easy chance of winning the general election with a fractured base, yet no "distinguished elders" in the party have lifted a finger.

The three people who garner the most respect in Democratic circles, and who are not affiliated with either campaign, are Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Edwards. None of them has made the slightest move to break this stalemate. Gore, because of his role in the 2000 elections, is, I think, the most important of this threesome, so it is his absence that is the most frustrating and maddening. Gore, I suspect, is still living in his "the work I do is so much MORE than politics" dreamworld. It would be nice if he bothered to return to reality.

NY Times tracks down Spitzer's "Kristen," provides unintentional hilarity

The NY Times has done the impossible and located "Kristen," the (alleged) call-girl at the center of the Eliot Spitzer idiot-who-pays-$4,300-for-hookers scandal. And, amidst the usual woe-is-me story about difficult upbringing, they bust out with this moment of hilarity

Her MySpace biography says that she started singing professionally after a musician she was living with heard her singing Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” in the shower and burst into the bathroom with his lead guitarist.

Uh, riiiiight. That's why he burst into the bathroom while you were in the shower. Umm hmmm.


"Kristen"

A few questions about this whole Ferraro thing

Ever since the Clinton campaign came up with the dubious strategy of having disgraced loser Geraldine Ferraro leads its racist dogwhistle attack against the Obama campaign, I've been left wondering a few things. Not, "is Geraldine Ferraro actually Camilla Parker Bowles, but with better teeth and hair?" but actual political questions. Namely:

1) Is it a really good idea to court one group of voters IN THE PRIMARY by attacking another group of voters? Granted, this makes a certain degree of sense for a general election, but I'm not exactly sure it's the smartest strategy to pursue in the primary, as presumably you'll have to go after that same group of people you just alienated.

2) Given that, does it make a lot of sense to court a group of people (conservative whites) who are more likely to desert you in the general election by trashing a group of people who are more likely to be loyal to you in the general election? I mean, I suppose you could make the argument that because conservative whites are more likely to vote McCain, Clinton needs to bring them to her side NOW, whereas since blacks are fairly reliably Democratic voters, there's no real need to court them at this point. However, by encouraging attacks that are certain to depress black turnout in a general election, I think the Clinton campaign is really shooting itself in the foot.

3) Finally, is it that smart to have as your spokesperson one of the two people on the Democratic ticket that incurred the most dramatic loss in the past 40 years? Does anyone think of Mondale/Ferraro and say "woah, now THERE was a winning ticket!" Hell no! I was 10 years old in 1984, and I knew they had no chance. I mean, the Mondale/Ferraro campaign made the Dukakis/Bentsen campaign look like a political juggernaut. Is she really the person you want out front and center, making your racist points for you? Because, great, now you've got people thinking you are a racist, and subconsciously associating you with the losingest ticket in Democratic party history.

Spitzer takes a page from the Clinton playbook...

I dunno, just doesn't seem quite as catchy...

At some point we're going to have to face the fact that John McCain is quite old and perhaps not in the greatest health

I know the whole "when the White House phone rings at 3 a.m., who do you want answering it?" thing is kind of a lame bit, but, seriously, do you want someone who's been asleep for TEN HOURS already and who generally looks confused by the crazy technology that is elevators? Is this the face of a president who's going to strike fear into the heart of any dictator who is physically capable of eating a bowl of soup without drooling?


(Source: AP)

George W. Bush is the biggest goddam idiot in world history

Sometimes you need to write a tons of stuff about something in order to communicate just how great/horrible/insane/revolutionary it is. Sometimes, though, all you need to do is post a photo and its Associated Press caption to capture the true horror of the moment. This is one of those times.


Actual AP caption: This three-picture combination of photographs shows President Bush dancing on the North Portico of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, March 5, 2008, as he awaits the arrival of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak).

God help us.

Political analogy of the day: Democratic Party = pre-2004 Boston Red Sox

I have this looming pit of despair in my stomach as I sit and look out at the political landscape, wondering who the Democrats will nominate to run against Walnuts McCain. It's no secret that I'm a Barack Obama supporter--I like the guy, and think he has a vastly better shot against McCain in the general election. My concern that Hillary Clinton will find a way to win, however, has made me realize that the Democratic Party is really the political equivalent of the pre-2004 Boston Red Sox. Those Red Sox were always a loveable bunch of losers who managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time after time, often doing so in a fashion that caused their fans immeasurable heartache and angst.

Red Sox lore, for example, would not be complete without the 1986 World Series, in which a fatal error by Bill Buckner cost the team game 6 of the 7 game series, or the 2003 American League Championship Series, in which manager Grady Little let a clearly tiring Pedro Martinez keep pitching, ultimately costing his team the game. It is this type of loss--not just a loss, but a spirit-crushing loss--that reminds me of the Democratic Party today.

I don't expect the Democratic Party to just do the wrong thing and end up nominating Hillary Clinton--I expect them to nominate Hillary Clinton in the most artless way possible, alienating a huge chunk of their base and destroying the positive experience his campaign has brought to millions of people. Rest assured, it will happen. The same party that found a way to lose the 2000 and 2004 elections against, respectively, a dunce-like governor and a clear failure of a president, will somehow find a way to lose the 2008 presidential election against a certified fossil like McCain.

Oh, believe me, I sense the enthusiasm in the electorate, and notice that Hillary and Obama are outraising McCain something like 8:1. And I see that together they are getting something like 4x as many votes as McCain in recent primaries. And I see that while McCain gives his "victory" speeches from inside elevators with four or five equally old white guys behind him, Obama frequently gives his before overflow audiences in sports arenas that hold 18,000 people. I see all that. Sadly, this makes me even MORE convinced that Hillary will be the nominee.

The Dems will find a way to squander all the positive emotion and grass-roots energy the Obama campaign has created, and will instead nominate a divisive political insider who is hated by roughly half the country before her campaign has even started. Rest assured, they will find a way. Just as Red Sox fans used to tell themselves "no matter how good the season looks now, we'll find a way to lose," the Democrats will certainly waste their best opportunity to take the White House in years. The only question at this point is what ingenious method they'll chose to choke it away. Will it take a lawsuit, filed by Clinton supporters, to overturn the Texas primary results? Will the Clinton campaign push a bitter floor fight at the convention to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates? Stay tuned! It's not a question of whether, but how.

Irony alert: anti-shark device eaten by shark

This is funny in that ha-ha-it's-ironic-even-though-it-revolves-around-something-pretty-horrible way. Apparently a new anti-shark device that "works" by causing involuntary contraction of the muscles in a shark's body does not work in the sense that it actually attracts sharks and then causes them to eat it.

AN electronic device designed to ward sharks away from surfers failed so spectacularly during a trial off South Africa that it was eaten by a great white.

An inquest heard yesterday the Shark Shield surf model was activated on a float carrying bait when the 3.6m female shark approached. Rather than being deterred by the device, the shark, under the gaze of the Natal Sharks Board, bit into it.

South Australian Deputy State Coroner Tony Schapel yesterday heard of the test failure during the inquest into the death of Jarrod Stehbens, who was taken by a great white shark while diving off Glenelg in South Australia in 2005.

The inquest has turned into a trial of Shark Shield devices, hearing concerns that the electronic fields generated to repel sharks may attract them.

A startling discovery, in which I discover the origin of the phrase "Mission Accomplished."

With all the modesty I can muster, I have to admit that this is a startling bit of investigative research on my part, and so, in a Drudge-esque moment of self-reflection and humility, I will now trumpet my discovery on my blog.

Whilst tripping through the internet I have accidentally stumbled upon the Washingtonian origin of the phrase "Mission Accomplished," a term that was until now forever linked to our half-wit President and his exotic day of make believe dress up on board the USS Abraham Lincoln. Here's a reminder, for those of you who possess the mental skill to have blocked that horrible memory from your mind forever:

However, as much prominence as that specific usage of the term has received, I found a previous, more shameful (yet, predictably, still very much related to Republican shenanigans) example of it. Check it out!



Recognize that? If the names don't give it away, the pretentious language, schoolmarmish panic over sex, and the obsessive detail paid to the bodily fluids of leading members of our government might. That's right! It was in the Starr Report! So, just as Barack Obama plagiarizes Devan Patrick every time he says 'Yes We Can," we can now state with confidence that George Bush was plagiarizing the Starr Report that fateful day aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he stood beneath the Mission Accomplished banner. Incredible!

Let's play 5 Degrees of Tim Russert

In the Democratic debate the other night, Tim Russert embarrassed himself, the state of Massachusetts, journalists, and fat people with oversized heads everywhere by posing a convulted question to Barack Obama that went something like this: a guy who knows a guy you know said something bad and now you need to denounce not only the statement but the man himself, or else we (that is, I, Tim Russert) will judge you unfit for the presidency.

Given that this is the new standard of journalism, I've decided to invent a new game, "5 Degrees of Tim Russert," in which you establish a link between a prominent politician and someone who either said or did something reprehensible, and then demand that the politician denounce that person. It goes something like this (count the degrees of separation in this argument):

Mitt Romney's (1) favorite book is "Battlefield Earth." (It is, he said so in an interview.) This book was written by L. Ron Hubbard (2), who started Scientology. Scientology is a religion particularly favored by Tom Cruise (3). Tom Cruise is an actor who was in the movie "Top Gun," which co-starred Val Kilmer (4). Val Kilmer is a "Promise Keeper," which is a men's movement started by former Colorado University head football coach Bill McCartney (5). Bill McCartney cheated on his wife. Given that Mitt Romney endorsed by John McCain, can we therefore conclude that John McCain wants everyone to cheat on their wives? WHEN WILL JOHN MCCAIN DENOUNCE BILL MCCARTNEY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOOTBALL TEAM?

It's fun--try it yourself!

George W. Bush: just as proudly out-of-touch as his idiot dad

Years ago, in the halcyon days of the FIRST Bush presidency, we were blessed with the now-iconic image of Poppy being completely surprised by the remarkable technology of a supermarket scanner. Just as it is hilarious to laugh at your mom when she discovers this hot new music all the kids are listening to, "rap," or expresses her fear that the kids these days may be "taking the pot," it was pretty funny to discover that our president had no idea about an ordinary item that we proles use on a daily basis.

So imagine my surprise today when the idiot son of that president, George W. Bush, proudly took to the podium at the White House and admitted his ignorance about the economic conditions faced by consumers across the country. Take it away, CNN:

When asked what advice he would give to the average person facing the prospect of gas prices hitting $4 per gallon, Bush stopped the reporter and said, "What did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gas?"

"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that," he said at the Thursday news conference.

Yes, indeed, predictions of $4 gas have been remarkably difficult to come by lately.

Gasoline price is heading to $4 gallon
Economist: $4 gas possible
Gasoline may hit $4/gallon
Expert predicts gas to hit $4 mark
Analysts see $4 gas by spring: report

Uh, that was from "the Google," Mr. President. Took me about 3 seconds to find. Yesterday the headline on my local paper (The Oregonian) blared, in huge type, "$4 GAS?" Sheesh. Yet again the nation is cursed by an idiotically out-of-touch member of the Bush family in office, ruining the economy and getting us into a war in Iraq.

Presenting the ugliest pair of men's pants created since 1978

J.Crew, you are officially on notice. Now, I've been tempted to poke great fun at your catalogs and their incessant "look how fun it is to summer at the Cape!" motifs, or your insistence on using the singular "pant" all the time, or your continuing belief that Americans are desperate to own khakis emblazoned with small lobsters or sailboats or other relics of the aforementioned summering at the Cape. But, I have held my tongue out of, who knows, perhaps a deep-seated nostalgia for those days in college when I'd get a new article of clothing from J. Crew and would feel the momentary satisfaction of having my fashion sense rise from 10 years out of date to a mere 5 years out of date.

However, I happened to glance at your "pant" sale today, and can keep my silence no longer. You have forced me to stand, eyeball to eyeball, with the ugliest pair of men's pants I have ever seen outside the Deseret Industries thrift store in Salt Lake City where I used to purchase my Halloween costumes. And those were always ironic. So far as I can gather, not a stitch of irony went into the creation of these pants. Behold, America!



Classic fit Italian Paisley Cord Pant

Introducing a perfect cocktail pant, with a traditional paisley on cotton corduroy imported from one of Italy's finest print houses.

"Perfect cocktail pant"? The hell? Just what kind of crazy cocktail parties are you attending, J.Crew copywriter, where such an egregious violation of everything we hold dear as a nation is not only tolerated but encouraged? Good lord. And, it must be noted, this spectacular pair of pants will set you back a mere $99.99. Egads.

Too pretty to fly? Or, perhaps, just stupid?

There's a silly story in the news today about two women in Florida who claim they were kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight for "being too pretty." Those catty flight attendants, apparently, couldn't tolerate the mind-numbing hawtness of these two young lasses, and so had them escorted off the flight by four (!!) police officers. The women were at first refused water (perhaps to sooth their searing hotness?) by the flight attendants, an oversight that paled in comparison to the next outrage:

At one point, Williams had to use the plane's bathroom. She saw another passenger in it, and when he hadn't come out 15 minutes later, she knocked on the door.

When he came out, Williams says the man came over to her seat and yelled a profanity at her. Williams admits she yelled a profanity back at him but was puzzled when she says the flight crew only questioned her.

Ok, simple question: a guy on your flight has been in the bathroom--a small room roughly the size of the trunk of a compact car--for FIFTEEN MINUTES. Do you seriously want to use the bathroom right after him?

Honestly, from that point on, I couldn't trust the judgement of these two.

ABCNews won't let some pesky political issue distract them from Matthew McConaughey's abs

Seriously, ABC? This is what you run on your big fancy political blog? Woah. Just goes to show what a late-night deadline, some rudimentary Photoshop skillz, and a Wedding Planner/Reign of Fire/Sahara marathon will do to the otherwise sensible art instincts of a blog editor.

A damn song I can't get out of my head--Felice Brothers, "Frankie's Gun"

Last weekend a friend and I caught a nifty performance by the Drive By Truckers here in Portland. Since I was pretty familiar with their stuff before the show I was nothing other than impressed by their stuff. However, the opening act, the "Felice Brothers," proved to be a true revelation. Holy hell, where did these guys come from? Not exactly sure how to characterize their music, but it's a kind of downhome gritty Americana kind of thing. Hell, they have a full-time washboard player in the band, and you can't beat that with a stick. The music isn't exactly the same, but the feeling I had watching them reminded me of how I felt when I first caught Whiskeytown, one of my all time favorites, back in 1997 when I caught them in Salt Lake City. Same energy, same fire, same sweet sweet songs. (Hopefully these guys won't flame out in spectacular fashion as did Whiskeytown.)

They have an album coming out in early March, but the below video is for what is sure to be their breakout hit, "Frankie's Gun."

"My car goes, Chicago
Every weekend to pick up some cargo
I think I know the bloody way by now Frankie;
Turn the goddam radio down, thank you.
Pull over, count the money
But don't count the thirty in the glove box, buddy--
That's for to buy Lucille some clothes."

A phrase that should strike fear into the heart of anyone with a brain

Overheard on the radio on the way to work this morning:

"From the creative visionary who brought you Christina Aguilera, Fergie, and the Pussycat Dolls."

Portland media watch: KGW issues biased, one-sided report on Columbia Gorge casino

Ah, the Columbia Gorge. The mythic strait through which sailed Lewis and Clark, and in so doing cemented Oregon's status as a frontier state touched by nature's grandeur. An unspoilt wilderness, hewn out of granite, forged by volcanoes and the steady anvil of rain and snow. Truly, one of our nation's scenic wonders. And...perhaps soon to a monstrous eyesore of a casino. Wait, wha? Yeah, well, you wouldn't know it to read this puff piece of a news story by the Associated Press and picked up by local the wunderkinds over at KGW news in Portland.

Titled, lamely, "Proposal for Casino in Gorge proceeds to next step," the article tells you everything you might want to know except, of course, why anyone would be opposed to this damn thing. Environmental groups? Yeah, they're a wee bit upset about it. Folks who fear the impact of traffic in Cascade Locks? Yeah, they're a bit upset about it as well. But not the chamber of commerce types over in Cascade Locks! No, it's all gravy, baby!

"We're very happy," Cascade Locks Executive Director Chuck Daughtry told KGW. "This means jobs and tourism" for Cascade Locks. "We recruited them... and we can't imagine a better partner."

The Warm Springs Tribes would stand to make an expected yearly profit of $77 million from the casino and benefits to Cascade Locks were predicted around $50 million over the next 25 years.

Hell, sounds awesome! Who could possibly oppose such a rad casino? Nobody but a bunch of damn hippies who hate gambling, and, uh, environmental damage, not to mention the intrusion of a massive casino in a scenic wonderland.

Guess what? I typed "Columbia Gorge Casino" into Google, and the first damn link was to the "Friends of the Gorge" a non-profit group based out of Hood River, with some information about why this thing sucks so bad. There's also a group of Cascade Locks residents opposed to the casino.

Really, not hard to find this stuff at all. Not hard to present both sides of the puzzle. Gah, our local media sucks.

Oh, and note the URL of the KGW article: it ends with "kgw_021508_environment_casino_impact.c5878d47.html." Got that? Environment casino impact. A concept important enough to put into the URL, but not into the article itself. INteresting, no?

Portland real estate: plunging values, or realistic pricing at last?

As a resident of SE Portland, one of my pet hobbies is tracking the crazy real estate transactions that have gripped the 'hood in recent years. Houses that sold for $250,000 in June would sell for $325,000 the following February, only to sell for $389,000 in June. It was (or should have been) obvious to everyone that such dramatic increases were not sustainable, and that the resulting crash-and-boom would be a grimly painful reminder that every boom must have its bust. Until quite recently, however, I have not been confronted with dramatic evidence of the new reality in residential real estate. There have been quite a few stories claiming that Portland seems to be weathering the national storm quite well, and, until recently, anecdotal evidence (which for me consists of the things I see as I take my dog on walks through the neighborhood) seemed to bear this out.

However, I was recently struck by the dramatic decrease in value of one particular house on my route. The house, a large classic Portland home, probably 100 years old, is located in a nice part of SE Portland, close to many shops and restaurants, and surrounded by equally nice houses. Crime, while existent, mainly takes the form of petty theft, and streets and schools in the area are fairly good. The house has a current asking price of $499,000.



To the average person driving past while looking for real estate bargains, this may seem fairly routine. Nothing dramatic on the surface. However, what the dedicated dog-walking enthusiast in the neighborhood knows is that, until only recently, the house was on the market for $659,000.

Turning to PortlandMaps, and the detail it provides about the recent history for this house, we see something interesting.

Back in 1990, it sold for $87,000, not a small amount of money, as the neighborhood in those days was something of a drug-infested eyesore. It really kicked into high gear in 2002, however, selling for $339,000. In June of 2006 it sold again, this time for $570,000, a tidy increase of $230,000. Something, however, happened between June of 2006 and December of 2007. The house, after sitting for months on the market with an asking price of $659,000, sold towards the end of the year for $494,500, a decline of nearly $100,000 in 18 months, and $160,000 under the asking price. It now sits empty at the current asking price of $499,000.

What was it? What happened? Did something happen to the house itself? A fire, perhaps, or a plague of locusts? Flooding? No. The house, actually, underwent a substantial amount of rehab in that period. In fact, it is much nicer, and has more "street appeal" now than it did when it sold for $570,000. It has been painted, given new wood floors, a new kitchen, and basement work. It is actually a very decent house, albeit one with a small yard.

What explains the decline? Is there something unique to the personal history of the owners of this place (note that the current holder of the deed is a bank, not a person)--a divorce, unfortunate medical event, or something similar? Did personal tragedy strike, requiring a quick sale at basement prices? Or does the new owner of this property recognize that the market that once supported a price of $570,000 for this house can today do no better than $499,000.

Is this house a statistical outlier, or the proverbial canary in the coal mine?

Oh Christ! It's Senator Walnuts McZombie Scowlsalot!!

Seriously. Look at this comparison. Who looks like the President here? Mr. Courageous Poise on the left, or the crazy old guy in front of you in line at the grocery store who won't shut up about how the damn store should still honor his coupons from last year?

Photo Comparison: Chris Berman vs. Antonin Scalia

One is a gaseous windbag whose grandstanding on our nation's most prominent stage has exposed him as the egomaniacal lunatic that he is, and whose pretentions to glory will surely doom the next two generations of our country's youth to careers of indentured servitude, and the other is Antonin Scalia.

Seriously, though, how did I go so long before noticing that these guys are practically twins?

Once again, the Chinese draw all their creative inspiration from "The Simpsons"

Memorable Simpsons quote:

Bart: I want to stay here with Mr. Burns.

Burns: I suggest you leave immediately.

Homer: Or what? You’ll release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?

And from China, in preparation for the Olympics:




That's right! Horses, with lions riding on top of them! The pinnacle of insanity, and I'm alive to see it! Praise the lord! Next up, they'll train a small monkey to ride on top of the lion, and the monkey will be trained to throw hungry piranha at innocent passers by. Ah, the inscrutable Chinese.

Cowardly, cravenly, cynically: Hillary calls for reporter to be fired

I won't go out of my way to pretend I'm a big Hillary Clinton fan. I happen to think she'll get her clock cleaned by John McCain in an eventual head-to-head matchup, and I also think she'd be absolute murder for "down ticket" races, i.e., having her on the national ticket would cause a lot of Democratic Senate and House candidates to lose their respective elections after being tied to her by their opponents.

That being said, her latest reaction to MSNBC's David Schuster, who said that Chelsea Clinton was being "pimped out" by the Clinton campaign, is an absurd overreaction, even for the combustible Clinton camp. After Schuster was suspended, the Clinton campaign sent the following statement to NBC:

Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.

In other words, Clinton wants NBC to fire Schuster for what he said. Weak. After sitting idly by and letting conservative pundit after conservative pundit say the very worst things about her, Clinton has decided that THIS is the comment to really lose sleep over. Why? Well, the reason is simple: David Schuster, all apologies to the guy, is a nobody. Hillary knows she can't take on Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Glen Beck or any of those guys, so instead she freaks out and demands that NBC fire David Schuster. It's cowardly. It's cowardly to look the other way when someone powerful makes a distasteful remark about you, but then demand the firing of someone lower down on the totem pole for something fairly innocuous. It reminds of a middle manager who will say nothing when he witnesses his boss doing something unethical, but who will then demand the immediate ouster of someone below him in the corporate pecking order.

It's also cynical: Hillary knows that she gets a lot of abuse from the press, so she has decided that this will be her line in the sand. She's threatening to boycott the NBC-hosted debate unless this reporter is fired because she wants to make a larger point to the media: don't try to push me around.

Finally, the whole thing is completely silly: Schuster, though his word "pimped" was perhaps poorly used, was making a valid point: the Clinton campaign is using Chelsea to get the "youth vote" (uh, yeah, good luck with that), all the while allowing her to hide behind the "sorry, I don't talk to reporters" shield she's been using for the past 10 years. (Rather lamely, she recently told a nine-year old girl she couldn't answer her question because "I don't talk to reporters, and unfortunately that includes you." LAME!) I'm sure they'd also refuse to answer any questions about her for the same reason: she's a kid! Schuster was simply saying, you can't have it both ways. Either make her a public part of the campaign, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with that, or let her have her private life.

Anyway, blah, summary: the Clinton campaign is weak, losing steam and momentum to Obama, and is choosing this fairly mild remark as its Thermopylae. In so doing it reveals itself to be cowardly and cynical. It is hard to imagine feeling any possible motivation to vote for such a candidate.

Greed: if a player you like does it, it's called "competitive"

There was a pretty fascinating article in Sports Illustrated today about the backroom negotiations that landed Johan Santana a huge $137.5 million contract from the New York Mets. Apparently, with about 5 minutes to go before the deadline expired, Santana informed the Mets that he wanted $140M, not $135M, and that he was willing to walk away from the deal (and thus pitch one last season for the Twins) and risk his chances with free agency next year. Here's how Tom Verducci puts it in his intro:

Pitcher Johan Santana gave the Mets a preview of his competitiveness last Friday, five minutes before the initial deadline to their contract negotiations. With the two sides just $5 million apart, Santana personally informed Mets owner Fred Wilpon that he was walking away from $135 million, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.

Now, here's the problem I have with that: the word "competitive." Why use that word? Imagine, for a moment, that we're not talking about a fairly non-controversial guy like Johan Santana, but are instead talking about Terrell Owens or Randy Moss. Would a sportswriter use a word like "competitive" to describe those antics? No, they'd use a word like "greed" or would launch into a spiel about how players these days just don't appreciate all they get from sports.

It goes directly to one of my pet peeves about sportswriters, the way that they take the exact same trait and filter it through their own sense about a player. Thus Bret Favre throws a really stupid interception, but because sportswriters and the media in general love the guy, he's just labeled as a tough competitor who sometimes takes risks because he just loves winning so damn much. Then another quarterback, say, Eli Manning (before he won the Super Bowl and taught a grateful nation how to love again), does the exact same thing, and they tsk tsk about how he just doesn't have it and wonder if he'll ever be free of those mental lapses.

I'm sure this tendency is common to all humanitiy, after all, we are more prone to overlook flaws (or at least justify them) in people we love, and prone to demonize the same traits in others. Nevertheless, it's a little annoying to have it illustrated so clearly.

Not to brag or anything, but Tina Fey TOTALLY reads my blog

How do I know Tina Fey reads my blog? Did she, like, write me an email? No. Did she send a bouquet of flowers, or ham, to me after collapsing with laughter after reading one of my posts? Uh, no. She did, however, mention the name of my blog in an interview she conducted in December! OMG! (Please allow me this fantasy, and forget for the moment that the name for this blog was actually stolen from a bit in 30 Rock.) Check it out!

Q) You mentioned in the September 23, 2007 New York Times that last year you sometimes trolled the Internet looking for references to “30 Rock.” What is the strangest reference you found?.

A) Oh, let’s see. That’s a good question. I would go and - I would Google phrases from the show and just to see if they were popping up anywhere. Mindgrapes. I got a few results for Mindgrapes. Pregnant cornbread I think will get you a couple hits on Google. I’m trying to think if there’s anything weirder than pregnant cornbread. That might be the weirdest one that I was able to find.

Check it! "That I was able to find." I've been telling people for a long time that this here website is the FIRST SITE LISTED if you do a Google search for "pregnant cornbread". That's right! Number 1! Which means she definitely saw this blog. Therefore, using the powers of logical reasoning I gained through years of study at one of our nation's most prestigious colleges in Minnesota, I can conclude that she not only reads the blog on a daily basis, but that she loves it and wants to hire me as one of the writers on 30 Rock. I shall have to carefully consider her offer.

Top 5 things I am sick of reading about the Super Bowl

1. [Insert zoo animal here] makes Super Bowl pick by scratching, clawing, peeing, or crapping at some random circle of items that is supposed to represent this year's opposing teams.

2. [Insert player] outrages opponents by believing that his team will win. Seriously, is this not the most overplayed story of all time? Does any player arrive at the Super Bowl believing that he'll lose? (Ok, except for everyone on the 1985 Patriots.)

3. List of ridiculous questions asked during this year's media day. Yes, the media is, by and large, stupid, and asks stupid questions when they know that if they ask a stupid question someone will write about it and print their name. Breaking news.

4. Anything having to do with Tom Brady, Tom Brady's foot, Tom Brady's hotness, Tom Brady's hot girlfriends, Tom Brady's hot ex-girlfriend who is also the mother of his child.

5. Anything about Bill Belichick that does not mention that he is a wife-stealing dirtbag.

OMG, is Ann Coulter going to vote for Hillary?

I know I'm kind of stealing this bit from Atrios, but I've got to do one of those "simple answers to simple questions" things. ABCNews is asking, in its typically breathless way, whether Coulter might actually swing the other way in the 2008 election:

In case you missed it, on Hannity & Colmes last night, controversial pundit Ann Coulter -- who supports Mitt Romney for president -- said she would back Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"She's more conservative that he is," she said. "She will be stronger on the war on terrorism...I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

OMG, is this true? Will she vote for Hillary over McCain?

Answer: no, she will not. Any Republican who says they will vote for Hillary over McCain because McCain is "not conservative enough" is lying, and is also an idiot.

Worst product ever: Cheeseburger in a can

Imagine that! The worst product ever, and it's not something crazy from Japan! No, this comes straight from our good friends in Germany, and is apparently intended to be used to sate your hunger whilst in the midst of a rigorous treks through the Alps or some such. Imagine if the von Trapp family singers had been blessed with a couple cases of these while escaping their evil Nazi overlords! (Via Spluch)

Memo to Bill Clinton: dude, SHUT UP.

Look, Bill Clinton. You were pretty much a kick-ass President. I voted for you twice, I campaigned for you twice, and I wore myself hoarse defending you when you put certain things where you shouldn't have with that nice intern lady. But, look, you really are behaving like kind of a overbearing me-me-me jerk with all the "OMG don't elect teh Obama!11!!!1!1" stuff lately, and it is wearing thin, and it is kind of making me wish you'd just shut it and go away for a while. Kthxbye.

Prediction: the Super Bowl is going to suck

I used to approach my analysis of the AFC and NFC championship games by looking at both teams in each game, considering how they'd match up against the other, looking at moves their coaches had made all season long in preparing for similar games, and generally just wasted a lot of time reading the analysis of other, more seasoned football fans. In the last couple years, though, I've realized that guessing the teams in the Super Bowl is actually quite simple: the Super Bowl will feature the worst game possible between the four teams in the championship round. This year, I would have been delighted with: Chargers vs. Giants, Chargers vs. Packers, or Patriots vs. Packers. I knew, going in to the game, that I would NOT be happy with a Super Bowl between the Patriots and the Giants, so I suspected that both those teams would win. And, guess what, they did.

So, my prediction now is that the Super Bowl is really going to suck. Again. The Patriots are coached by an egomaniacal wife-stealing hosebag who doesn't care what anybody thinks as long as he wins. The Giants are coached by a Cheney-level control freak who hasn't seen a dynamic offensive scheme since he spent 10 minutes in 1993 watching his son play a game of NBA Jams. This does not bode well for an entertaining game. Add to that the fact that the prestige of the Super Bowl usually convinces teams with dynamic offenses (Colts, Steelers, etc.) to resort instead to a grind-it-out offensive strategy, and I'm afraid we're looking in the eyes of a 17-6 defensive struggle that nobody will remember in a few years. I will be overjoyed if I'm wrong, but these are the two worst possible coaches to have if you want a dynamic game (and, yes, I'm aware that they scored over 70 points the last time they played each other). I will be totally and utterly shocked if there are more touchdowns than field goals in this game, and the probable MVP is either the Patriots' kicker or Asante Samuel, who will get one or two interceptions and make a few tackles. That's all it will take to be named MVP of this one. Sigh.

From Portland, OR: should you really get a Medal of Heroism from the police because you killed a guy who attacked you?

That's the question I have to ask after reading this story from my hometown of Portland, OR:

A Civilian Medal of Heroism will be awarded Wednesday to Susan Kuhnhausen, the Portland nurse who strangled an intruder hired to kill her in 2006.

Kuhnhausen wrestled the hammer-wielding intruder to the ground and choked him to death.

Kuhnhausen's husband, Michael, pleaded guilty last year to conspiring to commit murder. He hired the man kill his wife.

Susan Kuhnhausen is one of 85 civilians and police officers who will be recognized for heroism, lifesaving skills, or distinguished service in the Portland Police Bureau's annual awards.

The committee says the 53-year-old displayed courage and heroic action.

No question, she displayed courage. But heroic action? She saved herself! This was pure instinct! A guy tried to kill her, so she defended herself and killed him. I'm not trying to take anything away from the "woah!" factor of the event, but I have to really wonder whether this belongs in the same category of somebody who rushes into a burning house to rescue some kids or something.

A hero, to me, is someone who puts their own safety aside in order to help/save someone else. There has to be a measure of self-sacrifice (or at least heroic disregard for one's own safety to advance the public good) at play in order to be called a "hero". Remember that dude in New York who jumped down onto the subway tracks to save a woman who was having a seizure, and just narrowly missed being run over by the subway? Ok, he's a hero. The woman in this story simply defended herself. Would a woman who shot an armed intruder be given the same award? I doubt it, but there's really no difference.

I know this is kind of a classic blog thing to do--make something non-controversial into a controversy, but I think it's a worthwhile question: what's so heroic about defending yourself? Isn't that just a natural reaction?

Brief foray into complicated world of post-structural concertgoing proves overwhelming for Hannah Montana fans

Breaking news! Apparently some young fans and their (highly impressionable, highly idiotic) parents are upset because of some underhanded shenanigans during a recent Hannah Montana concert. E! Online explains thusly:

Giving her fans the best of both worlds is apparently too much for Miley Cyrus to handle on her own.

The singer, who performs both as herself and her Disney Channel alterego on the sold-out tour, was accused in an OK! magazine report this week of using a body double during a brief portion of her show.
...
"Then they covered her with a black sheet and she went through a secret door. Within a second, a new 'Hannah' came out of a different door wearing oversized white glasses. The whole time this was happening Miley's vocals were still playing. The new imposter had her back turned while she danced, trying to hide that fact that she was not Miley Cyrus. At this instant I became very suspicious."

Had these fans read--and UNDERSTOOD--the thesis of Derrida's "Difference" prior to attending the show, they would have grasped the central point advanced by post-structuralist critics and being performed by Ms. Cyrus in a very sophisticated and nuanced bit of deconstructionist criticism: that the concert actually consists of THREE preformers: Miley Cyrus, the "real" singer, her "TV" "alter-ego" (one of the cool things about deconstruction is that literally everything can be scare-quoted), and a third person who represents a composite character that lingers in the neverworld between fact and fiction, between Mylie and Hannah, between the authored work and its author, between creator and created.

In other words, in order to understand the genesis of Hannah Montana, we must first understand the genesis of the actor creating the "sign" of Hannah, in this case Mylie Cyrus, who is herself the outcome of a very intricate set of circumstances involving her father, noted neo-Foucaultian Billy Ray Cyrus. The complex relationship between sign and signifier here devolves into a complex series of binary oppositions between Hannah and Mylie, leading to the point where the concert has no choice but to generate a "third" performer to serve as a proxy for the outcome of the conflict between symbol and symbologist. That the concertgoers were confused and/or outraged by this only shows the depths to which they have been subjugated by the traditional Western structuralist mindset.

Why do so many leading Republicans look like ugly animals?

Really, there's no complex though process behind this post, other than to point out that every time I see former senator Phil Gramm, economic advisor to John McCain, on TV, I think that he looks like a box turtle. Here's the evidence.


Also, I've been trying for some time to think of the animal I'm reminded of every time I see Rudy Giuliani, aka 9udy 11uliani, aka America's Mayor, and it finally hit me: naked mole rat!

Feel the Fredmentum!

This graphic pretty much shows what happened to Fred Thompson's presidential hopes in New Hampshire yesterday.


Yeah, that's right. Dude finished 1,500 votes behind "Total write-ins." Ouch.

Update: Emily Rocheleau is NOT the stupidest person in New Hampshire

I've been contacted by a person who knows Emily Rocheleau, who I accused yesterday of being the stupidest person in New Hampshire, to inform me that her comment to the NY Times, in which she admitted to being torn between Barack Obama and John McCain, was a vast oversimplification of her view of the presidential campaign. Apparently she works for a climate change organization, and thus is aware that of all the GOP candidates, only McCain has been courageous enough to even admit that climate change is a real problem, and that we should actually, you know, do something about it. So, her statement to the Times was intended to convey her respect for McCain's courageous (relative to the rest of his party) stance on global warming.

So, I retract my statement that she's the stupidest person in New Hampshire. She is, according to my emailer, friendly, smart, and a good person, and my emailer seemed credible, so I have no reason to doubt that statement.

With that said, I hereby announce that the stupidest person in New Hampshire is anyone voting for Fred Thompson.

Emily Rocheleau: Not Stupid. Actually pretty cool.

Another post in which I ramble about "miracles" and their meaning

During lunch today I did one of my favorite things: ran on the treadmill while watching the 4 TVs in my employer's gym while NOT wearing headphones so I could laugh at the close captioning. One of the TVs was showing the press conference of legendary Redskins coach Joe Gibbs announcing his resignation/retirement. Now, I like Joe Gibbs, and think he's a very decent guy, and respect his reasons (actual family reasons, not the fake family reasons that some politician who's just been caught in bed with a hooker comes up with) for retirement. However, one of the things that annoyed me was his discussion of how religion factored into his decision. Because the volume was not on and because I was running at the time, I wasn't able to transcribe his statements, but he said something along the lines of how he has to give thanks to God for looking down and allowing someone like him (a guy who took dance in college, for crying out loud!...wait, I did that too....) to become a coach, and how this means we have a benevolent creator or some such.

But wait. The Redskins suffered the tragedy of losing their best player this year when Sean Taylor was murdered in his house. This gets back to my frustration about how people call it a "miracle" when a plane crashes and 218 people die and they pull one guy alive out of the rubble, or when a building collapses and 98 people die but a four month old baby survives. In order to say that the survival of one is an act of God, don't you kind of have to accept that the deaths were an act of God, or that God was, like, too busy to pay attention? Can people really imagine a God who will look down and help one person, but not bother helping others? Is it really savvy for Gibbs to say that God played an active role in his success at the same time that one of his players was flat out murdered? Was God busy that day?

I'm not saying I don't understand what he's trying to say, but this is one of those moments when people tend to nod their head politely when someone thanks God for their success, rather than wondering about the logical implications of that statement.

Howard Schultz is a two-headed Monster: AP

Something about this AP photo/caption made me laugh:


"Right." Such a simple word, such a tricky situation. The guy in front's body is to the right, but the other guy's head is to the right. Which is it? What are the rules for this kind of thing?

Emily Rocheleau*, 22, is the stupidest person in New Hampshire

This is, generally, an up-tempo, "feel good" blog, like one of those infectious morning shows with Moose Mike, Rocket Jaw, and Krazy Kat on 100.3, Jammin' FM. But, from time to time, I have to take a break and point out somebody who has chosen, for whatever reason, to put his or her name in the national news and say something so utterly stupid that he or she deserves to be branded as a simpleton for the rest of his or her utterly bewildering life.

And, in this case, that someone is Emily Rocheleau, a 22 year old "independent" voter from New Hampshire. Now, plenty of blogs have devoted acres of print to pointing out the absurd infatuation our media and political world has with "independent" voters. Also known as "undecided voters," they are people who wait until the last possible moment, despite a veritable avalanche of news and information about the candidates, to make up his or her mind about who to support in a given election.

Since the eyes of the political world are now focused upon New Hampshire, where, legend tells us, all the men wear flannel shirts and all the women are seasoned political mavens who could spend hours lecturing you upon the intricacies of quorum calls and cloture resolutions, the press has once again rushed "independent voters" into the spotlight. Yesterday's NY Times featured a photo of Ms. Rocheleau, and said the following about her in the caption

Emily Rocheleau, 22, is trying to choose between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

Ok, look. It is January, 2008. The presidential candidates have been declared candidates for quite some time now. I simply don't know what to say about someone who is undecided to the point of not knowing whether she will choose between Obama and McCain. That is simply ridiculous. You could not hope to find two candidates whose views on actual issues are more different than Obama and McCain. You could not hope to find two men whose paths to the US Senate are more different. In what they believe, who they represent, and the life experiences they would bring to the Oval Office, you have two men who are very nearly diametrically opposed. So what, pray tell, explains someone who will vote for either one of them?

I'll tell you what explains it: the obsession our media has with trying to force candidates beyond the boring world of actual issues. Reporters and news anchors are, frankly, bored with hum drum things like health care and economic issues (outsourcing? BORING!), so they turn elections into a contest of personalities. And the result of this is that voters like Emily Rocheleau, 22, get trapped into thinking that either one of these guys would be a fine person to elect, as if the policies they will implement are somehow secondary to the kind of people they are.

(*I mention her name because she attached herself to that statement in the article. I'm sure there are thousands of others who share her disappointing perspective, however.)

My blog is not dead, and neither am I

It's been about twelve years (give or take 11.9 years) since my last blog post, but I hope to be back on my blogging feet in the days ahead, and back to my regular posting. Whew, holiday travel and related festivities are exhausting.