Oh Good Lord

McCain (probably inadvertently) implies that Venezuela is part of the Middle East; meanwhile, Palin can't name a single newspaper that she reads:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this, to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media—

Couric: But like what ones specifically? I'm curious, that you—

Palin: Um, all of 'em, any of 'em that, um, have been in front of me over all these years.

Couric: Can you name any of them?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, it seems like, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
(Video here.)

Well, Palin gets 1,000 points for attempted misdirection, but Couric wasn't implying that Alaska was a foreign country; she just wanted to know whatthefuck newspapers and magazines Palin read to stay informed about what's going on in the world.

It wasn't a gotcha question—in fact, Palin could have thrown some red meat to their base by saying she read some conservative rag like the National Review or the Weekly Standard. She could have said something pretty innocuous like the Wall Street Journal or US News and World Report. She could have said, "I kept up with world events watching Fox News and reading the Drudge Report," or even more generically "television" and "the internet."

She could have said any one of a million things—but came up with more rambling nonsense, which suggests either that she's been reading bupkis about zilch for most of her adult life, or that she's been so tied in knots about saying the wrong thing or so totally hamstrung by the McCain campaign that she doesn't even feel like she can answer the simplest of questions forthrightly.

In which case, the claims that she's invigorating the ticket with all sorts of mavericky goodness is total bullshit.

Which we already knew anyway.

Still.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What is your one can't-live-without article of clothing?

Jeans. No specific pair—although I've got a pair of dark denim bootcut jeans of which I'm particularly fond at the moment. I just can't live without at least one good pair of jeans. For a grrl whose social life is highlighted by hanging out with partner and friends at home (or a pub if we're feelin' fancy!) or going to a movie or triple-A game with partner and parents, perfect jeans are the natural equivalent to the perfect little black dress.

Open Wide...

Being Thankful for Life, Death and Whiskey

P.J. O'Rourke has been diagnosed with a very treatable form of cancer. He talks about it and his view of his mortality in a way only he can.

I believe in God. God created the world. Obviously pain had to be included in God's plan. Otherwise we'd never learn that our actions have consequences. Our cave-person ancestors, finding fire warm, would conclude that curling up to sleep in the middle of the flames would be even warmer. Cave bears would dine on roast ancestor, and we'd never get any bad news and pain because we wouldn't be here.

But God, Sir, in Your manner of teaching us about life's consequential nature, isn't death a bit ... um ... extreme, pedagogically speaking? I know the lesson that we're studying is difficult. But dying is more homework than I was counting on. Also, it kind of messes up my vacation planning. Can we talk after class? Maybe if I did something for extra credit?

Why can't death -- if we must have it -- be always glorious, as in "The Iliad"? Of course death continues to be so, sometimes, with heroes in Fallouja and Kandahar. But nowadays, death more often comes drooling on the toilet seat in the nursing home, or bleeding under the crushed roof of a teen-driven SUV, or breathless in a deluxe hotel suite filled with empty drug bottles and a minor public figure whose celebrity expiration date has passed.

I have, of all the inglorious things, a malignant hemorrhoid. What color bracelet does one wear for that? And where does one wear it? And what slogan is apropos? Perhaps that slogan can be sewn in needlepoint around the ruffle on a cover for my embarrassing little doughnut buttocks pillow.

Furthermore, I am a logical, sensible, pragmatic Republican, and my diagnosis came just weeks after Teddy Kennedy's. That he should have cancer of the brain, and I should have cancer of the ass ... well, I'll say a rosary for him and hope he has a laugh at me. After all, what would I do, ask God for a more dignified cancer? Pancreatic? Liver? Lung?

[...]

Death is so important that God visited death upon his own son, thereby helping us learn right from wrong well enough that we may escape death forever and live eternally in God's grace. (Although this option is not usually open to reporters.)

I'm not promising that the pope will back me up about all of the above. But it's the best I can do by my poor lights about the subject of mortality and free will.

Thus, the next time I glimpse death ... well, I'm not going over and introducing myself. I'm not giving the grim reaper fist daps. But I'll remind myself to try, at least, to thank God for death. And then I'll thank God, with all my heart, for whiskey.
You may disagree with him on politics -- and I do -- but my heart goes out to another kid from Toledo whose sense of humor I can only marvel and and wish him the very, very best for a speedy recovery and many more years of doing what he does so well.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Wow

Sarah Palin has derailed:


Palin [video]: And I do look forward to Thursday night and debating Senator Joe Biden. [cheers and applause] We're gonna talk about those new ideas, new energy for America. I'm looking forward to meeting him, too; I've never met him before—but I've been hearing about his senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade. [laughter]

Couric: You made a funny comment—you said you've been listening to Joe Biden's speeches since you were in second grade, something like that.

Palin: It's been since like '72, yeah.

Couric: When you have a 72-year-old running mate, is that a kind of a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden's been around awhile?

Palin: Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and, just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years, so— He's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas, and he's got the experience based on many, many years in the senate and voters are gonna have a choice there and what it is that they want in these next four years.
So, first she makes a joke that reflects badly on her running mate if he's judged by the same standards, and then she makes a clarification that reflects badly on herself, given that her relative inexperience is her biggest liability. Fooking hell. Steve Benen asks, amusingly, "She is aware of the dynamic surrounding the two presidential candidates, isn't she?" Seriously.

Btw, I went to the official McCain-Palin website, and I'll be damned if I can find any of these new ideas she's allegedly bringing to the table. I'm not saying she's not bringing any, but, if she is, her campaign isn't promoting them very effectively.

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Huffington Post:

Are you fucking kidding me?

Love,
Liss

Open Wide...

IMPORTANT MEMORANDUM

TO: The Cult of the Feminazi Cooter
FROM: Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain
RE: Rhetorical Update

Dear Bitchez:

Please note, effectively immediately, that the phrase "women's privacy" should be used as the umbrella term to incorporate all of the babykilling objectives on the recently disseminated 2008 Radical Feminist Agenda, including but not limited to:

• Contraception
• Emergency contraception
• Abortion
• Infanticide
• Grinding up babies for pathetic anger bread

This is the new mantra: Women's privacy. Notice that. Very interesting new description. Reproductive health—that could be anything, anything at all. Migraine headache. Panic attack. But "women's privacy" is the key here. So, if you want to have an abortion or even commit infanticide, it's privacy.

It has been brought to my attention that some of you find this position too prosaic and timid for the Cult of the Feminazi Cooter, and that we really need to think outside the box and maybe branch into sacrificial slaughter of innocents and wanton castration, but our budgetary constraints require a limited program this year. Keep up the fundraising at the Gates of Hell, various red light districts, K Street, and wherever else you find concentrated populations of soulless demons, and maybe next year will provide some growth opportunities for the organization.

Thank you for your continued dedication to The Cause.

Best regards,
M. McEwan
QCoFM

Addendum: Please make sure this memo does not fall into the hands of Bill O'Reilly.

Open Wide...

Boxfight



Olivia and Sophie have been fighting over who is rightful owner
of The Best Box Evah for about nine gazillion hours now.

Meanwhile, Matilda—who knows she is the rightful owner, despite letting Livs &
Sophs have their fun—wants to know if you can touch your tongue to your nose?

Open Wide...

News from Shakes Manor

Last night, while getting ready for bed…

Liss: Hey, babe—would you still have fallen for me if my name were Heehaw Snarlypants?

Iain: I probably would have fallen fur ye even faster. Shame it's not.

Liss: We should change our last name to Snarlypants. "Hello, we're the Snarlypantses. Nice to meet you."

Iain: Excellent idea.

Liss: What will you change your first name to?

Iain: Grumpelstiltskin.

Liss: Grumpelstiltskin Snarlypants is quite a mouthful, don't you think?

Iain: I dinnae then. Shittypants.

Liss: Your new name will be Shittypants Snarlypants?

Iain: Yeah!

Liss: Okay. Good night, Shittypants.

Iain: Sleep well, Heehaw.

Open Wide...

Is this what they mean...

...by compassionate conservatism?


Professional Asshole Glenn Beck: I can't look at Barney Frank any more. I can't take it.

Professional Pantload Jonah Goldberg: I almost think he should be in jail! I almost think the guy should be in jail!

Beck: Oh I do too! I absolutely do. I think — honestly, I think we should have at least, bare minimum, we should have stockades in front of the Capitol building. Some of these people are out and out criminal on what they have done. […]

Goldberg: It is an incredibly poisonous situation. You know in the Middle Ages, Harry Reid would have his stomach cut open and a half-starved weasel thrown in, for the kinds of things he's doing. It's outrageous!
Tell us, oh mighty arbiter of morality, what would they have done in the Middle Ages to people who used Mr. Gutenberg's fine invention as an enormous wank machine?

Open Wide...

Federal Prosecutor Appointed in Attorneygate

Well, hello there again—haven't seen you in awhile:


Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey on Monday appointed a federal prosecutor to continue an investigation into the dismissals of nine federal prosecutors in 2006 as an internal Justice Department inquiry concluded that political pressure drove the action against at least three of them.

The internal investigators said that the White House’s refusal to cooperate in the high-profile investigation produced significant "gaps" in the understanding of who was to blame and that they did not have enough evidence to justify recommending criminal charges in the affair. Now the task of determining if anyone should be prosecuted will fall to Nora Dannehy, the federal prosecutor in Connecticut.
Those "gaps" may, just possibly, perhaps, maybe, have something to do with the fact that former Bush administration svengali Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former Justice Department-White House liaison Monica Goodling, and current White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, all refused to testify. Just a guess.

A federal judge ruled in July that "the executive's current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law," with respect to the House Judiciary Committee's investigation of Attorneygate; one hopes that bodes well for Ms. Dannehy as she dives into the morass.

[More on the prosecutor purge, aka Attorneygate, here and here.]

Open Wide...

Relatively Speaking

I just had to laugh when I read this bit in Adam Nagourney's Times' piece today about lowering expectations so thoroughly that Palin will look awesome in the debate if she even attains mediocre GOP concerns about Palin's performance in the upcoming debate:

"I think she has pretty thoroughly—and probably irretrievably—proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States," David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush who is now a conservative columnist, said in an interview. "If she doesn't perform well, then people see it.

"And this is a moment of real high anxiety, a little bit like 9/11, when people look to Washington for comfort and leadership and want to know that people in charge know what they are doing."
I love conservatives' capacity for rewriting history. When people "looked to Washington" on 9/11, they didn't get comfort and leadership—they got seven minutes of Bush sitting in a classroom like a frozen git and then flying around the country in Airforce One while Cheney took to an undisclosed location. Bush had no clue what the hell he was doing.

Which makes Frum's analogy accurate in a way he did not intend: Palin may well live up to Bush's performance after 9/11, but that would not be the good thing he suggests by rewriting what the president's performance actually was.

And, by the way, I also love how conservatives screech like rabid banshees as the merest hint of a liberal not treating 9/11 with sacred gravity, but minimizing it to suggest that Republican anxiety about the upcoming vice-presidential debate is "a little bit like 9/11" is just fine and dandy.

lol your relative morality

[Note: Shaker Daughter points out in comments Frum may have been drawing the comparison between how "Americans are feeling now about the economic crisis" and 9/11. In which case, my point still stands—although he's not minimizing it as much, there would be howls of outrage if a Democratic strategist made the same comparison.]

Open Wide...

Random YouTubery: The Safety Dance with Dar and Bar



Darren and Barry do The Safety Dance.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Madness. I'm not holding my breath, but I would like to see the self-proclaimed conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealots step up and take responsibility for wrecking the American economy and bringing about the worst financial crisis since the Depression."Bob Herbert, from his column today, "When Madmen Reign."

I'm not holding my breath, either—but, yeah, that would be nice.

Open Wide...

For and Against

The Republican National Committee is out with an ad that blasts the bailout package that failed yesterday and ties it to Barack Obama. No surprise there; the RNC is doing what they're best at.

But wait...

The Republican president supported the bill. The Republican Senate leadership supported the bill. The Republican House leadership supported the bill. The Republican presidential nominee supported the bill. And the Republican National Committee runs an ad insisting that Obama's bailout package "will make the problem worse."

Indeed, the RNC unveiled its breathtaking ad literally within minutes of John McCain telling Fox News that in order to get increased support for the bill, "We're going to have to change enough Republican and Democrats' minds.""

So, simultaneously, the Republican Party is campaigning against the bill, and Republican presidential candidate is campaigning in support of the bill. Brilliant.
Does the right hand know what the far-right hand is doing?

Open Wide...

You're Soaking In It!

One of the things that continually surprises Iain, as he becomes more aware of the nuances, patterns, and narratives of sexism, having taken the red pill, is the sheer abundance and constant presence of sexism, how it is seemingly infused into everything, shoved into places where it makes no obvious sense even by The PatriarchyTM's logic, into spaces where it undermines messages of equality, into every nook and cranny in the goddamned multiverse.

"I don't know how you can stand it," he says, in moments when this realization really hits him in his gut.

"Yeah, well, remember that next time I'm crabby for seemingly no reason," I say.

It's often the "throwaway" lines, in the middle of what's not meant to be sexist commentary, that he's really started to notice—the misogyny in news stories, for instance, jarring in its presence. Shaker Franka sent me a perfect example of this today, in which the last paragraph of a news story about the Couric-Palin interview begins thusly:

The former NBC "Today" show host, in a short skirt, was flashing her famous gams in the interview while former beauty queen Palin wore a conservative pantsuit.
It has no relevance to the paragraph before, or the sentence after. It's just stuck in there—and hangs, awkwardly and lonesome. Says Franka: "Uh. Why is this in the article? Why is McCain's erotic appeal not touched upon through sartorial choices?"

Like I said, these things make no obvious sense—except, of course, that the sheer ubiquity of misogyny is what inures us to it.

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

(For those too young to get the title reference, it comes from a series of adverts (example here) that ran from probably the late '60s to at least the mid '80s, in which "Madge the Manicurist" would tell ladies that Palmolive dishwashing liquid was so mild it would actually soften their hands while they did the dishes—then surprise them with the news: "You're soaking in it!" For some reason, that line has always stuck in my head as the perfect description for how sexism is so ubiquitous that we can't even see it. We're soaking in it!)

Open Wide...

Q&A

[Trigger warning.]

Q: What's wrong with this article?

A: If you said, "An adult can't 'have sex with' a child, because a child can't consent," give yourself 1,000 points.

Despite the AP noting right in the article that Kelsey Peterson has been charged with sexual assault, and has already pleaded guilty to other related charges, they nonetheless say that she kidnapped her 13-year-old former student to "have sex with" him, or some variation thereof, four times—and CNN adds two more bulletpoints at the top of the page, as well as the headline: "Ex-teacher gets 6 years for sex with boy, 13."

The photo caption on Peterson's mugshot is even more euphemistic: "Kelsey Peterson was sentenced to six years in federal prison for running off to Mexico with a student."

Running off to Mexico?! Like it was a romantic weekend getaway, instead of a kidnapping and rape.

Now, part of the problem with this report is just the usual aversion to using language that more appropriately describes nonconsensual sexual contact, which is certainly a combination of a general cultural squeamishness about sexual assault and a wariness about using words that have a specific legal meaning (like "rape" and "sexual assault") as well as a lay meaning. So there's that going on, as ever.

But here we also have a gender-reversal, in which the perpetrator is female and the victim is male—so we've also got cultural gender biases at work, too, starting with the double-standard that prescribes 13-year-old girls who are raped by their male teachers to have been victimized* but 13-year-old boys who are raped by their female teachers to have had their wildest fantasies fulfilled.

Despite every other narrative we have contrarily suggesting that girls at that age are more mature and better decision-makers than boys, when it comes to sex, we inexplicably make a huge and unjustified exception: Boys are emotionally and psychologically sophisticated enough at 13 to consent to sex with an adult, despite having not even reached sexual maturity themselves. This alarming incongruence is itself predicated on the stereotype that male sexuality is separate from thought and emotion, but purely a physical act without enduring personal ramifications; thus, if a boy can say he desires sex, he is ready to consent to it.

With girls, we recognize that being desirous of sex does not translate to an a priori intellectual readiness. We acknowledge that the body often becomes capable of things for which the mind is not yet prepared, which is whence the idea of statutory rape comes. And yet boys whose female teachers kidnap them to engage in an activity for which children are not able to fully consent, by nature of their still-developing minds, are said to have been whisked away to Mexico, like it's no big deal.

And if we really want to expose this shocking hypocrisy for what it really is, let us imagine if Kelsey Peterson had been a man. We would not be so cavalier about a male teacher carting off a boy to "have sex with" him, even if the boy quite forcefully asserted he was gay. It's not just about regarding boys as having sexual agency; it's about regarding women's sexuality as so passive that women are not properly regarded as sexual predators even when they are. A man who "has sex with" a 13-year-old girl (or boy) is dangerous; a woman who "has sex with" a 13-year-old boy is sad. Or a minx who's just giving the lads what they want.

Neither characterization does their victims any favors.

[H/T to Shaker Megankay.]

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

* Except, of course, for the few misogynist dirtbags who always crawl out of the woodwork in such cases to cast the female child as a seductress.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Thirtysomething

Open Wide...

A Novel Approach

Some libraries in Broward County (Florida) are taking a novel approach to Banned Books Week. They are helping their readers find the books that are challenged or banned and encouraging them to read them.

Here's the list of the ten most challenged books in 2007 compiled by the American Library Association and the reasons.

1) “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group

2) “The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence

3) “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language

4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint

5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism

6) “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language,

7) “TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

8) “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit

9) “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit

10) "The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
Strike a blow for liberty: read a book.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Are you allergic to anything?

As an adult, I've developed some sort of summertime allergies (hay fever? pollen? mold?) that are mild enough I've never felt compelled to see a doctor for them, and I've become lactose intolerant. (Yay, Silk!) Other than that, I've got three very weird allergies that I've had since I was a kid:

1. I'm allergic to some ingredient that's used in lots of shampoos (and if you've ever looked at a shampoo label, you know it's pretty much good luck isolating which of the bazillion chemical compounds it is). So when I find a shampoo that doesn't irritate my scalp, I stick with it like a madwoman.

2. I'm also allergic to a component in some types of concrete. You know that sparkly kind of concrete? Whatever is in that stuff causes any bit of my skin that touches it to go red and swell, but the worst part is the ITCHING! It makes me itch for hours and hours after I've touched it, especially the palms of my hands. I remember telling Mama Shakes about this when I was younger, and she thought I was completely crazy. For years, I think she was (understandably) convinced it was all in my head…until my first husband and his mother (a nurse) turned out to have the same allergy! They're the only other people I've known to have it.

3. And finally, what I think is the weirdest one…I'm allergic to the strep infection. When I get strep throat, I get a weird rash all over my body, and then my skin dries up and flakes off. Grodius maximus.

Open Wide...

Obama: McCain Suxxx

Yup:

Democrat Barack Obama said Republican John McCain's long advocacy of deregulation contributed to the current financial crisis and letting his GOP rival continue those policies as president would be a gamble "we can't afford."

After the House defeated a bill Monday to bail out the financial industry but also impose new federal controls on it, the Democratic presidential candidate said that McCain has "fought against commonsense regulations for decades, he's called for less regulation 20 times just this year, and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy."

"Senator, what economy are you talking about?" Obama asked.
The same economy whose fundamentals are still strong, no doubt.

Open Wide...

David Gilmour: Thoughts and Tribute to Rick Wright

As you may recall, a couple of weeks ago we lost Richard Wright, one of the founding members of Pink Floyd.

Last week, David Gilmour was scheduled to appear on Later... with Jools Holland to promote his new live recording from the last show of his tour in Gdansk. Due to the recent sad events, the set list and focus changed. As a musical tribute, David performed "Remember A Day", a song written by Rick for the Saucerful of Secrets album that has never been performed live.

Below is an interview early in the show, followed by the performance. The second clip is a more in-depth interview, which gets rather heartbreaking about two minutes in when David stops himself from going down a rather depressing road.



Open Wide...

Random YouTubery: Wait. For. It.

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo



President Mondo Fucko mourns his legacy; wonders if
the pain hurts more than homelessness and starvation.

President Bush makes remarks on the failed bailout during his meeting with Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko, not shown, Monday, Sept. 29, 2008, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Open Wide...

It'll Trickle Down Any Minute Now…

Fortune's 25 Highest Paid Men and 25 Highest Paid Women. Grab a barf bag before reading.

For extra shits and giggles, note the total compensation of #25 on the men's list (the lowest of the highest) and then the total compensation of #1 on the women's list.

Open Wide...

Maude Help Us

This is CNN's front page:


The fate of a controversial $700 billion financial bailout plan was in doubt Monday as a House vote turned against it.

The next steps were not immediately clear but supporters were scrambling to put it up for another vote.

...The measure needs 218 votes for passage. Democrats voted 141 to 94 in favor of the plan, while Republicans voted 65 to 133 against. That left the measure with 206 votes for and 227 against.
The whole story is here.

This is the problem: There are good reasons to vote against this bill, but not everyone who's in a position to affect the economy understands that. Investors are freaking out. That's more dangerous than not passing (or passing) this bill.

Open Wide...

From the Wayback Machine

Mustang Bobby's earlier post about Obama, McCain, and the dichotomy of their individual willingness to engage in bipartisanship, put me in mind of an incident from February of 2006, before the Democrats regained control of Congress, that I'm surprised hasn't received more play during this campaign:

Obama asked McCain if he would consider co-sponsoring a Democratic proposal on ethics reform, instead of appointing a separate task force on the issue, as McCain wanted to do. The Dems, you see, had already introduced legislation, the Honest Leadership Act, which addressed many of the things McCain was saying he wanted to appoint a task force to explore; ergo, Obama was hoping that McCain would instead just sign on with the Dems' instead of wasting time with a task force.

Obama's letter (pdf) was extremely polite and professional—but, reading between the lines, one can see Obama was also essentially calling McCain's bluff and testing his claims of being a wild and crazy maverick who knows how to reach across the aisle and shit, as calling for a task force is often a strategy employed by a senator who only wants to appear to care about an issue without actually having to take a stand, as the task force "investigation" indefinitely delays establishing a firm position. Here was an ethics reform package ready to rock and roll—so Obama asked (again, politely and professionally) for McCain to sign on.

McCain's response (pdf), which Matt Stoller called "the single most bitter, nasty letters I have ever seen from any Senator," was not only shocking in its tenor, but put paid the lie that McCain cares about reform and bipartisanship.

When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again…

I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
McCain having directed this level of rancor at Obama two and a half years ago further contextualizes his refusal to even look at Obama during the debate (which I've no doubt is attributable to a number of other things, too). McCain basically told Obama in official correspondence he's got no respect for him—and now he finds himself two years later going toe-to-toe in a campaign for the presidency with the freshman senator he deemed disingenuous and un-admirable—and he's losing to him.

It's no wonder he can't look him in the eye.

Open Wide...

News Flash: Internet Just Got Better

Just when you thought you have found everything that Google could throw at you, I present to you the greatest thing ever to grace teh tubez:

A full page of photos that prove, once and for all, that Christian Bale and Kermit the Frog are one and the same.



[H/T to The Mighty Recon]

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"We don't want [Hispanics] to become the new African-American community. And that's what the Democratic Party is going to do to them, create more programs and give them handouts, food stamps and checks for this and checks for that. We don't want that. I'm very much afraid that the Democratic Party is going to do the same thing that they did with the African-American culture and make them all dependent on the government and we don't want that."Didi Lima, Republican communications director for Clark County, Nevada and co-chair of John McCain's Nevada Hispanic Leadership Team. Lima has been "removed" from both positions.

[Please insert your own joke about Republicans making socially irresponsible corporate executives dependent on the government here.]

Open Wide...

Still No Terrorism Since 9/11

None here. And none here. And none here. And none here. Nor here or here. Nor here or here. Or here, either.

And certainly none here:

Baboucarr Njie was preparing for his prayer session Friday night, Sept. 26, when he heard children in the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton coughing. Soon, Njie himself was overcome with fits of coughing and, like the rest of those in the building, headed for the doors.

"I would stay outside for a minute, then go back in, there were a lot of kids," Njie said. "My throat is still itchy, I need to get some milk."

Njie was one of several affected when a suspected chemical irritant was sprayed into the mosque at 26 Josie St., bringing Dayton police, fire and hazardous material personnel to the building at 9:48 p.m.
This, at the end of a week in which Muslims celebrated Ramadan and in which "thousands of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West—the fear-mongering, anti-Muslim documentary being distributed by the millions in swing states via DVDs inserted in major newspapers and through the U.S. mail—were distributed by mail in Ohio," bearing, by the way, "the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College."

There has been terrorism in the United States since 9/11, no matter what the Bush administration says, no matter what John McCain says, no matter what the Republican Party says. It's just that the people terrorized aren't people they give a shit about.

I don't even know what else to say. Blub.

[H/Ts to Shakers Ginmar, Renee, Dori, and Zen.]

Open Wide...

Monday Blogaround

Sock it to me, Shakers!

Recommended Reading:

Kevin: Who Would You Vote For in a Blind Taste Test?

Chris: McCain Camp Prays for Palin Wedding

Magpie: Will the Wall Street bailout fix the ailing U.S. economy?

Digby: Enablers

Sweet Machine: On Temptation (and Jeans)

Kyle: DNC Wedges McCain on Gambling

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Bipartisanship

The McCain campaign trotted out an ad before Friday midnight about how Barack Obama said "John was right" several times during the debate. They seem to think it's a winning strategy to portray Mr. Obama as a McCain supporter. Hilzoy disagrees:

It would have been one thing had Obama not also been willing to say, forcefully, that he thought McCain was wrong. But he was, and usually his acknowledgement that McCain was right on some point was the preface to an explanation of why he was wrong on another.

[...]

Nonetheless, the McCain campaign seems to think that pointing out the occasions when Obama said that McCain was right is a winning strategy. I think this is wrong, not only for the reasons I mentioned, but because it undercuts one of McCain's main lines of argument: that he is willing to reach across the aisle and work for bipartisan solutions, whereas Obama is not.

Think about it: McCain couldn't even bring himself to look at Obama. He was consistently contemptuous and dismissive. And now he has released an ad that takes Obama's willingness to acknowledge that his opponents are right to be the sort of thing that's worth attacking him for.

McCain claims that he can truly reach out to his opponents and work with them, while Obama cannot. It's hard for me to think that his performance in this debate didn't seriously undermine that claim.
I think this points out an element of Mr. McCain's idea of bipartisanship: he's happy to claim his willingness to reach across the aisle, but the anecdotal evidence is that it's only when he gets his way; otherwise he's more than likely to tell you to go Cheney yourself. And as this ad campaign indicates, he's not even willing to acknowledge Mr. Obama's agreements because he doesn't consider him as a worthy equal on the stage.

This is the Rovian mentality oozing in under the Mavericky door; turn your opponent's strength into a weakness even when it's the same as your own.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, #86

And apparently, I've got to rename this series to racism, Muslim, unpatriotic, scary black dude, and antichrist watch:


Fort Mill [South Carolina] Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was "just curious" when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist. "I was just curious if there was any validity to it," Funderburk said in a telephone interview. "I was trying to get documentation if there was any scripture to back it up."

…When asked if he believed Obama was the antichrist, Funderburk replied, "I've got absolutely no way of knowing that."
Of course not. Because, like millions of Americans, Funderburk believes in a God who gave him a brain that He doesn't want him to actually use.
The e-mail, which has circulated in the last six months since Obama secured the Democratic nomination, claims the biblical book of Revelation says the antichrist will be in his 40s and of Muslim ancestry.

There is no such scripture. And Obama is not a Muslim. But that hasn't stopped the e-mail.

The urban legend Web site Snopes.com first exploded the myth in March. Funderburk forwarded the e-mail this month.
You know who would forward an email speciously circulating that someone was the antichrist, even after it had been debunked…? THE ANTICHRIST, that's who!

That's right, Shakers—Danny Funderburk is the antichrist. And you will each be receiving an email to that effect momentarily. Please be sure to pass it on far and wide. It 's what Jesus would want.

Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five.

Open Wide...

Boehner to Vote for Crap Sandwich

Mmm, delicious:

In a closed-door session with House Republicans, Minority Leader John A. Boehner just called the financial rescue deal a "crap sandwich" – then said he’ll vote for it when it comes to the floor Monday.
Might as well get used to voting for crap sandwiches now, Boehner. It will just make Nov. 4 that much easier for you.

Open Wide...

Tina Fey::Sarah Palin:Amy Poehler::Katie Couric


(If anyone can find a transcript, please let me know in comments. This one's a little on the long side for me to do one myself.)

Tina Fey's impersonation of Palin is just amazingly spot-on. Amy Poehler's of Katie Couric, not so much. But, hey—they can't all be winners.

Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Talk Soup with Greg Kinnear


How can this be the only clip on all of YouTube of Oscar-nominated actor Greg Kinnear's stint on Talk Soup?! Criminal.

Open Wide...

SNTDBIDW - The Same Damn Thing You Did Last Time

OK -- here's installment two in SNTDBIDW:

How To Break Patterns

I do not personally know a single adult human being who hasn't danced out at least one horrifically dysfunctional (at worst) or annoyingly ineffective (at best) pattern in their life.

Granted, I do not personally know the Dalai Lama, and I acknowledge that there may be a plethora of exceptional human beings who do not run up against this challenge -- but if they exist, I have not met them yet.

If you are one of these exceptional human beings -- someone who has never once had the thought: "Uh-oh, here we go again!", or "Oh shit, I've had this exact same argument before, with this exact same person", or "Crappity-crap-crap! I KNEW I shouldn't have done this!!!!!!" -- please introduce yourself -- I will consider you the exception that proves the rule.

I will leave aside, for the moment, the multitudinous psychological and metaphysical discussions that we might have about why otherwise bright people sometimes engage in patterns of behavior that are self- or other-destructive, counter-productive, or just plain stupid.

I will instead, attempt to describe the "Because It Doesn't Work" aspect of dysfunctional patterns, and offer some suggestions.

I will start with an example, by way of personal anecdote, about one of the "patterns" that plagued me for many years.

For many, many, many years -- (like 46 years) -- it seemed to me that the only type of person that I could possibly be attracted to as an intimate partner was a "withdrawer".

Which was problematic for me.

You see, I am not a "withdrawer". I am an "advancer".

If a conflict arises, I am the type of person who wants to confront it immediately, and talk it out until it is resolved, no matter how tired, hungry, angry, or cold I am at the time (and therefore, often, how fairly in-equipped I am to find resolution at the time) .

However -- I have, with atomic-clock-like precision, paired with partners who were my polar opposite in this respect -- human beings who tended to want to take time away from the issue until they were not so tired/hungry/angry/cold before they attempted resolution -- or who wanted to take time away from the issue altogether -- forever -- and seemed to actually prefer entertaining the subtle, toxic undertone of unresolved shit, as if it were some kind of exotic spice for Relationship Stew (pun intended).

For many years, I approached this dilemma with a single strategy: I would simply batter away until I got them to "deal with it".

Ask me how that worked out.

Over time, I began to realize that I was approaching these situations in a most unscientific, illogical, and irrational manner -- I, who prided myself on my rationality, and my logic.

Here's the metaphor: If you were a scientist, and you went into the laboratory and mixed two chemicals in a beaker, and the reaction of the two chemicals was such that it blew the laboratory sky high, and burned the fuck out of you -- would you rebuild the same exact laboratory, and mix those exact two chemicals in precisely the same kind of beaker again?

OK -- maybe you would -- one more time. Tops.

On this second attempt, though, if you blew the lab to smithereens and burned the fuck out of yourself again -- well, chances are that you would . . . . . . Try Something Different.

Strangely, I didn't do that for many years. Instead, I kept applying the same disastrous formula to my experiments -- over, and over, and over, and over.

It went like this:
a) Problem arose in relationship (usually in the form of conflict or disagreement).
b) Argument ensued . . . . or Discussion ensued -- and quickly devolved into Argument.
c) Partner who had low-tolerance for conflict or ongoing process demonstrated fatigue, or expressed desire to go away and process internally before continuing to talk. (I tend to process "on-the-fly", as I talk.)
d) I would press partner further, often pulling out the "Never go to bed angry" card, or claiming that their need for a break was simply avoidance (which observation may have actually been correct, in some cases).
e) My pressing would simply add to low-conflict-tolerance partner's overload, and render them even less likely to want to engage.
f) At that point, I would generally push harder and thus, exponentially grow the conflict.

(Lab Note, circa 2002: After several dozen disastrous explosions in the period between 1974 and 1983, I undertook a slightly different approach for the next eight years in which I chose to give the subject "space", while fastidiously resenting the fuck out of them. This procedure ultimately resulted in a somewhat delayed, but much larger, explosion. During the period from 1991 to 2002, I alternated between the "press on" and "back off and simmer" procedures, with consistent results. [see attached slides of rubble and broken glass].)

I'm not 100% sure why I persisted in applying just these two strategies for so many years, but I have a partial hypothesis, and some strong hunches. The hypothesis is the result of years of in-depth therapy, wherein I figured out that I was in reaction to my mother's tendency to withdraw in the face of any conflict. The hunches are along the lines of: I suspect that I held in my mind some notion that if my partner got what they wanted, it meant that I couldn't get what I wanted (because that was the way it had worked in my FOO).

I'm not fond of the concept of "compromise". I don't think it's bad as a theory, but I've rarely seen it work in practice.

The Merriam-Webster definition of compromise demonstrates why that may be so, I think:

Compromise:
1 a
: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2
: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial compromise of principles
I think that, all too often, while meaning #1 is usually the intended theory, meaning #2 more often represents the actuality.

What's interesting to me is that, even though I had self-awareness about my dynamic with my mom and my family-of-origin, and insights about my own judgments concerning the concept of compromise, this didn't magically get me to stop blowing up the laboratory (I'll speak more below on what did end my lab-annihilation streak).

Before I do that, however, I want to note that these were my particular chemicals and beakers -- yours may be different.

You may be the person at the other end of the spectrum -- the person who overloads easily in conflict, and needs space to process internally before having the energetic resources to resolve things with others (and isn't it remarkable how often we pair in just this manner -- Withdrawer with Advancer, Introvert with Extrovert, etc.?)
OR
Your particular pattern may have nothing whatsoever to do with personal relationships, but rather, it may a pattern that you have repeated ad nauseum in your work life, or your spiritual path, or in some other arena of your life.

Here's what I did to change the withdrawer/advancer dynamic in my intimate relationship:

I did something different.

About six months into my current relationship -- the relationship in which I found the love of my life -- the apple of my eye -- the floatage for my boatage -- the frosting for my flakes -- I noticed that "that thing" was starting to show up. That oh-no!-so-familiar thing: My partner withdrawing, and me pressing on.

Prior to meeting my Beloved, I had assumed, from the frequency of my patterned behavior in intimate relationships, that I just had what I called a "broken picker". I assumed that I had simply made poor choices in pairing -- by choosing partners who happened to demonstrate traits that were like my mother, and which, consequently, triggered the living hell out of me.

However, with the Beloved, I felt quite clear that I had made the correct "pick". I was madly, frothingly, in love with her, and she was madly, frothingly in love with me back. This was not at question for either of us in any way.

So, when the dreaded pattern started showing up, I had two epiphanies: 1) Maybe I was picking people "like that" for a reason -- that reason being that I actually needed to clear up this pattern, and 2) Maybe my past approaches had simply been ineffective -- not "wrong" -- not "bad" -- simply inefficient.

During our third big repetitive fight (in the car -- bad place to fight, btw), as I found myself thinking: "Here I/we go again!", I did something I had never done before -- I pulled the car over to the side of the road, and I said exactly what I was thinking:

"Sugar, I adore you. I want nothing more than to spend the rest of my life with you. And. . . . . .what we're doing now? -- Where you withdraw and I press on? I've done that before, and I don't want to do it any more. So, if this is what we're going to do in the future, I think we should just break up right now, even though I'm madly, frothingly in love with you, and I know you're in love with me, too. Because I already know where this goes, and I just don't want to go there any more."

My Beloved stopped, looked thoughtful for a minute, and said: "Yeah, I've gone here before, too, and this isn't how I want to do it, either . . . . . let's do something different."

Since that day, six years ago, we've been doing it differently.

Our particular form of doing it differently means that we don't compromise -- but rather that we work collectively to make sure that each of our needs gets met in our interactions. This means that I sometimes give her space to think and process at her own pace, but that she also recognizes my "need for speed", and that when she does take space to process, she makes a concerted effort to actually process, rather than simply escape (which she admitted was one of her patterns). It means that I acknowledge that my "need for speed" can be just as much a tactic for escape from discomfort as I used to think her need for process-time was. It means that when we come into conflict with each other (which is remarkably rare these days), we often end up choosing to do things that are not necessarily as immediately "comfortable" as our old patterned choices were -- but since we've tried those patterns out pretty thoroughly, and discovered that they just don't work, we're each willing to go through that discomfort.

So, if you hear yourself saying or thinking things like: "Here we/I go again!", or "Damn! I thought I had figured this out, and here it is once more!" -- or even "See! I told you this would happen!", I'd suggest to you that you have just admitted that you are dealing with a pattern -- something with which you have enough experience that you can recognize it when it comes around again, and dread the results as predictable.

I would posit that it is at this precise moment of recognition that you have the opportunity to Do Something Different.

That "Something Different" will probably feel (at least initially) uncomfortable and unfamiliar -- which is usually a very good sign that it is actually Something Different.

And if you blow up the lab again?

Well, at least you will have new data about what works and what doesn't work.

Open Wide...

Rep. Kucinich on the Proposed Bailout of Wall Street

In a late night session of Congress concerning the The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (PDF), Rep. Dennis Kucinich had a few things to say. I haven't read through the bill as I am waiting for Wachovia to tank. This might be the morning readings for today. See FireDogLake and the always brilliant Digby for more on this bill.

You know it is appropriate that this action of the Congress is being timed to the opening of the Asian markets. How appropriate, given the fact that we are losing control of our financial destiny.

Mister Speaker, when I was a child, in Cleveland, there was a myth that if you took a shovel and dug a hole deep enough, you could get to China. We’re there.


Transcript below:

I rise in opposition, regretfully to the rule, and the underlying bill. If we really wanted to protect the taxpayers, we wouldn’t be paying cash for trash; 700 billion dollars in taxpayer funds which turns our beloved U.S. Treasury into a toxic landfill. This plan is a 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street speculators, bankers, lenders who operated for years without the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission,and the oversight of the Federal Reserve. This legislation does not do anything to punish the speculators; it rewards them by having the taxpayers bail them out. It has no additional controls of speculations. It has no strengthening of oversight; no mention of the implications of the Financial Modernization Act which took down Glass Steagall which provided those post-depression era protections so we wouldn’t be in this situation that we are in right now and I would predict, Mister Chairman, that we will be right back here in a few months with the same kind of problems because we are not solving the underlying matter here; which is a distortion of the economy because of speculation run wild on Wall Street.

Now, we have been given a plan. We haven’t been given alternatives. Alternatives would have required Wall Street to pay for its own bailout. This plan doesn’t suspend dividends, doesn’t force shareholders or creditors to directly contribute to the bailout. This plan rejected a .25% stock transfer tax that would have raised a hundred billion dollars from Wall Street. This legislation is further proof our government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards. Taking money from the pockets of the people of this country and putting it into the hands of the few. That is what our tax policy does. It accelerates the wealth of America upwards. That is what the war does. It accelerates the wealth of America upwards. That is what our energy policy does. It accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of the oil companies. That is what these financial policies do and it is how our national debt is done which had doubled in the last eight years. 700 billion dollars of the taxpayer dollars are being put on the hook.

When Wall Street makes a profit, it is their profit. When Wall Street loses money, our people lose money. 700 billion dollars. Why aren’t we bailing out those millions of Americans who are losing their homes? Why aren’t we addressing the fact that 50 million Americans don’t have any health care? It is absolutely astonishing, that we are talking about giving 700 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money which comes from the failure of the Fed, through a quadrupling of public and private debt during the time of Mister Greenspan; up to 43 TRILLION dollars. And we have no discussion at all about the underlying monetary policy.

There has been no discussion at all in any of this about the underlying dynamic of a debt-based monetary system. As long as we are working on a debt-based monetary system, with us having no control of our own money supply through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913; with the banks being able to literally make money out of thin air with their fractional reserve policies, how can we ever get to the bottom of a national debt that is building beyond our capacity to deal with it?

You know it is appropriate that this action of the Congress is being timed to the opening of the Asian markets. How appropriate, given the fact that we are losing control of our financial destiny.

Mister Speaker, when I was a child, in Cleveland, there was a myth that if you took a shovel and dug a hole deep enough, you could get to China. We’re there.

Open Wide...

Amazing Race Open Thread

In case anyone else is watching. I've tuned in about 20 minutes late, myself, so I'm still familiarizing myself with the cast of characters.

Open Wide...

Phoning It In

So after all that hugga-mugga last week about "suspending" his campaign (which he didn't) to race back to Washington to help negotiate a deal for the financial crisis (which he didn't), and threatening to not show up at the debate Friday night (which might not have been a bad idea after all), John McCain spent Saturday in his condo in Arlington and made a bunch of phone calls.

Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, [McCain adviser] Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.’’
I think the words we're looking for are "drama queen."

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

The Debate You Missed Last Night

Rep. Matthew V. Santos (D-TX) and Sen. Arnold Vinnick (R-CA) give their closing statements.

Open Wide...

"Horseshit"?

Did John McCain use a barnyard epithet twice last night during the debate? Andrew Sullivan says he "clearly" did.

Here's the video; the money quote is at time mark 4:30.



I listened to it several times, and there's cross-talk; I think he's saying "course not." You be the judge.

UPDATE: Mr. Sullivan retracts his claim and agrees that Mr. McCain is saying "course not."

Open Wide...

Paul Newman - 1925-2008

Paul Newman has died at the age of 83.

Newman died Friday after a long battle with cancer at his farmhouse near Westport, publicist Jeff Sanderson said. He was surrounded by his family and close friends.

In May, Newman he had dropped plans to direct a fall production of "Of Mice and Men," citing unspecified health issues.

He got his start in theater and on television during the 1950s, and went on to become one of the world's most enduring and popular film stars, a legend held in awe by his peers. He was nominated for Oscars 10 times, winning one regular award and two honorary ones, and had major roles in more than 50 motion pictures, including "Exodus," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Verdict," "The Sting" and "Absence of Malice."

Newman worked with some of the greatest directors of the past half century, from Alfred Hitchcock and John Huston to Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers. His co-stars included Elizabeth Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and, most famously, Robert Redford, his sidekick in "Butch Cassidy" and "The Sting."

He sometimes teamed with his wife and fellow Oscar winner, Joanne Woodward, with whom he had one of Hollywood's rare long-term marriages. "I have steak at home, why go out for hamburger?" Newman told Playboy magazine when asked if he was tempted to stray. They wed in 1958, around the same time they both appeared in "The Long Hot Summer," and Newman directed her in several films, including "Rachel, Rachel" and "The Glass Menagerie."
Words fail me. He was an inspiration as an actor and human being.

Grace be unto him, and peace. I hold him and his family in the Light.

Filmography/bio from IMDb.

Open Wide...

Obama 1 : McCain 0


No question Obama won tonight. The only surprise is that the media actually seems to agree. I'm so used to thinking that the Democrat was the clear winner (because I, ya know, listen to the actual content of the debate) and then listening to two solid hours of talking heads rewrite the debate into something not remotely resembling what I just watched, that I can't actually believe it's not happening this time. Now that's some change I can believe in!

I won't spend any time discussing the policy shit, because, let's face it, McCain was a total disaster. Those talking points are deader than Tut, man.

And does no one on his team know that striped fabrics don't broadcast well? I seriously thought his fucking tie was going to give me a seizure.

(Also, that enormo eagle backdrop? Was preposterous.)

I found Obama to be extremely likeable, and McCain to be extremely condescending, neither of which I expected. Not because I've never found Obama likeable (I have) and certainly not because I've never found McCain condescending (I sure have), but just because I didn't anticipate that those particular dynamics would emerge quite so forcefully during this debate.

I thought the most emblematic part of the evening was this exchage:
MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy...

[a few moments later]

OBAMA: ...The [pauses; looks at McCain] strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?
McCain is a rude shit; Obama undermines his contempt gracefully and cleverly, and deals a substantive blow to boot.

The only thing I really wish Obama would have done, at some point during the debate, is turn to McCain and ask him: "John, what the fuck do earmarks have to do with the financial crisis, you enormous ass-flavored tool?" McCain kept talking about reining in spending in Washington as if that was the root of this crisis, when the Congressional issue with regard to the economy is deregulation, not spending.

Anyway, wev. McCain tanked. Good.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open



TFIF, Shakers—bloody hell, do I need a drink!

Belly up to the bar and name your poison...

As you've no doubt noticed, there are two Virtual Pubs this evening. This one is for those who really have no fooking interest in watching the debate, or for those who want to enjoy non-debate conversation while also keeping one eye on the debate.

Just below, you'll find The Greater Depression Debate Pub, hosted by Petulant, where the debate will be shown on all the virtual teevees in the virtual pub.

Enjoy!

Open Wide...

The Greater Depression Debate Thread and Virtual Pub



Not ONE, but two Virtual Pubs tonight!

Well, kittens, the debate is happening and everyone better start drinking now. I coated my stomach with a nourishing meal and am ready to go.

I am going to assume that everyone is cognizant enough to know where to watch. All of the networks will be covering the GREATEST EVENT EVER TO AIR ON OUR TEEVEES or computers. I thought a drinking game would be fun, but who needs a game to imbibe with these two candidates. McCain, alone, sends me one-step closer to rehab. "Erratic" and "head-up-own-ass" are fine for a pub crawl, but definitely not for a president; the last eight years are a perfect example of what those characteristics offer a nation.

Belly up to the bar. Pick your poison. (Edited)Tonight is kinda special for Löwenbräu, but not worthy of Ruinite.


Cheers.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Trigger warning.]

"Why were they after Jesus? It's the same reason. Jesus is living within me."Evangelist Tony Alamo of Tony Alamo Christian Ministries who was arrested yesterday in Flagstaff, Arizona, on charges related to a child porn investigation, according to an FBI spokesman. Alamo has been "charged under a federal statute with having knowingly transported a minor across state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity."

That's really, really not why they were "after Jesus."

I'm so fucking done with this week.

Open Wide...

Friday Cat Blogging

Matilda isn't really a cat; she's just fuzz with ears.



Olivia's secretly Queen of the Jungle.



And Sophie's actually a sleepy wee hamster, I think.



"All the pizza boxes were taken."

Open Wide...

Nights in the Vomitorium

Can we just talk for a moment about how much I want to barf every time I see the trailer for Nights in Rodanthe?


If you don't want to watch the whole thing, just watch this bit at 1:11:

"I made that. It's to keep special things safe."

"Who keeps you safe?"


HUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I seriously cannot even TELL you how profoundly I am compelled to laugh maniacally and pretend to blow chucks every single time Iain and I have the misfortune to see that advert. Iain now waits with glee on the edge of his seat every time it comes on, staring at me with an evil little expectant grin on his face, just to watch my reaction.

By the time they get to, "We saved each other," I am practically on the floor, writhing in pain. It's literally like someone made this trailer just to irritate me.

So, basically, I laughed my tits off last night when Stephen Colbert ripped it a new one. "I love loving!" Ha!

Open Wide...

Friday Reunion YouTubery

I'm sitting at the airport waiting for my flight out to go back to Ohio for my high school reunion. Good times. So, for fun, a random sample of big hits (as per Billboard) from that fantabulous year of 1998:

Areosmith



Beastie Boys


Lauryn Hill


K-Ci & Jojo


Everclear

Open Wide...

Friday Blogaround

lol your blogaround

Recommended Reading:

Jack: Announcing the Launch of the Voter Suppression Wiki—Learn, Report, Act

David: Prop. 8: The Relay Fast

Sarah in Chicago: Vote No on Prop. 8

Christopher: Has the McCain Campaign Broken Sarah Palin?

Pizza Diavola: I Write Letters: $700Bn Bailout Proposal

Resistance: Understatement of the Year Award

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

I told you so

I know I'm being obnoxious, and I'm sorry, but . . . I can't stop myself. I said this days ago.

Where Are the Grown-Ups? - Op-Ed - Krugman

Of course, he says it better than I did. We all knew that was going to happen.

Open Wide...

Lockbox

In the middle of the night last night, I awoke from a dream about Al Gore. It wasn't really a dream in the traditional sense, so much as it was a memory. I was recalling, from somewhere deep in my subconscious, one of his debates against Bush in 2000, during which Gore was talking about how he was going to take the budgetary surplus created during the Clinton presidency and put it in a lockbox to protect our social safety net.

And Bush was sneering at him.

When I woke up, I remembered how Al Gore was viciously mocked for his "lockbox" campaign theme, everywhere from SNL skits to mainstream debate coverage: "He must have used the word 'lockbox' about 20 times." Even after he'd lost, the media harangued him about his lockbox: "Well, maybe the beard should go into the lockbox!"

Al Gore's lockbox was routinely treated like the butt of a joke. Silly, nerdy, wonky Al Gore with his dorky lockbox!





The Gross National Debt



###
Iraq War Cost


Reuters: "Economy Rapidly Weakening"



Today's New York Times:



Today's Washington Post:



Today's Wall Street Journal:


Just sayin'.

Did I describe that as a dream, the thing I had last night? No—it was a nightmare.

Open Wide...

McCain Will Attend Debate

CNN is reporting that Senator McCain will leave shortly to attend this evening's debate in Oxford, MS.

I guess he saved the world.

UGH!

UPDATE: Statement from McCain's campaign (excerpt)

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.


Full Statement here

John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.

In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.

Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure. There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress — especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday, where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

Open Wide...