Have I Mentioned That John Scalzi Is a Smart Man?

This is a pretty good assessment of the White House-Faux Noise feud.

I'm Disappointed in My President

According to this article on CNN.com, the drink menu for Obama's meeting with Skip Gates and Officer James Crowley has been announced by White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs:

The president will drink Bud Light, Gates will have Red Stripe, and Crowley will drink Blue Moon, Gibbs said.

I thought they were going to get together and drink beer.

It's Been Too Long

Here's a new version of an old taunt:

So what if this was a few weeks ago, when everyone else was complaining of subzero temps? There are some benefits to living in Oklahoma. This is one of them.

Much has happened since my last post, and I'll maybe say some things about most of them soon, but first:

President Barack Hussein Obama!

 

I can't say it enough. And I was worried that this would be just a symbolic switch--that things would just keep going as they had been. But then BHO gets into the Oval Office and starts kicking ass and taking names. First he requests that the prosecutors in Gitmo knock it off, and then he says "Close it down." It seems the rule of law means something to Mr. Obama.

Needless to say, I'm happy.

Also, the new semester has started, and I'm neck-deep in new courses again. The one that's really challenging me this time is Modern Humanities--only because I've never taught such a lecture-intensive course before. Usually it's a free-flowing give-and-take between the students and me. This time it's a give-and-give from me to the students. It will take some getting used to.

I'm also applying to jobs again, because I'm too old to be a part-time employee. The only openings I've found (that would be feasible) are in the Twin Cities area, so I'm throwing my hat back north. Michele encouraged this, so don't worry about that.

Winter break was good, but too long (in a number of ways). It seems like we dragged the cold weather back with us, except for a few days, like today, when it's 71 degrees.

I'll say more when I have some time. I need to get back to work.

Sometimes the Angel is in the Details

I just saw this picture posted to The Rude Pundit:

My first reaction to this was: holy shit, what a cynical attempt at pathos. My next thought was: "Wait . . . that woman has a cane--this hug isn't normal. And it shouldn't be. We like to think of those who have disabilities in the way in which they compensate, but sometimes they define themselves by their limitations. If Tammy Duckworth* leans over, she'll fall. If Obama is going to hug her, he's going to have to do all the leaning.

I feel like he didn't need to be coached on that. That's part of why I'm ecstatic about the election.

*I didn't realize who Ms. Duckworth was. She deserves all kinds of good will from American patriots. Especially those toolboxes who listen to Rush or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.

Public Service Announcement

Attention, Tenth Dimensional Drifter.

Your blog seems to be set to send comments to moderation, and you must not have done that on purpose, because you haven't noticed the comment I left a while ago that is in moderation. I'd post this as a comment on your blog, but . . . well . . . you know.

In other news: President Barack Hussein Obama.

I am a happy man.

Make Sure You Vote!

Whoever you're voting for.

Deadblogging* the Debate (Part One)

Here are my thoughts as I watch the debate between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. I'm starting and stopping, sometimes rewinding, and cross-checking with a transcript of the debate posted at this website. I won't pretend to be impartial--I find the conservative platform immoral, and the liberal platform just a bit less so--but I'll try to be as charitable as I can be to McCain.

• Hey! McCain isn't standing on a box. Good for him.
• Obama looks a little rattled at the beginning, which is strange for him. He struggles to articulate what have been his stump speech points for months. Good work, though, in tying the current crisis to not just McCain, but to the core of conservative fiscal philosophy. Obama also had a broad but explicit outline of what the solution should be.
• Not sure what to make of McCain's aside about Senator Kennedy's most recent health problem. Seems opportunistic, a little overt ethos/pathos overkill, but could be heartfelt. I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt.
• McCain tried a quick joke about either the length of his senate career or his age, and the audience didn't bite. Not a chuckle. McCain smirked for a moment, and then went into his next point like he'd been goosed.
• McCain answered the first question by acknowledging (for about a minute and a half) that there is a crisis, and that it is serious. He then told us that he's happy that congresspeople of both major parties are working on solving this crisis. McCain's description of the fix is completely general.
• I like that Lehrer is trying to keep the candidates on task and away from posturing.
• Obama, even after Lehrer's shepherding, is trying to drag the discussion back to his stump-speech material. Three minutes of talking so far and he's used the word "shredded" twice.
• McCain is steering back into his campaign slogans, too. I wish (and I know there's no reality in this wish) politicians could just answer simple questions without trying to score points.
• McCain makes some good points about accountability and corruption, and somehow manages to not mention how that has developed under Republican governance, and how it seems to permeate the Republican party--including McCain's own campaign.
• Obama again ties the Wall Street crisis to underlying conservatie laissez-faire philosophy. Great move.
• McCain responds again with generalities and then some crazy-talk about the "fundamental goodness and strength of the American worker." Not what Lehrer asked, and not a response to what Obama said.
• Clever shift by McCain on question two. He decries Big Government, acknowledges that Republicans have contributed to waste--and then shifts to earmarks, and Obama's record on earmarks. This is a solid, debatable point for McCain.
• Great parry by Obama. $18bn in earmarks is certainly minor compared to $300bn in tax cuts to the wealthy. McCain's charge could have put him on the defensive, but he did a judo toss. Still--these earmark issues and the specifics of the tax cuts need more investigation.
• Both senators dealt with this question well.
• McCain's rebuttal to Obama is much less coherent than his original point was. Then Obama interrupts to clarify what he claims are distortions or misrepresentations by McCain. This is the kind of bickering that looks destructive to the process even if it isn't. It would be better if the moderator had the latitude, the information, and the wherewithal to handle these disputes himself, because when it's he said/he said nothing is settled, and it looks pathetic on both sides.
• Obama's interruption is also a little tedious. He's reiterating his stump-speech economic points. It would have been better, I think, if he'd hammered McCain on the distortion instead of trying to clarify his own position--which doesn't need more clarifying. But as I write this I wonder how many conservatives have heard these points. Maybe it does need reiteration in this venue.
• Obama finished strong on this point. His insistence that the tax policy will hurt more than an elimination of earmarks will help was good. His tying the economic issues to Bush's term was good--tying them to Bush I and Reagan and beyond would have been better.
• McCain lost me on this one. A five thousand dollar tax credit to buy health insurance? Is he on crack?
• Obama gives a good shot on tax loopholes. It's great how he takes the time to agree with part of what McCain says and then reveal the distortion.
• Obama just killed McCain on the health-care credit. McCain changed the subject and didn't even address the issues--he just offered more generalities.
• Now we're into the bickering again. I'm tuning them both out. More disputed figures, more accusations. Next question, please.
• Obama's answer to Lehrer's next question (As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?) is both well-structured and direct. Much better delivery than in the beginning of this debate.
• I think math and science are both important, but the humanities-geek in me is snarling at Obama's focus on those skills. We need well-rounded humans, not biological computers.
• McCain has barely started his answer to this question and he's already talking about Obama. How about if you tell us what you intend to do, Senator McCain? (Good line about reaching across the aisle, though. I chuckled.)
• Weird description of the results of McCain's involvement in the Boeing/DoD contract: "We fixed it, and we killed it, and people ended up in federal prison, so I know how to do this." Huh?
• I appreciate McCain's approach to examining every agency for efficiency. Nothing wrong with examining them. Does he not realize that will take money, though? Would he support that kind of funding, or when the time comes would he reject it as "typical liberal tax and spend?"
• Good point by Lehrer: neither mentioned large-scale changes. Obama's proposals are more specific than McCain's, but they're both pretty general. Maybe we can't expect better in this format.

I'm going to cut this post at the twenty-nine minute mark and pick up again in a second post (and probably a third and a fourth). This debate lasted 97:12 according to the video timer. It will take time, and I'm grading right now, too.

* Since I'm not watching the debate live, and since I'm not posting as I write, I can't consider this "liveblogging," though it is a moment-by-moment response to the debate. Thus I coin the term "deadblogging."

Where the White Women At?

I was reading about new poll results at the Washington Post this morning when I came across this paragraph:

Two weeks ago, McCain held a substantial advantage among white voters, including newfound strength with white women. In the face of bad economic news, the two candidates now run about evenly among white women, and Obama has narrowed the overall gap among white voters to five percentage points.

Which, of course, made me think of this scene from Blazing Saddles. And I saw that it was good.

More importantly, it made me cast Blazing Saddles with the candidates of this election. America is Rock Ridge, Obama is Sheriff Bart, Joe Biden is Jim (The Waco Kid), John McCain is Hedley Lamar, and Sarah Palin is Lily Von Schtupp. The Republican Party is Taggart and his gang (especially during the campfire scene), and the Democratic Party is the . . . well, okay, so this doesn't fit perfectly. But it amuses me, and that's all I was after.

The Idiot-Haunted World

Yeah, go ahead. Vote for McCain. Or--just as bad--don't vote at all, and leave open the possibility of a McCain victory. Then you could have this whack-job as your VP. From Talk to Action:

Sarah Palin's churches are actively involved in a resurgent movement that was declared heretical by the Assemblies of God in 1949. This is the same 'Spiritual Warfare' movement that was featured in the award winning movie, "Jesus Camp," which showed young children being trained to do battle for the Lord. At least three of four of Palin's churches are involved with major organizations and leaders of this movement, which is referred to as The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit or the New Apostolic Reformation. The movement is training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world.

The article goes on to describe this church:

The Third Wave is a revival of the theology of the Latter Rain tent revivals of the 1950s and 1960s led by William Branham and others. It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form "Joel's Army" to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.

While segments of this belief system have been a part of Pentecostalism and charismatic beliefs for decades, the excesses of this movement were declared a heresy in 1949 by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and again condemned through Resolution 16 in 2000. The beliefs and manifestations of the movement include the use of 'strategic level spiritual warfare' to expel territorial demons from American and world cities. Worship includes excessive charismatic manifestations such as hundreds of people falling, 'slain in the spirit,' and congregations laughing, jerking, and shrieking uncontrollably.

Have I fallen into Bizarro-world? How is it possible that McCain could be anywhere near Obama in the polls? How is it possible that people like these--like Sarah Palin--get into positions of power in twenty-first century America?

We are doomed. Whether Obama wins or not, there are enough of these nitwits to be a serious threat. The human race is done, plowed under by homo moronicus.

Via Making Light

The Senator Has Been 'Rackrolled

Here's a video that made me laugh out loud. This will explain if you don't know what "Rickrolling" is.



Via Edge of the American West.

Snopes Is Your Friend

The election season always produces a bunch of nonsense stories floating around about the candidates--usually going both ways. I haven't noticed too many outrageous stories about McCain this time around, but there's more than enough about Obama. About his religion, about revolutionary activities, and about associations with undesirables. It's enough to make a man crazy.

This sort of shady image-blurring nonsense fits into what Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post calls

an article of faith among many Democratic believers that has been so long and deeply held it is hardly considered noteworthy: that Democratic policies are so obviously superior, and so much more in the interest of a majority of voters, that only some form of chicanery can explain Republican election victories.

I can see that meme, and I even agree with it. Especially when I check my email.

We all have one: that relative whose worldview is completely different from ours. A person who, if we weren't related by blood or by marriage, we'd probably have had no reason to get to know. But since we do know them, have a lifetime of history with them in some cases, we can love them even though they're wrong wrong wrong about everything political.

I have a relative I'll call Relative X. For the last six months Relative X has been forwarding to me every email the conservative smear machine has produced regarding Obama or Clinton. Every time I recieve one I check Snopes, provide the link in my reply and type some variation of "This is false. Here are pictures/testimony/ blood samples to prove it. Love, Jason." Now Relative X sends me these asking me what Snopes thinks of it. I'm happy to oblige, and actually, I'm happy to get these emails, because then I can see for myself just how pathetic conservatives can be in their ignorance and dishonesty.

Here's the latest smear I got:

Subject: WHAT A DISGRACE!!!

Obama The Patriot - Removes American Flag From His Plane

Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail...

What American running for President of the United States would remove the symbol of his country? And worse, he replaced the flag with it with a symbol of himself...

Please forward this on if you're not ashamed of your country or it's [sic] flag & think this is a disgrace!

Actually, I had to clean up the email because it had been forwarded so many times it was full of arrows and funky line breaks and such. But the difference between this email and the others I've gotten is that this isn't an outright fabrication--it's just a loony distortion of what really happened.

The Snopes link regarding this story, and the photos it uses in support of its analysis, make it pretty clear that the panic in this email is completely over the edge.

This is the plane that the Obama campaign acquired:
and this is what it looks like now:
As you can see, the American flag on the tail of the plane has been replaced with Obama's campaign logo. Wow--looks like those outraged conservatives were right! Right?

Wrong.

That flag on the tail isn't just the American flag--it's North American Airlines' logo. It's displayed prominently on their website. Seems to me it wouldn't be very smart to leave the prior owner's identification on the vehicle you just bought. But, hey. I'm not a conservative trying to panic a bunch of sheeple into voting for a mummy.

Oh, and there is still an American flag on Obama's plane:
But there doesn't seem to be one on McCain's:
Hmmm. I guess the conservatives should be outraged . . .