"If We Drill, We'll Despoil the Coastline."

Preach it!

Today I heard a CBS radio news report about the ban expiring today and felt obligated to set the record straight for benefit of folks in the anti-drilling crowd.

During the CBS radio news report [to which, unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find a link] the reporter spoke with a woman described as a resident of Santa Barbara, Calif., who shared her disdain for the prospect of drilling taking place off the California coast.

Recalling personal memories of a 1969 oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast, the lady in Santa Barbara cited the prospect of another environmental disaster as the primary reason behind her opposition to a resumption of offshore drilling. Secondarily, she cited the threat drilling poses to the pristine beauty of the California coast. Understandably, her concerns are based upon personal experience.

In my estimation, however, both of these arguments are non-starters today, especially when one considers the many ways offshore drilling during the past 40 years. I say, “They’re obsolete” and industry experts agree.

“Surprising to many, offshore oil and natural gas production actually puts less oil and gas into the environment than natural leaks, transportation and shipping,” said Ford Brett, president of OGCI PetroSkills, during a guest appearance on Energy Tomorrow Radio Aug. 28. His company is the world’s largest petroleum technology training organization that trains geologists and engineers on how to find and retrieve oil and natural gas from the ground.

The strong likelihood that most of the offshore drilling platforms will be placed, at a minimum, 12 to 18 miles from shore, renders the other aspect of the “pristine beauty” argument moot. Because of the curvature of the earth, people standing on the California coast — or, for that matter, any other coast — will not be able to see platforms that far out. Even people viewing the ocean from the upper floors of office building along the coast will have a hard time distinguishing the drilling platforms.

That it, in a nutshell; people assume that any new rigs or platforms will be built with technology/engineering/architecture from the 1960s, and will be just as close to shore, and just as likely to spill.

What they don't get is that there is more danger of oil spills from the tankers we use to ship oil than from state-of-the-art installations designed to extract them.

And the next time I hear someone say that this country only has 2-3% of the world's oil reserves (based on obsolete measurement techniques from the 1980s), I'm going to scream.

Aw, Come On: They Aren't Making 'Em Drink It, Are They?

It seems to me that Methodists rarely file suit against markets over having to stock alcohol on grocery shelves.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

Admittedly, passions ran higher among temperance true believers on both sides of the Atlantic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. See Nation, Carrie, and the entire American temperance movement which went so far as to bring us a law that in turn begat the Mafia (speaking of unintended consequences).

As far as England is concerned, one of Jill Paton Walsh's Lord Peter/Harriet Vane mysteries is set in WW II, and makes the point that a small country town's main bomb shelter is under the pub, but the town's Methodists do not want to look at the barrels of wine stored underneath, and so they have a separate bomb shelter of their own.

Back to this side of the Atlantic:

(1) Are Mormons in Utah given special permission not to have to handle liquor if they work in casinos?

(2) How about Mormons in Utah itself?

The most absurd example I've ever seen of Islam stubbornness on the issue of alcohol has to do with a friend who was a nurse telling me that Muslim visitors refused to use hand sanitizers in the the areas of the hospital that required it. After all—it contains alcohol. (Where in the Koran does it forbid topical application of alcohol to kill germs?)

Seriously: Muslims must not get any concessions on this issue that devout Methodists do not. And given the fact that there have been Methodists in Britain for a long time, there have to be legal precedents that can be applied here.

Please do not bring all Mark Steyn's nightmares come true.

A Quick Primer

on the glorious history of our economic problems:

h/t: Moe at Red State.

So, How Did We Get Here?

Let me know if I need to downsize the video still further; is it screwing up the format of my page?

h/t: Flopping Aces

Sometimes, One Just Has to Re-Negotiate These Relationships.

Hat tips: Darrell, my husband (who was watching it when I woke up this, um, what I mean to say, hold on a minute . . . this afternoon), and The Anchoress, where A the H happened to find it. Oh—and that Dave Burge guy.

Where Do I Start?

The webcast with David Zucker on An America Carol, [link is sound-enabled!] which opens this Friday and is required viewing for everyone?

The productive conference call we had a couple of days ago on energy issues with the folks at API?

The bitchin' car show in Santa Monica on Saturday that featured some really innovative transportation options?

The article I'm working on that discusses discrimination in Hollywood against centrists/right-wingers/people who don't hate the military?

The economy? (That one is easy, though: you know what they say in the Pacific Northwest: "if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes. It'll change." The same thing applies to the stock market.)

It's going to be a long day, isn't it? Stay tuned; I'm back on the job; I'll be alternating today between catching up here and taking care of a few RL issues that hover around me like mosquitoes in the Indiana woods in the middle of a humid summer.

Suddenly, the Topic Turns to Food and Sex

I shall begin with last night: I had dinner with Professor Purkinje, who is in town giving a lecture at UCLA about . . . neurons or some goddamned thing like that. What did this mean to me? Well, dinner at the Palamino, one of Westwood Village's best restaurants.

Prof P. was full of stories about human physiology, his next book—which touches on the nature of addiction—and whatnot, and I was full of . . . myself, as usual. (No room for anyone else in here; I'm a small person.)

So it was important to fortify ourselves with a bottle of wine. We ordered soup instead of appetizers, since it was butternut squash and it would have been irrational to order anything other than that. (The good doctor ended up finishing mine, with complaints about how I'd "defiled" it with black pepper. That's like suggesting that someone has "defiled" my checking account with money, and I wish to Gosh that they would. Where is that editing check, by the way? I'd better call to verify that it's on its way.)

Neuron-Boy ordered lamb, and I got ravioli made with Kobe beef. They serve two of these fabulous raviolis on each plate: one is covered in cream sauce, and the other is a spicy version in a fresh tomato salsa. Both made me remember that food is just as good as sex, if it's done right.

"Do you want some of my risotto?" he asked.

"No, no," I responded. "I'm having a perfectly nice monogamous relationship with this ravioli. Are those asparagus spears over there on your plate?"

He forked over two of 'em, and I continued to eat my amazing beef ravioli for another few minutes. Professor P. told me he'd figured out the cool thing about a "Palin Administration." (Isn't it cute how everyone's forgotten that she has a running mate?—that legislative dude with white hair, a shockingly decent sense of humor, and a wicked temper?)

"Mmm?" I asked. (By that I meant "this is the best ravioli I've ever had, or am ever likely to have; take your best shot, Buddy: I won't even notice.")

"I hear that she'll have the concentration camp for bisexuals right next to the one for Jews," he responded. "We'll be able to pass notes over the wall."

"Excellent," I replied. "Keep those missives entertaining, and don't discuss molecules unless it's absolutely necessary. See if you can make 'em rhyme. Speaking of Jews, I passed a gallery along Westwood Blvd. on my way here that sells Judaica. I was considering stopping by and getting one to take to the condo complex. We need someone to help around the pool area, and . . . you and the rest of the Tribe as just such good talkers. I really like that. I mean, why hang around with people who aren't good talkers? Life is so short."

I reached my spoon over and snagged some of his risotto. "Oh, my fucking God," I exclaim. "Let's trade plates for a minute. How do they do this? The creaminess of it, yet every grain of rice so discrete?"

"I don't know," he tells me as we swap the plates and he takes over ravioli duty. "I've never conquered it. I have a good friend who makes excellent risotto. He showed me how to do it, but mine still turns into a gluey mess. And, yes: I am using the right kind of rice. I'm not an idiot."

He probably isn't. People wouldn't buy his books if he were an idiot. And they certainly wouldn't fly him across the country to talk about brain functions at other institutions' medical schools.

The waiter stops by to ask if we are discussing medicine. "We touched on it," Prof P. responds, because that sounds better than "we were talking about food, architecture, our favorite writers who've killed themselves, and what constitutes a good blowjob."

So our waiter, whose father is a doctor, briefs us on his convictions about how important continuity of care is—having one doctor in charge of each patient's case, which of course we agree with— and we go on that way for a while after he leaves the table again. This respectable chatter doesn't last very long, of course.

By now we're arguing about (1) whether the distinctive taste of the risotto—which I'm busily finishing on his behalf—has to do with a mushroom stock, as Mr. Neuron supposes, or (2) whether it's because the marrow from the lamb bones has seeped into the broth, to give it a meatier flavor, as I theorize. We conclude that both techniques were used.

We also have a spirited discussion about fellatio, and whether to-the-hilt penetration is as important as pivotal works such as Deep Throat might suggest, or whether it's the "intangibles" that make oral sex good for a man, as Dr. P thinks. I tell him that the main travesty I've seen in my admittedly limited exposure to porn is that women are so busy with the deep throating that they forget to use their hands and tongues, and it seems to me that this is a crime. After all, one's vagina doesn't have a tongue, or at least mine doesn't. One ought to take advantage.

Dr. P looks up at me then. "I have it!" he exclaims.

"What?"

"Your newest journalistic endeavor."

"Well," I respond, "I think I've got a full plate right now. Or I would, if I hadn't just scarfed up the last of your risotto."

"Restaurant reviews. But with plenty of sexual innuendo."

"Oh, no." I tell him. "I'm no good at that."

"Sexual innuendo?"

"Restaurant reviews. Sooner or later, they'll want me to review a seafood place, and you know how I am about that."

"You could just specialize in Everything But Fish. With Plenty of Sexual Metaphor."

The man could be onto something, you know. A whole new career direction for me.

So I walk him back to his hotel. "Tell me some more about brain conditioning," I demand. "But not too much."

Back at his room I collect my laptop and hug him goodbye. "You're going to be so sad when you come out to B-More next winter," he remarks in a tone of Deep Regret. "Two months into an Obama administration. The family and I will have to be really, really nice to you."

"Well," I reply. "One of us will be sad. And the other one will be very, very nice about it. I promise."

Drowning in "Real Life" Concerns

We will return you to your regularly scheduled web page this afternoon--or this evening, at the very latest.

Weird. Kissinger Doesn't Like Being Lied About.

You'll want to make a note of that, Barry.

I know you're a swashbucklin' kind of guy—but personally, I wouldn't fuck with Kissinger.

I'm Sure that Obama

. . . is grateful that he insisted that McCain show up tonight.

Johnny Mac is eating Barry for dinner.

Obama knows nothing about economics, military strategy, reform, or how to control spending.

He does not even seem to realize that Afghanistan is not officially a U.S.-led effort, in the way that Iraq is. Does Obama know that Afghanistan is a U.N. effort, and that this handcuffs the U.S. military to some degree—and that Afghanistan is the closest thing the military world has to an uncrackable nut?

The more AQs we kill in Iraq, the fewer we'll have to take care of Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if it comes to that).

Given the fact that the U.N. has us in handcuffs, we need every advantage we can get when we go to complete the transformation that must occur in Afghanistan.

Which means that we have it wrap things up in Iraq, and we're awfully close to success there.

American Solutions: Bachelor #3

The third semi-finalist from Newt's contest! And my favorite.

Okay; it's tough, but this is the one I'm voting for. Vote here; vote now; pay less!

American Solutions: Bachelor #2

More from Newt's call to video action:

Well, one cannot argue with the cuteness factor, but make sure to watch all three finalists before you vote.

American Solutions: Bachelor #1

One of the three finalists in Newt's contest for videos that promost domestic petroleum/natural gas production:

So go vote!

China and North Korea

Dear China,

I will never forgive you for Tibet. And if you even look at Taiwan funny, we will bomb you back into the stone age. I mean I'll do it fucking personally. (Sure. Taiwan is part of China. Just not one that you are allowed to touch. Or look at. Or think about. Or name.)

But go ahead and unofficially take over North Korea, via your "friendly ties" with its military leaders. Of course I'd rather see the country reunite with South Korea, but that isn't realistic, and in the meantime the people there are living on tree bark; the atmosphere is, quite literally, Orwellian.

Bring the North Koreans food, and that watered-down capitalism you're learning so well. Help 'em put together an infrastructure. Rice in their bellies, bicycles and cars. Air-conditioning. Agriculture. Building codes. And that castrated version of the internet you use.

Later, we'll talk. You can help a few other dictatorships to become merely "authoritarian regimes," and then we can sweet-talk you into setting your satellites free, so they are merely "close allies," and not de facto colonies. (Eventually, you'll see the light: having a colony is like maintaining a vacation home, or an RV—or even a pool, if you don't swim. You don't use this thing much, and it costs a bundle to keep up.)

But for crying out loud: get some food into those people's bellies, a bit of education, and some transportation. Stabilize it as an authoritarian basis for the time being.

I've seen the pictures: China, for all its faults and immorality, is far, far preferable than the slave camp that is North Korea in the present day.

I'm Confused.

If McCain is still working on a bailout, and Obama decides to bail out of D.C. alone, and have a "town hall" meeting,

(1) Does his still have his telepromter, and
(2) what happens when and if the format's already determined, and McCain flies into the venue at the last minute, once it's been decided that it will be a town-hall format, which Obama's been refusing to do all along?

Can you say "sudden death"?

Of course, there's one thing McCain can do that would be even more diabolical: send Palin in to sub for him.

The Alternative Car Show

. . . is in Santa Monica today and tomorrow. It looks like I'll probably be going tomorrow, since I have an energy conference today, and then I have to to to court to fix a "fixit" ticket.

The alt-car people don't list flex-fuel vehicles; I hope that was just an error, since I still think that alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol and methanol could play some role in the future of energy—and no one in his/her right mind would buy a vehicle that only ran on methanol/ethanol right now. (Unless they lived near a race track, and could get methanol locally: race-car drivers use methanol, of course.)

It could be that we will be transitioning to increased use of electric in the future, which would also work, if we can start transporting it more effectively.

Glenn Reynolds points out that the performance is so excellent on the VW diesel that the next step might be a diesel/electric hybrid.

I like those neighborhood electric vehicles that look like futuristic golf carts (the Chrysler GEM being the most popular) though since most of them are open on the side one wouldn't want to use 'em on a chilly evening. Also, they don't go over 25 mph, because they don't have airbags. Their virtues: street-legal in a lot of communities, and they're available with either a bit of cargo space or a second row of seats, so you can take your friends with you on your errands.

Of course, the SmartForTwo is closed-up and will go freeway speeds. Unlike NEWs, however, one is limited to two seats.

GEM has a new NEV that is closed-up an looks very, very cool. I do not know whether it meets the "Joy psuedo-golf cart" minimum speed, however: I'd need one that goes 35-40 mph, even to go to the grocery store five blocks away. Because, um, I can't drive 25.

The perfect NEV-related beast? I vote for the Zap Xebra, which

• Is closed-in, for rainy days;
• Does meet the Little Miss Attila 40 mph threshold;
• Is available as a four-seater;
• Functions as a plug-in, and uses solar panels (these can either be detached, and gather energy while you zip around town, or can stay on top of the vehicle, where they create a slight wind drag, but nonetheless extend your range before you need to charge up again);
• Is legally classified as a motorcycle, but can be driven with a regular car driver's license;
• Has only three wheels, and hovers around the same cuteness level as the Smart Car;
• Is available with a zebra-stripe paint job right from the factory. Who can resist that?

Oh, That Harry Reid.

Even though both the House and the Senate are letting the moratoria expire on offshore drilling, Reid is still trying to insert language into non-energy-related bills that will prohibit the harvesting of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

Charming. Read the article at Flopping Aces, and call your Senator right away.

The fact that no one in the media seems to have clued into is that energy independence in the United States rests upon having energy production (whether it's the old-fashioned fossil fuels we hope to phase out in 10-20 years, or the renewables we're in the process of developing now) rests on energy production in as many regions of the country as possible. Oil wells in the Gulf shut down when a hurricane is on its way; drilling on the North Slope of Alaska is only permitted five months out of the year. The Atlantic is no stranger to storms, and even the Pacific Ocean isn't invulnerable to extraordinary weather.

Shale oil has to be part of our Phase 1 (petroleum/natural gas/clean coal) strategy. That will buy us time to get Phase II (more versatile means of producing electricity, and innovative liquid fuels such as ethanol and methanol) off the ground.

Again—call your Senator. Explain that there are new technologies for extracting petroleum products from shale, and that you want to see this resource handled in an environmentally responsible manner, but that is a question for the engineers—rather than overzealous legislators who want to take this option off the table entirely.

So. What Have You Done with the Tim Robbins Whom I Like as an Actor, But Whose Politics are Tiresome, and Make Me Want to Barf?

I think he might be growing up:

Conservatives love to make a piñata out of Hollywood liberal Tim Robbins, but even they may lower their bats after they see him in "The Lucky Ones."

I thought we were the piñatas, but I'll let that one pass.

Robbins, Rachel McAdams and Michael Peña play soldiers who, on a month's leave from Iraq, become accidental companions on an often-comic road trip across America.

The movie, which Roger Ebert has compared to the William Wyler classic "The Best Years of Our Lives," could have turned into a polemic on the war. But Robbins was attracted to the script, written by director Neil Burger and Dirk Wittenborn, because "it's a story about humanity where the politics are irrelevant.

"What I liked about it was the way it threw together individuals who would have no reason to be hanging out, and showed their bond," Robbins told us at a New York screening the other night.

To research the role, Robbins traveled to Fort Dix, N.J. Not everyone there threw their arms around the man who, like his partner Susan Sarandon, has been a relentless critic of the Bush administration. He recalled, "One soldier said, 'I don't agree with your politics, but I want you to know there was a guy I served with. He and I didn't see eye to eye politically on a damn thing, but I liked his character, and if there was anyone next to me in a hostile situation, it would be him.'

"I wanted to make a picture for those troops, something they could enjoy," added Robbins. "Right now, we need healing. We need to understand the experience of what it's like for the troops to come home."

Well, Tim—there are a lot of people who do understand that. But thanks for listening. Welcome aboard.

Reid: The Last Thing We Need in a Time of Crisis . . .

is Senators attending to Senate business.

And Yet More on An American Carol

Eric Odom on An American Carol, which I haven't pimped in, like, an hour:

I want to help the folks behind the movie as much as possible. Unlike most liberal-directed movies coming out of Hollywood, An American Carol is sort of the first of its kind. Sure, there have been other center-right films to hit the market, but most did not have quite the opportunity this one has . . . .

If An American Carol does well on opening weekend, it’s safe to say that other films with a center-right flavor will follow. This movie, with an all-star cast and a powerful set of directors/producers/writers, can score HUGE box office points and send a message to the Hollywood elites.

The problem is that it can’t do this without our help. While the film isn’t really a low-budget film, it certainly needs the help of the grassroots movement to give it a kick-start next week. The movie will open in more than 2,000 theaters on October 3rd, and we need to get anyone and everyone we know to go see it.
"What [you're asking] can I do to get involved?"

Message, message, message.

(1) Word of mouth is our finest tool in this information war, and we need to put it to work like never before.

PLEASE make sure you tell everyone you know about An American Carol and how it opens on October 3rd. (Opening weekend often being a big measurement of a movie's appeal, by studio execs. --ed) Tell all your friends, family, co-workers, online connections, etc… everyone.

(2) Social Networks
I’ve set up a Facebook group that I plan to use over the next eight days to promote and coordinate grassroots efforts to market the movie. Click below to join the Facebook group.

BE SURE TO INVITE YOUR FRIENDS!

Once you’ve joined the group, please check the news section to see if there is an event planned to see the movie in your area. If there is not, create an event and let me know so that I can add it to the news section.

There is also an official Twitter profile that I am told will be used by the PR folks behind An American Carol. Follow An American Carol there (link below).

(3) An American Carol Action Network

Join the social network set up for An American Carol ["the American Carolers"] by clicking below.

This is our chance to help a conservative movie succeed and show Hollywood what Americans want more of. We must work together as a grassroots movement to help get the word out.

An American Carol on Twitter.

An American Carol on Facebook.

Join the American Carolers! Main site for the movie (sound enabled); become part of the effort!

Works for me! Eric and I are both good people to get info from (we're like little kids—expert shoulder-tappers: we just keep tapping until we get answers), as will be the official Twitter account for AAC.

Personally, I welcome questions from both "consumers" (people who are simply anxious to see the film), and other new-media types who want more info.

Rock the (Capitalistic) Vote!

October 3rd! Movie Night.

Let's see. What are our options?

Well, there's (1) Religulous, which is apparently based on Bill Mahar making fun of people who believe in God. I mean, that guy is so funny anyway! I'll bet seeing him make fun of religion will have 'em rolling in the aisles.

That sounds like fun. Or there is W. (the site has sound enabled!), which I've been told makes G.W. Bush the anti-Christ. It certainly makes sport of the guy who's handled some of the most challenging issues of our time. Imperfectly, for sure. But the timing is interesting: I wonder if the far left is trying to draw the same connection between G.W. Bush and John McCain that they drew between Rush Limbaugh and John McCain on the topic of immigration. (Yeah—no daylight between those two there.)

So I guess I'm on the horns of a trilemma. Is there such a thing as a trilemma? There would be if you crossed a rhinoceros with an elephant. Hey! I'm a trilemma!

Anyway, here's the dishy, talented, Kevin Farley, with Myrna Sokoloff, who's been working with David Zucker for years (ever since their guerilla ads for the 2004 campaign):

I wasn't able to see the whole thing (I need to install two more gigs of memory, on this machine), so I didn't see what Farley's response was to the question about his brother. But whether that question was tasteful or not, I'd love to see people treat Kevin as his own man, rather than an echo of Chris. Unless people are going to start grilling Luke Wilson about the crisis that Owen went through, or every interview with Jim Belushi is going to include a question about John.

Of course it isn't all about prurient interest in tragedy; people are also fascinated by "mixed marriages" and "mixed sibling philosophies." Carville and Matalin are asked about this all the time, and every time I've heard Stephen Baldwin interviewed someone has had to ask him what his brother thinks about [name the political issue].

Call my brother; he'll tell you that I'm a good kid, but kind of a nut. And that my "unorthodox" politics are probably some sort of rebellion thingie. With any luck, I'll grow out of it, steady up, and get a real job.

Kevin Farley on the Tonight Show!

Tonight, tonight, tonight!

He'll be discussing An American Carol on NBC--they tell me "11:34 Pacific time." That time sounds so precise; we should watch the whole thing.

After all:

• Leno has a Harley;
• his wife was one of the first women to come out against the Taliban's gender apartheid;
• Leno's been joking that if we only started ramping up domestic petroleum production ten years ago, when they told us it wouldn't do any good, because it would take a full decade to reach full capacity . . . we'd have that oil now.

Rusty on the Winner and Associates Scandal

Turne out everyone's innocent, thank goodness. We know, because they told us that

Rusty doesn't quite see it that way; he probably needs therapy or something.

Sure, the VP of a PR firm could have produced the video on his own, personally paid for the voice talent, got the agency to bill him, asked his multimillionaire President of a well known Democratically connected PR firm of a father to legitimize its false attacks, created multiple sock puppet accounts, and asked his buddies at the PR firm which specializes in "grassroots organization" to spread it around the internet claiming it was from "A Group of Concerned Citizens" --- on company time. It's possible.

It's also possible that I'll get a shot at that Angelina Jolie - Scarlett Johannson thing. This is American damnit, everything is possible!

It's also possible that we have a case of astroturfing, plain and simple. Which, by definition, is a paid political campaign run by parties unknown, who wish to remain unknown, and who wish the whole thing to appear as if it's bottom up and grassroots.

But, who knows? Our investigation was really about getting the MSM off their lazy asses and doing the real digging. But apparently investigative journalism has been reduced to calling a campaign and getting a statement.

I think that's how Woodward and Bernstein did it, right? They called the White House and said, "Hey, Nixon, did you do it? No. Okay. Case closed."

Let's Not Be Silly.

Men can have private meetings with foreign leaders, and it's okay.

If women have private meetings with foreign leaders, and there are no reporters to supervise, they might just start gushing blood out at them—like gory firehoses—and it takes a good pressman to smooth a situation like that over.

Actually, Palin just didn't want reporters in on these meetings because Charlie Gibson wasn't available, and it made her sad.

I'm with Moe.

Let's bite the bullet, and then make sure this doesn't happen again.

More on "Rape-Gate" In Wasilla.

Apparently, it is the custom of some hospitals to bill rape victims--or, rather, their insurance companies--for their emergency exams, including rape kits. Some states permit this as standard practice, since the costs are generally absorbed by insurance companies.

This had nothing to do with Sarah Palin.

The reform that occurred before she became governor was a statewide effort to try to get hospitals not to send bills to the victims of sex crimes (even if the costs would ultimately be covered by insurance) and to make it clear to the hospitals—and to these victims—that law enforcement considered the ER visits (especially, of course, the rape kits) to be part of their responsibility, as their main purpose is to gather evidence to help cops solves crimes. Even in small towns scraping by on a shoestring, forensic evidence is forensic evidence, and is the responsibility of law enforcement.

The lawmakers' hope was that a rape victim would not even see an invoice or statement (even if it were intended to be paid by the insurance company). This hyper-sensitive (and, I think, sensible) approach is not taken in every state, but it was eventually mandated in Alaska. The legislation was passed, and signed into law, before Palin became governor.

So she gets neither credit for the reform, nor blame if any insensitive hospitals did, indeed, include rape kit charges on their financial statements to the victims of sex crimes. Apparently no one has been able to establish for sure one way or the other whether such statements or bills were actually sent to sex-crime victims in Wasilla during Sarah's time as Mayor of that town. Certainly, we do not know if she was made aware of it, if it did occur.)

One hell of a hat tip to:
Confederate Yankee, on rape kits, Part I
Confederate Yankee, on rape kits, Part II

No word yet on whether Confederate Yankee (or Charlie at Explorations, for that matter) will be invoicing the mainstream news outlets who reported the story wrong, thereby compelling unpaid journalists to pick up the pieces after the hacks at CNN, US News & World Report, USA Today, The Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and "dozens" of others reported the story wrong because, hey—shoeleather is expensive, and phone bills are high, and what's the harm anyway, if it might help put Obama in the White House where he belongs?

Via Twitter-Tweets from Flap.

REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

DEAR AMERICAN:

I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.

I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.

. . . . . . . . . . .

THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY . . . . WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.

PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,

MINISTER OF TREASURY

HENRY PAULSON

h/t: Lew Rockwell, who thanks Mike Holmes for the concept/execution. I got it from Robert Stacy McCain.

Sarah Palin's Gaffes.

I wonder why they don't get more attention. For instance, there's this doozy.

Phone-Banking for McCain!

The McCain team makes it really easy. They provide the phone numbers, and the script; you can make the calls at your own pace.

Last week, our campaign launched a grassroots effort to put you in touch with voters all across the country through our online phone bank.

The polls all show this election is in a dead heat, and we expect the polls to stay close until Election Day. That's why it's so important for you to get involved today. This election will be won by turning out key voters all over the country. You can help the McCain-Palin campaign win by taking 30 minutes out of your evening to make 20 calls for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Follow this link to make calls: www.JohnMcCain.com/PhoneBank

The Obama-Biden campaign has hired hundreds of paid staff and is spending millions of dollars bombarding undecided voters with advertisements filled with negative, misleading and false information about John McCain and Governor Palin. We need your help to combat this and get the truth out to these voters. You are the most effective surrogate we have in this campaign. By reaching out to undecided voters, one by one, you are taking a crucial step towards our victory.

Today, we are only six weeks away from Election Day and we need your help right now. In such a close election, taking 30 minutes to make 20 calls for John McCain and Governor Palin can make the difference.

Follow this link to make calls: www.JohnMcCain.com/PhoneBank

As always, I appreciate your hard work and dedication to our team!

Sincerely,

Christian Ferry
Deputy Campaign Manager

P.S. John McCain and Governor Palin are ready to lead our country and ready to challenge the status quo. Please do your part to elect the McCain-Palin ticket in November by making calls today through our online phone bank. The work you are doing today will make a big difference on Election Day. Thank you.

By the way, the McCain campaign official website has special resources for undecided voters, and one of their "sub-groups," Citizens for McCain, is specifically geared toward Democrats who are crossing party lines for this election. I was impressed that his acceptance speech at the Convention was critical of the GOP—even in front of thousands of the party faithful—and that he still pitched his ability to cross party lines to get things done.

Furthermore, on the McCain website, one can earn "points" (that silly little gimmick so many websites are engaging in these days to motivate their members) not only by hosting debate-watching parties, phone-banking, inviting friends to join, sending political emails, etc., but also by volunteering for community groups to perform nonpolitical charity work. Including Habitat for Humanity. So Senator McCain is not throwing the Carterian baby out with the bathwater, by any stretch of the imagination.

This election could well be even closer than the 2004 election was, so get busy.

Why John McCain Wasn't Able to Avert the Economic Train Wreck Now

. . . however he tried in 2005. Kevin Hassett in Bloomberg:

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

So: heads, the politicians win; tails, the taxpayers lose.

Via Ace of Spades.

Red Meat for Supporters of Israel.

Sarah on the Iranian threat:

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

As Sandra Bernhard would say: shiksa.

Ah. More Republican "Hypocrisy."

It's like this: it appears that John McCain's chief of staff is gay.

Now here is what your average German Shepherd would conclude: "Oh. I thought most prominent members of the Republican Party were homophobic. Guess I was wrong."

Instead, it's being presented as "hypocrisy." Because, you see, John McCain is "anti-gay." How do we know he's anti-gay? Because he wants to go slowly on integrating "out" gays into the Armed Forces, and isn't sure that civil unions should be referred to using the word "marriage." (I'm cool with the latter; I disagree strongly with the former; "don't ask, don't tell" has been a disaster. But is there anyone out there who doesn't think we're going to go the way of the British special forces and have full sexual-orientation within the military within 5-10 years?)

So was it hypocritical for Cheney to employ his daughter in the 2004 campaign? Was it hypocritical for Barry Goldwater to maintain good relations with his son, and rail against sexual-orientation in the military back in the 1960s? Is it hypocritical for Steve Schmidt—the architect of McCain's Presidential election this year—to see to it that the Log Cabin Republicans were an officially recognized group this year at the GOP convention, and to meet with them personally? Is it hypocritical for him to speak warmly of his sister and her life partner—and to stress what an important role they play in his life, and the life of his kids?

Is it hypocritical for George W. Bush to have friends who are transgendered? Is it hypocritical for Condi Rice to befriend her colleagues with gender dysphoria issues?

Was it hypocritical for Sarah Palin to leave her church after they started discussing the notion that homosexuality can be "cured"?

I'm sorry, but none of these things strike me as hypocritical. The word I would use is "tolerance."

Except that these people are and were Republicans. So it cannot be "tolerance." It must be "hypocrisy," since leading members of the GOP cannot quite live up to (or rather down to) the cartoonish notions that people carry around in their heads.

Oh, and: here's a portrait of one of our frontrunners for the GOP Presidential nomination:

And some more from "hypocrites" like BoiFromTroy—who is running an ad for Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Republicans Against 8." Hypocrites!

Obama Gets to Work on the Economy . . .

Maybe I did misjudge him . . .

Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas

Ethan Winner: "Autumn Guy"

Dan Riehl just ran this extremely authentic-looking video of David Axelrod talking to Ethan Winner of Winner and Associates:

I know I can trust the information contained therein, because there are no production credits on it. With no one taking credit or blame, it seems safe to say that this is an honest representation of just exactly how it all, um, went down last night.

About That Kid in Tennessee . . .

Robert Stacy is staying on top of the case.

Hey—unlike Family "Winner," the Kernel kid at least made a half-assed attempt to cover his tracks. And he's half Ethan's age or some such.

Iowahawk: Which Is More Compelling—Nuclear Annihilation, or that Crazy Alaskan Governor?

Keep your eye on the ball:

Newark, Blast Ring 4: Radioactive mutants from the National Jewish Democratic Council today tapped an angry Morse code press release message on the lid of the fallout shelter of another Jewish organization, demanding that it "immediately disinvite" controversial Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin from its fortified underground bunker.

"As an evangelical extremist Republican, Sarah Palin is no friend to surviving American Jews, or the former country of Israel," said NJDC chairman Mark Stanley. "Allowing Palin into a Jewish refugee shelter creates not only a partisan circus, but a health hazard for fellow Jews who will be exposed to her dangerous Alaska redneck cooties."

A spokes-tapper from the organization, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, defended the invitation of Palin to the join the group in the bunker, noting it had given similar invitations to several Democratic politicians after former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared at the United Nations last week strapped with a 50-megaton nuclear device. However, all of the Democratic invitees canceled under pressure from the NDJC.

"Just because Senators Clinton and Schumer were vaporized in the attack last week is no excuse for you to continue hosting Sarah Palin," responded Stanley. "It is an affront to all Jews that you would actually share your freeze-dried kreplatch and tzimmes with this dangerous meshuggah shiksa."

Ethan Winner Produced that Lying Video About Palin and the Alaska Independence Party.

Apparently, though, he did it on his own time, with his own money, and out of the goodness of his heart.

He hasn't paid the voiceover actress, yet: apparently, she hasn't yet "invoiced" him. And he didn't identify himself as the producer, because he . . . I dunno. I guess he forgot or something.

No word why his father/CEO or his colleague-in-the-family's PR firm also created You Tube accounts and attempted to promote the video. Nor why it came to the attention of sites like dKos or Jesus' General, where it was openly promoted there as a good "dirty trick" that the Left ought to disseminate as aggressively as possible.

It seems to me that Winner and Associates is the real-life equivalent of the Jodie Foster character in "Inside Man": 100% amoral, completely mercenary, and able to fix just about any problem—for the right price.

So . . . now that they've been outed, on a scheme that might just be violation of FEC rules, can they fix themselves?

NRA Joins the Fray.

They've got a new series of ads out to buttress their assertion that Obama might be "the most anti-gun President in U.S. history."

Here's one:

Two questions:

1) They actually identify themselves as the producers and disseminators of this political ad. Isn't that old-fashioned? I thought people didn't need to do that any more: isn't the new trend to "upload to You Tube, send it to Jesus' General, and hope it goes viral"?

2) They keep talking about someone named "Joe Biden," who's apparently a big gun-grabber. Name doesn't ring a bell, though. Apparently, he's linked with that far-left Presidential candidate . . . Obama-something.

For more, see the NRA Victory Fund's "Gun Ban Obama" site.

Via Marc Ambinder, via Conservative Grapevine.

More from the Folks at An American Carol.

The second version of the trailer; I kind of like this one:

Opens October 3rd! (I've been told that's the same day that the movie about G.W. Bush comes out.)

Remember: The film's parody site is moovealong.org. I signed up there, too, and got a note from "Michael Malone" saying something along the lines of "I can't believe you signed up for this! Go see An American Carol! Her master's voice . . . )

The official site is here, and you can join the "American Carolers" to help spread the word, network with other supporters of the effort—and even earn "points" by spreading the word in various ways. Those who earn the most points can win prizes such as autographed movie posters, and the Brass Ring—a private screening of the movie for you and your friends.

(As usual, other bloggers are encouraged to get in touch with me, so I can forward any extra goodies that come my way from their new media outreach branch.)

The Jawa Report on the Biggest Winner Loser in the Blogosphere

"Astroturfing" by a huge PR firm—Winner & Associates, with ties to the Barack Obama campaign—might actually have been aided, financed, or encouraged by "The King of Astroturfing," Axlerod himself, who works for . . . um, who was that? Oh, yeah: Barack Obama.

The idea was to discredit McCain's VP pick with more than just her family's traumas.

At issue is a video clip about Sarah Palin that attempts to exaggerate her links to the Alaskan Independence Party, a week after the rumor that she'd been a member of that group had been debunked. (And, of course, there are still "grassroots" efforts to slime her on birth control/sex education, creationism, supposed ties to John Birchers and/or the Buchanan campaign, homophobia . . . her putative use of racial slurs—the list goes on and on . . .)

And here's the clip, going more viral than Winner & Associates necessarily intended:

See that clip of Sarah "welcoming" the AIP? She didn't attend as governor, but she instead sent them a good-will tape, telling them that "diaologue" is always good. (No: not all members of the AIP want to leave the Union. Yes: Todd Palin has been a member of the AIP.)

But here's Rusty for you:

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

• Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

• The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

• Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

• Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

• The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

• This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

• David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

• The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe. Our findings follow.

At issue? Rusty again:

Our reading of FEC regulations suggests that political campaign and 527 groups, such as Moveon.org, are required to report money spent on advertising opposing a candidate for public office. We can find no exception for advertising intended for web only campaigns.

We assume that if some group paid for the production of the video, that it would be reported to the FEC. Not doing so, we believe, would constitute a breach of federal campaign law.

Ace adds:

I asked Rusty earlier, when I was teasing it, if they'd yanked the videos yet.

He scoffed at the idea they read this (or his) blog. I know for a fact they do.

Anyway, they're down now. Gee, that was fast.

Trouble is, boys, we got copies. Of everyfuckingthing.

You goddamned rats.

Tomorrow they will claim this was all inadvertent, etc. They'll say they did produce the ad, and sent it to Winner and Associates to, um, focus-group or something, then decided not to run it, but that dirty Winner family and its employees attempted to get it to go viral without their authorization.

Whatever.

If this is all so innocent, why are the videos being yanked even as we speak?

Silly. Because deleting You Tube vids they don't like any more is what the Winner family does on Sunday nights. The family that attempts to destroy evidence together . . . loses their livelihood together. I hope.

Implicated in what might turn out to be a plot odd series of coincidences surrounding the dissemination of untruths about Sarah Palin: The PR Firm Winner and Associates; multiple members of the Winner family (including Ethan S. Winner and his father, Charles "Chuck" N. Winner); at least one other empoyee of Winner & Associates; "A Group of Concerned Americans," which appears to be a proxy for W&A, as does You Tube user "gocamerica"; Publicis Groupe, which is one the world's top advertising/PR firms, and owns Winner & Associates; David Axelrod; and a few of his colleagues.

Rusty's account is an extensive post, but well worth reading as a case study in how the internet can be manipulated by corporate interests and sleazy campaigns.

Patterico, Jane Novak, Dan Riehl, and Ace of Spades have chipped in on this effort. (I also tried to help—along with another L.A.-area blogger with ties to the entertainment industry—but we were not able to contribute much, I'm afraid. The others did beautifully without us.)

Riehl on the Smear Story;
Ace's article (with a flaming skull, natch—and quoted above) on the Winner & Associates scandal.
Patterico (who assisted in the distillation of facts Rusty started with), calls the story "a potential bombshell."
Malkin is on the case.

[Bumped, so it'll stay at the top for another 12 hours after I originally wrote it; I got my post up by just after midnight, Pacific, because I was out during the evening.]

There's Chicago . . .

and then there's Chicago.

Know the difference.

h/t: Insty.

Sarah's Speech in Florida

People waited for hours in the hot sun to see her; she drew somewhere between 30,000 and 60,00 people, depending upon which Fire Dept. official one speaks to.

Her roles, she tells us, would be (1) helping with political/economic reform; (2) working with Johnny Mac on energy issues, and (3) advocating for help with special needs children and other health-related issues (in particular, she mentioned the NIH, and continuing to seek cures for some of the diseases that still plague us).

Too bad Obama doesn't have someone who can go around and campaign on his behalf like that: really motivate large crowds to turn out the vote for him. Kind of a shame, that it all sort of falls to him. Oh, well. Guess Senator Gaffe seemed like a good idea at the time.

Obama and Jews . . .

It isn't looking good right now.

Well, They Served the Kid with a Search Warrant.

So the surveillance period is over: David Kernell's apartment has been searched.

Re: the 1:00 a.m. timing, all Stacy's points are well-taken. But if I were being watched by the FBI, I probably wouldn't be doing a lot of partying . . .

More on David Foster Wallace . . .

Via a notation from Ana Marie Cox on Twitter, A.O. Scott in The New York Timesdiscusses Wallace's voice, which he attempts to separate from Wallace's life.

Good luck, Buddy.

Special bonus: the headline is "The Best Mind of His Generation." Get it?

When, as an undergraduate with a head full of literary theory and a heartsick longing for authenticity, I first encountered David Foster Wallace, I experienced what is commonly called the shock of recognition. Actually, shock is too clean, too safe a word for my uncomfortable sense that not only did I know this guy, but he knew me. He could have been a T.A. in one of my college courses, or the slightly older guy in Advanced Approaches to Interpretation who sat slightly aloof from the others and had not only mastered the abstruse and trendy texts everyone else was reading, but also skipped backward, sideways and ahead. It was impressive enough that he could do philosophy — the mathematical kind, not just the French kind. But he also played tennis — Mr. Wallace, in fact, had competed seriously in the sport — and could quote lyrics from bands you only pretended you’d heard of. Without even trying, he was cooler than everyone else.

All this shone through Mr. Wallace’s fiction. He had the intellectual moves and literary tricks diagrammed in advance: the raised-eyebrow, mock-earnest references to old TV shows and comic books; the acknowledgment that truth was a language game. He was smarter than anyone else, but also poignantly aware that being smart didn’t necessarily get you very far, and that the most visible manifestations of smartness — wide erudition, mastery of trivia, rhetorical facility, love of argument for its own sake — could leave you feeling empty, baffled and dumb.

Another way of saying this is that Mr. Wallace, born in 1962 and the author of an acclaimed first novel at age 24, anchored his work in an acute sense of generational crisis. None of his peers were preoccupied so explicitly with how it felt to arrive on the scene as a young, male American novelist dreaming of glory, late in the 20th century and haunted by a ridiculous, poignant question: what if it’s too late? What am I supposed to do now?

Yeah, well: one could almost say the same thing about female writers. Almost.

Cox characterizes the piece as "deft." Maybe. Certainly, the point is well taken that a high I.Q. and $3.50 can buy one a Chai Latte at Starbucks. So, you know: we've got that going for us.

I still think that what he did was really, really stupid.

And with that, I think I'll go to bed.

Another Palin Rumor Bites the Dust . . .

From Charlie's masterful debunking of Palin rumors over at Observations, the truth about the "victims charged for rape kits" allegation:

No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it.

First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina.

Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor.

Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.

Which actually sounds like a great idea; hope they take it all the way there at some point. But it sounds like Palin had little or nothing to do with any of this.

Sarah Palin's Lack of Foreign-Policy Experience.

Well, it's appalling. All she's done is:

• On the hugely important natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48, Palin renegotiated a pipeline deal people had all but given up on—left in tatters by her predecessor: she played hardball with three big petroleum companies, and forced them to deal with her on Alaska's terms, rather than their own. (These are organizations whose GDPs are bigger than that of most of the world's countries.) Palin got concessions from them to benefit the people of her state.

&bull To get the natural gas pipeline going, she also had to negotiate among several governments, including: (1) others within the state government, (2) the federal government, (4) the Canadian federal government, (5) several Canadian provincial governments, and (6) several Native American nations (sovereign nations, mind you) in both the U.S. and Canada, as well as (7) other West Coast state governments within the U.S.

• Palin has also dealt with the Federal government in the operation of its missile defenses, which are located in Alaska. These are one of the most pivotal elements within our national defense; they remain on high alert 24 hours a day (unlike other missile-defense facilities), and her role in coordinating these forward defenses makes her privy to military briefings that are highly sensitive—probably more so than those received by any other state governor.

• Governor Palin is, furthermore, in charge of the Alaska National Guard—which means she has been responsible for deploying troops to Iraq. Furthermore, she was proactive enough to visit groups of Alaska's guardsmen and -women who were stationed in Kuwait, to keep morale up and to see first-hand what some of the conditions were that they were dealing with—as well as what kind of training they were getting as the bases there.

• Palin has served as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, Chair of the Alaska Gas and Conservation Commission, and Chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. She is currently Chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which is an intergovernmental body comprising the governments of Alaska and several other states.

To give credit where credit is due, Barack Obama had to walk a tightrope between pleasing Chicago's traditional Democratic party machine (to which his wife has close ties) and catering to the "community's" far-left extremists, of both the Black Supremacy stripe and the dyed-in-the-wool Marxist bent. True, there was no multi-billion-dollar natural-gas pipeline at stake, but I'm sure it affected a lot of votes among Chicago's residents and their pets/dearly departed/ancestors. So it isn't like the man can't practice diplomacy.

I guess it's more a question of which negotiations are tougher: the ones Obama conducted with grant writers and dead people, or the ones Sarah Palin accomplished with provincial, Federal, Canadian national, and state governments, and with huge petroleum/national gas companies.

Bit of a tough choice, huh? Six one way, half-dozen the other . . .

I Changed My Mind.

I think Obama is the bee's knees:

I hope he follows up by hiding under the bed if the Russians, the Iranians, or any of the Islamo-Fascist Terrorists make any major moves once he's elected President, or if there's any further threat to the economy from destabilization caused by his friends and patrons at Freddie and Fannie . . .

Usually, just as a situation becomes more challenging, the best thing to do is to throw away any tools that might help to deal with them.

Kevin Farley . . .

Appeared at CLC, and I missed it.*

So I Twitter-tweeted Eric Odom, to let him know that I think Kevin Farley is much better-looking than Michael Moore, whom he plays in An American Carol. (Oh. He plays an obnoxious filmmaker named "Michael Malone." My mistake.) And that Odom should tell Farley I said so.

I got this back: "I actually showed Kevin Farley your tweet while I was on the stage with him. :-) "

Kewl.

My response: "Excellent; I haven't met him, but he seems like a sweetheart, from what I've read and heard. Much MUCH cuter than the Evil Guy."

• • •

BTW: trailers and clips for David Zucker's An American Carol, which opens October 3rd, are here. That site doesn't always seem to get along with my Mac, so I've also been getting updates at "Old Faithful," the official An American Carol site. And—gee whiz—here the trailer:

See? They try to make Farley homely, like Michael Moore, but he just isn't.

Here's more—the An American Carol "montage," which I think I've posted before:

This is the site for getting updates from Vivendi. (If you're a media person, please let me know: I'm badgering the production company directly to give new media types some access to the people involved in this film, so we can talk it up a bit. I'm reachable at miss, then a dot, then attila. Then an "at" sign. Followed by Gmail.com)

Finally, the "guerilla"/parody site for An American Carol is from a "grass roots" organization called, of all things, MooveAlong.org. Hm.

An American Carol has to succeed, because it's important to demonstrate to "the industry" that if they want to make money, they need to embrace more diverse points of view than are currently found in entertainment.

David Zucker was a left-liberal who turned classical-liberal when he was "mugged by 9/11" back in 2001. We know him from the Naked Gun movies; the Police Squad! TV series; Scary Movie 4, Airplane!, H.U.D., The Kentucky Fried Movie, Ruthless People, and some wickedly funny political spots for the 2004 election season, here, here, here, and here.

Along with Kevin P. Farley, An American Carol stars Kelsey Grammer (as George S. Patton), Serdar Kalsin (as "Ahmed"), Geoffrey Arend (as "Mohammed"), and Robert Davi (as "Aziz"), along with the wonderful Jon Voight (the ghost of George Washington), Trace Adkins (the Spirit of Christmas Future), James Woods, Chriss Anglin (as John F. Kennedy), Dennis Hopper, and Leslie Nielsen.

It should be loads of fun: go opening night!

* I did not drive out for CLC or or the BlogWorld Expo, though both are in Las Vegas this year—more or less concurrently—and I could have had two for the price of housing + two tanks of gas. Instead, I'm saving that money to go out there in late October as part of a "get out the vote" effort for the Palin-McCain campaign. [Oh. Sorry: McCain-Palin. There we go.]

Let Me Guess . . .

Jan's appetite tonight at dinner will be either greater or less than usual, and her sense of smell with be more sensitive/acute. She's also due for an extra dose of estrogen soon, which should put her in a good mood once it kicks in.

If she won't or can't drink more than a half-glass of wine, that will clinch it.

Hm. The plot thickens.

For my own part, I've decided that married-without-children is a sensible middle ground between spinsterhood and motherhood. All of the benefits of marriage, without the downside of a demanding family life. Which frees me up to do . . . whatever it is I'm doing. So there.

The Party of . . .

self-hating Jews, self-hating goyim, woman-hating women, and racism. It's really quite a charming little world these hard-core Barack supporters live in.

No: Sandra Bernhard isn't wearing glasses as she makes fun of Sarah Palin's glasses. But she does have her hair up as she makes fun of Palin wearing her hair up. ('S okay: it's a Queen Bee thing. You wouldn't understand. Freedom for Bee, but not for Thee.) She should have made fun of Palin's having a vagina, though she came pretty close to doing just that.

Bernhard is not just a vehicle for stoking whatever latent tensions still exist between Jews and Christians in this country—and between Jews and non-Jews (furthermore, the tension between Jewish women and "shiksas," which of course parallels the tension between white women and black women, and amounts to the same charge: "you're stealing our men"). It also stokes fears of black men as inherently violent and rape-prone, and makes violent blacks the "enforcers" for some elite, politically correct Jews. Ick.

And, of course, it rests, as The Anchoress points out, on the racist supposition that it would be worse to be gang-raped by black men vs. white men. (Sure. Their blackness . . . might rub off or something. White women fear getting Negro molecules on their skin, or up their poontangs. Or something. It's not really clear, except in Bernhard's weird imagination. I mean, if she's going to go all ethnic on the "shiksa," shouldn't the Governor be raped by gangs of Jewish guys? Are they incompetent as rapists? Do they need to work on their raping skills?)

The imagery could well exacerbate the historical rift between blacks and Jews in certain regions of the country. (Yes, New York/Tri-State: I'm looking at you.)

All in one little "comedy" routine. That's quite an accomplishment, Sandra.

By the way:

Q: You know what the problem is with Jewish men?

A: They don't like Jewish women.

Isn't that funny? No, really: isn't that fucking hilarious?

Of course, one could dissect this silly monologue further, and ask Sandra politely when Sarah has "pointed her finger" at other women (as Sandra does at the moment she accuses Sarah of same), or when she has "referenced our [!] Old Testament" in public. Palin probably has done the latter; I doubt that she's done the former. Reference, please, Madame Bernhard?

Oh, sorry: it's all about the emotion. No scholarship. No intellect.

The fact that Bernhard is so in-touch with her emotions is probably at the same time what makes her such a great actress (her performance in The King of Comedy was truly amazing), and the reason she is such a poor comic: naked aggression without cleverness or wit is not funny. It is simply sad.

Inappropriate? A Little.

Strictly speaking, it would be best if Franken didn't contribute material to SNL in the middle of a campaign.

On the other hand, the biggest scandal about Franken as a politician is that he is getting so much money from my very own state, which makes him look like a financial capetbagger.

The biggest scandal about Franken as a comedian is that he is not even remotely funny.

The biggest scandal about trying to out-McCain McCain in a comedy sketch is that it's going to be difficult to be funnier than he is on his own. Johnny Mac and I remain at odds on a handful of issues—but he's a smart dude. Tough to parody him, unless you go for his temper, which hasn't even manifested itself much in the past several years—at least not publicly. Or you can just do ageist material, which is likely where Franken "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big, Fat Idiot" took it. (See the humor there? Limbaugh is big and fat. And he's an idiot. Funny, huh? And John McCain is an old crippled guy with a little bit of a short fuse sometimes. I swear: I'm killing myself, here.)

h/t: Hot Air.

Nope. I Don't Think McCain Is Going for Eight Years.

Nor do I believe that he and Palin together are shooting for sixteen. The magic number, as I see it, is twelve.

I mean, aren't they telegraphing that? Why else would Sarah refer to "a Palin-McCain Administration"?

Stacy McCain Defends Republicans

. . . in his own way:

I hate to tell you this, but we didn't "rape the earth." It was consensual. The earth was begging for it, Frank. And if you don't mind sloppy seconds, get in line.

Note: I hope that my readers all realize that Robert Stacy McCain is no relation to John McCain, et al.—unless, presumably, one goes back to Ireland. In which case they are probably both distant cousins of my husband's, and I'm related (via England) to James Whitmore.

And, for the record, Stacy is one of the last few holdouts in terms of not voting for his "crazy cousin John" for President. (Personally, I thought it would be me, but I fell like a libertarian domino around March of this year.)

Sarah and the Gay Appointment Calendar

The always-refreshing Dan Blatt, writing for PJ Media about why so many gays—even ones who don't like that "R" letter after a politician's name—are pleased with McCain's Veep pick:

Like many other Republicans, gay Republicans cite Palin’s reform record and mainstream conservative views as the basis of their support. We like that she took on the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska and hope she can help John McCain do something similar in Washington, DC. And we like her plucky nature. Sarah Palin is no ordinary politician. We were wowed by her speech at the Republican Convention.

To be sure, we have some concerns about her stands on gay issues. She supported her state’s 1998 constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, barring state recognition of same-sex nuptials.

She’s also said that “she’s not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay,” confirming Eric’s impressions. We do wish she would chastise her church, the Wasilla Bible Church, for promoting the notion that homosexuality is “curable.” I fear, alas, that is not going to happen.

While she is solid on most issues of concern to us as Republicans, she is not perfect on gay issues. But most gay Republicans, like most Republicans, understand that the solutions to social problems do not come from the state. And we know we need reform in Washington, the kind of reform Sarah Palin brought to Juneau.

While John McCain’s “selection of the Alaska governor has energized the GOP’s socially conservative wing,” it has also inspired a lot of gay and lesbian Republicans. It has brought together left-leaning lesbians and Hillary-supporting gay men concerned about Barack Obama’s qualifications with gay conservatives unhappy with McCain’s frequent departures from party orthodoxy.

We see in Sarah Palin John McCain’s real commitment to reform. That is why, despite her mixed record on gay issues, we are excited by her nomination.

That's what a lot of people don't seem to get: the more libertarian the candidate is, the less his or her private convictions on matter of morality have any bearing. Yeah: Palin is "pro-life" enough to have brought Trig to term, but she isn't going out of her way to coerce other wome to take a similar course. Her church became too Fundamentalist for her (or she became not-Fundamentalist-enough for it), and she has apparently drifted from it doctrinally—but still retains strong bonds of affection for many of its members.

Above all, she gets that when men and women of conscience disagree on moral matters, it is generally best to err on the side of liberty.

Also, she knows how to veto legislation. Not a bad start.

Related: (1) James Kirchick's recent article in the Wall Street Journal about how it's time for the GOP to give up gay-bashing. Past time, I'd say.

(2) Kirchick himself notes that this past Republican convention was 99% gaybash-free, in marked contrast to past embarrassing moments in the past several Presidential GOP Conventions.

(3) The fact that (as reported in The Advocate, not only were the Log Cabin Republicans officially invited to the 2008 convention as a group, but multiple officials from the McCain campaign (including its top strategist, Steve Schmidt) stopped by LCR gatherings to pay their respects). And:

(4) The change in approach within the GOP from the past has led to a the LCRs actually endorsing McCain, even as they refused to so honor G.W., who had to parrot the party line once more in 2004. (As if anyone believes that Bush and Cheney and Secretary Rice are actually anti-gay in real life. But he made those pro forma statements, and the LCRs were right to decline endorsing him. I'll bet many still voted for W, though.)

Schmidt: "The day will come." Yes; it will.

Took Me All Day . . .

and Darrell had to remind me, too. I hang my head in shame.

"Not my will, but Thine, be done." Even if one doesn't agree, why is it so hard to understand?

And how much chutzpah does it take to misquote someone to her face, and then to keep hammering at your own misinterpretation of her words?

Okay. I Get It.

Once someone works in Government, he or she has no right to privacy any more; not even in his/her private emails. Even if the punk who committed this Federal Crime says he found nothing incriminating.

Just like how "two for the price of one" was a good thing for the Clintons, but is not for the Palins—and any involvement in the government by Todd Palin was inappropriate.

I've solved the problem of people invading my privacy and committing possible identity theft by telling my Gmail accounts that they must never wear short skirts, or they are "just asking for it."

Oh, wait: those two premises depend on what letter the person has after his or her name, don't they?

How Come No One's Masturbating to Obama Any More?

Racists!

Double-Plus Undead put a content warning on this one. But if I started doing stuff like that, wouldn't I have to "NSFW" my whole blog? (Still: even less SFW than usual.)

Aw, come on. 'S funny 'cause it's true.

Ahoy Maties!

Arrgh, it be talk like a pirate day again. But they'll not be telling you which pirate ye need to be talkin' like. How about this one?

And here I be at the Auto Repair Place, wearing a T-shirt other than my Disneyland "Pirates of the Caribbean" shirt, with its skull-and-crossbones flag that be glowin' in the dark. Unfortunately, it be havin' polyester fibers it its fabric, so it be an easy T-shirt to overheat in.

I be thinkin' of cuttin' the sleeves off of it and makin' it into a muscle shirt. To show off my buff arms.

Christophe Twitter-tweeted the most half-assed Pirate talk I've ever seen in my life, in "spirit of the day": "R." Is that the text-talk/Leet speak version of Pirate-patter? Also, how would that sound in LOLCAT?

Hm. Nokitty be hoistin' the Jolly Roger. But we can haz:

more animals

Pirate Duckies!

It's the Economy—and Energy

Over at Hot Air, the new McCain ads for Michigan and Ohio focus in on the dual-headed monster of the energy crisis and underemployment:

Michigan specifically mentions drilling (along with "clean vehicles," and a glimpse of a hybrid-car symbol):

Ohio's ad is similar, but more of a frontal assault on job-creation through small businesses and renewable energy:

It's a good move to mention securing our retirement in these spots, as well.

The McCain people seem to be cranking out one or political ads a day, and they know when to take an optimistic tone--as with the economics-minded, forward thinking spots linked above, with the jangly music--and when/how to go on the attack--as with the Raines ad about the Fannie Mae Crisis:

One of the cleverest features in that particular spot is McCain making his statement of responsibility at the beginning--so his name isn't linked to the "prosecuting attorney" tone at the end, nor the assertion "not ready to lead." Instead, that accusation is left to echo inside the viewer's head.

h/t: Ohio and Michigan ad via Ed at Hot Air. The Raines ad is also from Mr. Morrissey, and he's got some good background there on how little economic change Obama! would really bring.

(And, aye--it being Talk Like a Pirate Day, I'd just like to tell the Obama campaign that they need to get some grog, and prepare to be boarded . . . )

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Thrill, Baby--Thrill.

The Wall Street Journal today:

With only two weeks remaining in the congressional session, the antidrilling Democratic leadership is under considerable pressure to allow increased offshore oil and gas exploration. They don't much like it--Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that by stopping offshore drilling "I'm trying to save the planet," and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York wants Saudi Arabia to increase its production by a million barrels a day but opposes U.S. drilling on the OCS or ANWR--but it has become reality.

The bill that passed the House Tuesday would allow drilling 100 miles offshore anywhere, and 50 miles off any state that approved drilling. But more than 80% of known oil reserves are inside the 50-mile limit, and ANWR drilling is still not permitted, even though it involves only 2,000 of Alaska's 20 million acres of coastal plain. No royalties would be shared with the states under the House bill, and $18 billion in existing government subsidies for oil companies would be repealed.

The upcoming Senate version proposes to allow drilling off only four states--Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia--and to raise taxes on the oil industry by some $30 billion.

* * *

There is no question a great deal of oil and gas is on the Outer Continental Shelf, but the Democratic Party has been opposed to offshore drilling for a long while, and the Republicans have sometimes joined Democrats. Now it is time for a change. As Ronald Reagan said in his 1980 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention: "Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes, and controls than more energy."

He was talking about the Carter administration, but a quarter-century later the Democratic congressional majority would also like more energy regulation, taxes and controls.

We can buy some time to perfect the renewables, but to do it we need more drilling, more natural gas, more clean coal, and more nuclear power.

And as I discussed yesterday, there is plenty of space to move the rigs out of sight (12-20 miles) and still stay within 50 miles off-shore, so the platforms are near the actual petroleum deposits they are designed to extract.

Let the moratoria die.*

* What a funny way to put it: it sounds like "let death die." Presumably "death" is the root meaning for "moratorium."

Black Gold in the Golden State

Who knew that the drilling platform I used to look at in Long Beach Harbor as a child—that exuberantly artificial island lit up with lights and featuring palm trees and fake waterfalls—is the third-most-productive set of oil rigs in the U.S.? It's only exceeded by one in East Texas, and the Prudhoe Bay facility in Alaska.

Gene Maddaus writes about Southern California's oil rigs for the Long Beach Press-Telegram:

We aren't being reminded that oil platforms can be anything but an eyesore, a repeat performance of the rigs off of Santa Barbara, or the Eureka platform south of Long Beach.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's top Democrats remain opposed to new offshore drilling. But a poll last month by the Public Policy Institute of California showed a narrow majority of Californians—51 percent—in favor of offshore drilling, up from 41 percent last year.

Experts disagree on how quickly new offshore drilling could begin, and how much of an effect it would have on gas prices.

But oil industry veterans are adamant that allowing new drilling would help reduce dependence on the Middle East, and that the major oil companies could begin building new platforms almost immediately if the moratorium were lifted.

"They've got all the information in their files right now, and they could start the minute the Sierra Club shuts up," said Mel Wright, a geologist who has worked in the local oil business since the 1950s. "There'd be oil right straight off Venice for sure."

Um, like how far off shore? Visible from land? The article doesn't say, and of course it's a provocative little quote.

Because of the moratorium, such conflicts are dormant and controversies are relatively rare. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling would likely reignite them.

"I've been called everything from a son of a bitch to a liar," said John Carmichael, a retired oil man who has worked on getting approval for slant-drilling projects in Huntington Beach. "All that crap. You just have to smile. We got the permits, but it ain't pretty."

Still, where owners of beachfront property see scenic views and environmentalists see pristine natural habitats, oil geologists tend to see lost opportunities.

"I think we ought to exploit what we can," said Bill Garrison, a retired engineer. "Some people don't like to see a drilling rig operating out there, but it looks great to me."

Again: we are given to believe that new installations would be visible from the shore, which I rather doubt. Mostly, what I hear about are platforms that might be 11-12 miles out to sea. I'd like to know how they would affect surfing in Southern California—because that's a big industry here— and boating, as well. But those who write about this issue seem to want me to believe that the plans are to make them visible. And probably ugly.

Garrison and Wright are both veterans of the largest offshore operation in California - the THUMS oil islands in Long Beach Harbor.

Long Beach's THUMS

The THUMS islands (the acronym stands for Texaco, Humble, Union, Mobil and Shell) are a triumph both of engineering and politics. Long Beach voters approved the project in 1962, after years of controversy, on the condition that they add to the "natural beauty" of the harbor.

For that reason, they are decorated with palm trees and waterfalls and the drill rigs are disguised as condo towers. The operators proudly note they have not spilled a drop of oil since the facility opened in 1965.

The islands—named after Apollo 1 astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White, who died in the Apollo fire, and fellow astronaut Theodore Freeman, killed in a jet crash—draw from the vast Wilmington oil field, which stretches from Seal Beach to Torrance.

Over the last 75 years, it has been the third-most productive field in the United States, behind only Alaska's Prudhoe Bay and [one in] East Texas.

At 10 acres each, the islands can accommodate many more wells than a free-standing platform. More than 1,200 holes have been drilled from the four islands—almost as many as there are under the 27 oil [other] platforms off California combined—and they spread underneath Long Beach Harbor like a vast root system, to a depth of up to 1.5 miles.

They generate about 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Though production is slowly declining, Occidental estimates that the islands will keep generating oil for the next 30 to 50 years.

The rising price of oil may extend the life of the islands further still, by making it economical to explore in more marginal areas.

"The economic environment enables you to take more risks," said Frank Komin, president and general manager of the operation. "Because the price of crude is up, the engineers and geologists have developed a backlog (of potential wells to drill)."

The city of Long Beach, which gets an 8 percent cut of the proceeds, has seen its take increase from $16.6 million last year to $38.9 million this year.

Not bad. Lucky Long Beach.

Occidental is reinvesting much of its share of the revenue in drilling more wells on the islands. There are two rigs on the islands now. In the fourth quarter, Occidental will bring in a third rig to drill even more holes.

Eureka Well Revived

The last offshore facility built in California before the moratorium kicked in was Platform Eureka, nine miles south of the THUMS islands.

The platform is one of four in the Beta Field, a collection of oil that has accumulated in folds along the Palos Verdes Fault, which runs between Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula and runs south out to sea.

"Out to sea." So more platforms could potentially be placed beyond the horizon, out of sight . . . ? The article is illustrated with a photo of the platform, but we don't see it from the shore, so we don't know if it's half-shrouded in mist, like the ones off of Santa Barbara.

Though California's oil platforms were built by major companies with the resources to invest in big projects, almost all are now operated by independent firms that scavenge for profits in small market niches.

"These are tiny little projects inside huge companies, and they don't get the attention they deserve," said Darren Katic, president of Pacific Energy Resources, which now operates Platform Eureka. "We look at old, orphaned assets, and we redevelop them."

When Eureka was shut down, it was owned by Aera, a consortium between ExxonMobil and Shell. The leak was in one of three pipes that run between it and two sister platforms, Ellen and Elly.

Are these other platforms producing right now? The article doesn't say.

Pacific Energy Resources inspected the pipes and determined the other two were still usable, said Steve Liles, the company's operations manager.

"We came up with a phased approach of returning Eureka to production," Liles said. "Since it had been so long since it had been on, you had to show you could still produce it, and get some money flowing to pay for the other phases."

Pacific Energy Resources completed the purchase last year. In April, Eureka started producing oil again. Workers rotate on and off the platform every seven days. The platform is occupied 24 hours a day, and workers sleep in a dormitory.

Because the third pipe between Elly and Eureka is still broken, only eight of Eureka's 31 wells can be used. At 1,000 barrels a day, Eureka is producing just a quarter of what it did when it was shut down.

In the next phase, the company plans to put a sleeve inside the third pipeline, which is almost two miles long, and then restore Eureka to full production. A third phase would entail laying new pipelines in 700 feet of water.

Here, too, the high price of oil has had an impact.

"It's getting you payback quicker," Liles said. "What we thought would take four to five years to pay back, now we can get it paid back in two to three years."

What if we could get more oil off of the California Coast without compromising our pretty, pretty beaches?

I'd like to know.

Gerard: "The Quality of Mercy Is Not Strained."

I think he got that line from that guy who wrote all-in-cliches.

But, yeah: I think Palin will argue for a reduced sentence on the bratty, troubled "man-child." And it will win her votes.

Somehow, everything the other side does is backfiring on 'em. I blame the Rovian mind-beams, which never stopped: even Rove himself role-switched with McCain over the issue of "attack ads" in this campaign. (You remember that, right? In 2004, surrogates for John Kerry and G.W. were each attacking the others' military records, and it was John McCain who told them to just cut it out. But this time, it just makes McCain look more aggressive—in a good way—to have Rove ragging on him. Such an evil genius, that man.)

Now This Is Overdue.

Iraqi women being trained as spies.

On That "Palin-Hacking" Case.

This. Is. Where. I. Get off the bus.

God bless you all, but we went after the media pretty hard for messing with a minor in the case of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter. If this kid is, indeed, 15 years old and troubled, I think he should be prosecuted. But I'm taking the spotlight off of him, and anyone with basic morals should do the same.

And, yes: his mental illness and his age should be taken into account when it's time for sentencing, which must be lenient.

And, yes: what was Sarah thinking? Yahoo? Wasilla High? For a Vice-Presidential candidate? The kid committed a felony, and he stepped over a big line. But Palin should have circled her wagons better than that. (I hope she did, and that she hasn't been actively using the Yahoo account; it could be that this is simply an old account she hadn't had time to delete. We know that there wasn't anything "juicy" on it, so it might be that she just ran out of time.)

UPDATE: Okay. Make that a 20-year-old, mentally unstable chess fanatic. I've been there myself, except for the chess. And the felony.

But, really—can we get away from the "lynch mob" mentality, here?

Another Way Not To Do It.

Robert Stacy:

Liberals annoy me enough already without having them get in my face about what a great guy Obama is.

Be on the lookout for headlines about obnoxious Obama supporters getting punched out by their friends and neighbors.

Is the election over yet?

No, Roger.

It just wasn't worth it to Clinton to go to the rally and share a stage with Palin.

Because:

1) It would be stressful, for very little gain; she's on vacation now. Remember?
2) It could be used against her by her enemies.
3) She has to keep her jury out on Palin, who may be her Presidential rival in four years--or a future ally, as another centrist-feminist pol.
4) SNL jokes aside, the risks of making a gaffe while standing next to the second-most-famous female politician in the country today (or perhaps the first) would be too risky.

I agree that it's difficult to gauge the depth of support for Israel among a lot of leftist-liberals these days—unless they are Christians with evangelical/Charismatic leanings, or practicing Jews. (Non-practicing Jews tend to throw Israel under the bus, watch the bus get blown to pieces by a suicide bomber, and then go out for pizza at an American pizza parlor in NY, Chicago, L.A., or SF—where they feel secure that there won't be any bombs.)

I wish pro-Jewish people would wake up about this, and not just in Florida.

h/t: Insty.

Poindexter Pelosi:

Nope. I don't think it was like Obama's "57 states" (he was just tired that night, the way I saw it).

I think she really is that ignorant. YMMV.

More on that Palin E-Mail Hack.

Over at Malkin.

Extra credit: who wants to guess at the male:female ratio among users of "Anonymous"?

Among the males (which, let's just assume it's 99.99999999, for the purposes of discussion), how many have been laid?

Don't Vote for a Candidate Just Because He's Cute.

Thank, Michelle.

I'll remember that; I was starting to wobble.

Fucking FISA.

Interfering with our fucking privacy.

And, of course, our God-given right to monitor the emails of people we don't like.

Like "Re-Warming a Cold Souffle."

I'm always highly skeptical about these endeavors wherein a writer attempts to take over another's characters and play in his/her sandbox.

Full disclosure: I have, though, been reading the new "Lord Peter Wimsey" mysteries by Jill Paton Walsh. No, they are not Dorothy L. Sayers, because Walsh is too busy being respectful of Sayers' legacy to really do the swashbuckling, experimental kind of writing that Sayers felt free to perform with her own characters.

But Walsh knows the Wimseys in and out, and she's clearly read the short story "Talboys" often enough to have a clear idea how Wimsey's/Vane's home lives would evolve. And her Lord Peter/Harriet Vane books are fun.

Walsh is the glaring exception that proves the rule.

I have to go now: I'm working on a suspense novel about a serial killer whose victims all worked for Disney: in fact, they all (oddly enough) were involved in publishing "Winnie the Pooh" books that turned A.A. Milne's style and wit into mindless, unreadable, ponderous, preachy, children's-lit excrement. With the name "A.A. Milne" on the fucking cover of 'em. As "editor."

Treat the dead with respect; they cannot defend themselves.

Via Lair, who remarks:

Considering that every product of the Guide Milieu since the original radio series was incrementally worse, this one's going to be a rock-bottom ultrastinker.

And, like a sucker, I'll probably buy it.

Obama: Champion of Some Speech

The Washington Times:

Here's how it works. A message goes out over Barack Obama's Web site with the names, phone numbers and e-mails of editors and producers foolish enough to host Obama critics. With Mr. Obama's extensive digital following, and his extensive fund-raising and contact lists, shutting up the Democratic nominee's critics with a fraction of Mr. Obama's millions of supporters is relatively simple. The digital legions plug phone lines, crash servers and intimidate the advertisers of these media outlets. This must be another instance of the "new" politics that Mr. Obama frequently talks about.

. . . . . . . .

"The Action Wire serves as a means of arming our supporters with the facts to take on those who spread lies about Barack Obama and respond forcefully with the truth, whether it's an author passing off fiction as biography, a Web site spreading baseless conspiracy theories or a TV station airing an ad that makes demonstrably false claims," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Tribune.

How Orwellian. Mr. LaBolt defends the very actions that prevent WGN-AM and others from airing the facts, as though obstructionism is an "airing of facts."

Note to the Obama campaign: Informed observers don't get "the facts" only from a political campaign. They read and listen to the independent media outlets - the same outlets the thin-skinned Mr. Obama is currently trying to quash.

Slublog, over at Ace's digs:

McCain may not be perfect, but he's preferable to Obama, who has allowed his mask to slip a bit in the last few weeks. He's a typical machine politician who seems far too comfortable shutting down speech he doesn't like. Is encouraging such thuggery an example of the "community organizing" of which Obama is so proud?

One of the great ironies of this election is that liberals are worshipping a guy who embodies everything they claim to hate about the Bush administration.

Civil liberties for me, but not for thee. What's shocking is that these dirty tricks are being handled by the Obama Campaign, out in the open. Tactics that used to be hidden are now flagrant. Life imitates Monty Python:

It's crazy; how can anyone really consider voting for this guy?

Oh, For Crying Out Loud.

Big-L Libertarians do the darnedest things. (Although, in all fairness, I've got a lot of respect for Wayne Allen Root.)

And what, by the way, do you have to say for yourself now, Mr. Robert Stacy McCain? Still in the tank for Barr?

Meanwhile, I'll be knocking on doors in Nevada, and manning phone banks for your Crazy Cousin John--and had you told me eight months ago that I'd be doing such a thing for him, I would have slapped you.

Hm.

Is Zed looking for a new job?

Or is Muir just trying to make his girl-readers swoon with that suit?

If We Weren't All So Stupid . . .

we'd be able to appreciate what idiots we are.

On Strike Against Poor Energy Policies!

Actually, I'm off playing "junior archeologist" today; my husband voiced that abusive term, "2007 tax forms" (yes; we filed an extension).

"If you really wanted me to be able to lay my hands on stuff like that within forty-eight hours," I told him, "you wouldn't have suggested that we move."

So then I got a Look. That look.

"Okay! Okay."

Posting will be light until (1) the accountants at my three main clients from last year fax duplicate forms over; (2) scrabbling through boxes of papers, I finally become completely incapacitated from an allergic reaction to the dust; or (3) my spouse becomes thoroughly fed up, and shoots me.

I Have Sussed Out. . .

The major problems in the world!

No need to congratulate me; just send me money.

1) Too many bloggers live on the East Coast, and 2) too many bloggers keep normal hours, rather than being night owls.

So sometimes, after 1:00 a.m. out in the Golden State, one is forced to conclude that the entire Atlantic Seaboard is cozy and snug in its little keyboard-free beds, and unlikely to update its web pages with any juicy new goodness.

Which leads to the rather horrific conclusion that perhaps I ought to go to bed.

I will try.

What Are the Worst Threats to the Nation's Success and Prosperity?

Hawkins has a new poll up.

He mentions "nuclear proliferation." I dunno: I mostly want to make sure that we have the biggest nukes. Does that mean that I'm further to the right than John is?

If so, I don't think it's ever happened before . . .

I Have Twitter-Followers . . .

whom I don't know. They don't seem to be bloggers, or blog-readers, or colleagues, or political junkies, or people from my personal life.

Should I follow them? Should I block them?

I mean, there are people I don't know out there, and they are reading my thoughts.

Isn't there something creepy about that?

Is it a violation of my privacy?

I mean, it sounds like these people could be utter strangers. I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'll pull the Twitter account.

Prager.

He's so good.

Even when I disagree with him, he's excellent. I know that because I start to bristle in just the right way—that is to say, I realize he's just made a nice case for the other side on the handful of issues we disagree on—mostly related to sexuality and gender roles, natch. I think I once boycotted him for three months due to some remark he made that appeared to paint women with just too broad a brush [so to speak]. I heard later that he was devastated—Devastated!—that I was absent from his listening audience.

Dennis on that awful Charlie Gibson ambush of Governor Palin:

I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.

It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.

But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.

I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.

I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?

That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"

Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."

And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?

That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.

All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.

Yup. But this time, they really are overplaying their hand.

And Prager isn't even taking the selective video-editing and the camera-angle trick into account.

h/t for the camera-setup link: Insty.

I Was Hoping Someone Would Do This!

Jill Greenberg, getting a taste of her own P-shop medicine:

(Via Doug Ross)

h/t: Vanderleun, who sees The Atlantic as more sinning than sinned-against; I'm not so sure in this particular case, leftward tilt and all.

More of Gerard, on Greenberg.

And yet more Greenberg at The American Digest. And this time, her husband comes to her defense; it isn't pretty, as Gerard fisks him pretty soundly.

Okay. So the House Drilling Hoax Has Been Passed.

I thought we'd escape this one. Son of a bitch.

Now the Gang of Twenty will pass its own slightly less hoaxy but also pretty sucky bill in the Senate, and we'll be off to that energy-dependent future!

Charming.

Off to double-check the numbers, to see if a veto is possible. Of course, Bush would have to locate a pen for that . . . A the H suggests that I send him one, if necessary.

Just damn.

UPDATE: More here.

If Bush vetoes everything, will the clock still run out on the moratoria?

Libertarian Women: Yes, They Are All That Hot.

Jim Manifold:

I submit that Sarah Palin is the most Heinleinian candidate for Vice-President of the United States in this country’s history (indeed, possibly the only one other than Truman in 1944).

Heinliein was so interesting: he was pulpy, libertarian, and fun.

Via Insty.

So, Who's the Real Feminist?

The guy who pays his female staffers earn 83 cents on the male dollar, or the guy whose female staffers earn $1.04?

Anyone? Bueller?

h/t: American Digest.

Next Stop, Golden State.

New York and New Jersey in play?

Thanks, Barry! And thank you, mainstream media!

It's the Economy.

Again.

Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air:

The question . . . really isn’t about reforming Wall Street, but instead reforming Washington. This crisis started because of government interference in lending markets, and it will repeat until government learns to stop dictating lending policy and avoid guaranteeing lenders.

Which campaign truly gets the problem? We probably won’t guess it from the spots they produce over the next few days, so McCain and Sarah Palin will have to make sure they make it part of their stump speeches. McCain got it right in his two . . . essays, and he needs to keep explaining it on the campaign trail.

John McCain on Fannie and Freddie:

Fannie and Freddie are the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability. Fannie Mae employees deliberately manipulated financial reports to trigger bonuses for senior executives. Freddie Mac manipulated its earnings by $5-billion. They've misled us about their accounting, and now they are endangering financial markets. More than two years ago, I said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose." Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists succeeded; Congress failed to act. They've stayed in business, grown, and profited mightily by showering money on lobbyists and favors on the Washington establishment. Now the bill has come due.

What should be done? We are stuck with the reality that they have grown so large that we must support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the current rough spell. But if a dime of taxpayer money ends up being directly invested, the management and the board should immediately be replaced, multimillion dollar salaries should be cut, and bonuses and other compensation should be eliminated. They should cease all lobbying activities and drop all payments to outside lobbyists. And taxpayers should be first in line for any repayments.

Even with those terms, sticking Main Street Americans with Wall Street's bill is a shame on Washington. If elected, I'll continue my crusade for the right reform of the institutions: making them go away.

Zonker—the world needs grownups.

So, Let's See. We've Got Three Energy Alternatives

Two of 'em just lead us back into economic quicksand:

1) The Pelosi House plan, 1434, which she is trying to ramrod through today. This would raise taxes, and effectively prevent any new drilling, via a) forcing oil companies to develop the leases they now have on non-productive land, and increase their losses therefrom, before they are permitted to drill in areas that have oil; b) setting the default for platforms and rigs at 100 miles offshore, where the oil isn't, and creating a dis-incentive for states to cut that in half, by denying them any share in revenue from said platforms and rigs; c) taking the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off the table. In addition, it contains an earmark for public transportation in the state of New York, which might or might not be a worthy cause, but certainly isn't being approached in anything like a democratic fashion. (Ah; after releasing the bill at 9:30 last night, they may allow three hours of debate on it today before attempting to railroad it again. Classy.)

2) Then, we have the "Gang of 20" Senate proposal co-sponsored by ten nominally GOP Senators (Dole [NC], Collins [ME], Graham [SC], Thune [SD], Corker [TN], Isakson [GA], Chambliss [GA], Sununu [NH], Warner [VA] and Coleman [MN]). This is slightly less crappy, in that it would permit some drilling 50 miles off off Florida's West Coast (in the Eastern Gulf), but still bans drilling off of the Pacific Coast. It allows states to share in the income from domestic fossil-fuel development, so that 100 miles could turn into 50 miles. But it still limits us to the Eastern Gulf and some parts of the Atlantic, so we'll still have shutdowns during hurricane season.

3) Then we have House and Senate versions of comprehensive energy reform, which are being blocked by Nancy "I Need a Big Jet" Pelosi, and Harry Reid, respectively.

And our legislators wonder why they collectively "enjoy" a 9% approval rating from their constituents.

If we can't do any better than (1) and (2), they shouldn't pass anything with the word "energy" in it at all. They should wait two more weeks, and let the clock run out on the existing moratoria. If the government has to shut down briefly, they should cite the embattled economy and the ongoing energy crisis, and point to the Democratic hijinks as the reason.

UPDATE: Margaret Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation discusses the economic ramifications of energy development in a podcast here below.

She believes that that opening more areas for drilling would have send a signal to the market very quickly, and exert rapid downward pressure on oil prices. So we might get some immediate relief from a decent energy bill, and we would certainly be helping ourselves in the medium-term. (Long-term relief, of course, requires that the new technologies become viable—and they will. We have engineers working on electric, hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles now, and researching alcohol-based liquid fuels, better batteries, hydrogen possibilities, and the generation of cleaner electricity. This is all happening around the clock; it's just that we just don't know which alternatives will become most cost-effective, and when they will become practical. We need to let that race go on with as little interference as possible.)

h/t on the "Gang of 20" names: Double-Plus Undead, via Ace.

Here's the podcast:

"If You Build It, They Will Come."

At least, straight women will, if you've got a statue outside of N.Z. Bear outside that PorkBusters Museum.

Not sure what his wife will think of it, though. 'Course, she'll probably disapprove more of the earmark than the attempt to immortalize her husband.

Shocker! More Checks Being Written by the Entertainment Industry to Obama, Rather Than McCain!

Stacy's covering it.

I can guarantee you that more money would be going to the McCain campaign and its allies if it weren't for the unofficial blacklist against anyone right-of-center out here, and the ongoing effort to "out" anyone who might send any funds to anyone with an "R" after his/her name.

"Okay, About That Violation of the Logan Act . . ."

". . . It didn't go down the way McCain says it did. My felony violation of the Logan Act unfolded in an entirely different fashion."

What a relief.

The Democrats Are Trying to Slam Their Bogus Energy Bill Through the House

They release it last night in the middle of the night; 270 pages or so. They're trying to force a vote on their faux energy bill in the House, while Pelosi continues to block a vote on the "all of the above" bill that might actually get something done on this issue (6566).

Rep Hastings from Washington state is talking about how not only does the fake bill effectively take most of the U.S. petro reserves off the table, but even as it subsidizes some renewables, it discriminates against hydro-power.

I love the fact that the opposition wants to establish timelines for inventions in regard to renewables, when in fact there is a race going on to make the breakthroughs necessary to make biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-power cost-effective.

Once Again . . .

Florida has spoken.

The dolphins and pelicans that swim just off Caladesi Island's linen-white sands along Florida's western coast help draw almost 80 million visitors and $57 billion to the ``Sunshine State'' each year.

As few as 50 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, energy companies say an even bigger prize waits to be taken from the seabed: oil and natural gas that might wean the U.S. off its costly dependence on resources from potentially unfriendly or unstable countries.

After opposing offshore drilling for a quarter century as a threat to their lucrative coastline, a majority of Floridians now favor it, polls show. Four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline has hit voters' pocketbooks and psyches, even as the U.S. government says offshore drilling would have a negligible effect on oil supply and price.

At a Hess gas station on the mainland near Caladesi, Gerald Walker says he used to be against extracting oil off Florida, until prices soared. ``Drilling? At $3.64 a gallon, I'm all for it,'' says the 60-year-old accountant.

``Drill, baby, drill!'' is the Republican Party's rallying cry, and presidential hopeful Senator John McCain of Arizona is gaining traction with it, even in this coastal swing state. An increasing number of Floridians side with him when told he advocates expanded drilling to drive down prices, says Brad Coker of Washington-based Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. Mason-Dixon's is one of several polls conducted this summer that showed at least 6 in 10 Floridians now support drilling.

National Security

``It's become a national-security issue because of wars in the Mideast and Russia's newfound bravado and aggression,'' Coker says.

McCain, 72, was 7 percentage points ahead of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, 47, of Illinois, in a Florida poll released Sept. 11 by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut.

In the 2004 election, President George W. Bush beat Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts by 5 percentage points in Florida. Voters in Pinellas County, home to Caladesi and nearby St. Petersburg, split 50-50 between the two men.

The U.S. burns through about 21 million barrels of oil a day. Almost 60 percent is imported, mainly from Africa, the Persian Gulf and Latin America. Some of the sellers are openly hostile; Venezuela expelled the U.S. ambassador last week. Oil industries in other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, have been targets of violence.

I don't think anyone wants drilling done off of either of Florida's coasts in that will diminish its beauty of have deleterious effects on its wildlife. But if I hear that figure one more time about how we have "only 3%" of the world's petroleum reserves, I think I'm going to scream, because 1) it isn't accurate [it's based on old surveys done with outdated technology], and 2) it's not a question of how much we have "in reserve," in the ground, but rather how much we are developing now during this critical 10-20-year period as we race to the finish line on nonrenewables. We just need to buy more time as we perfect biofuels, clean coal, electric/flex fuel cars, and make better use of natural gas.

Anyway, despite the drumbeat of "it won't help, it won't help" coming from the left, Florida seems to "get it," and McCain is ahead further now in the Sunshine State than G.W. was in 2004.

Three thoughts, Florida:

1) No matter what the media say, or whom they call it for, vote this November. I don't want anyone in the panhandle staying home because of anything they hear from the MSM;

2) Whenever you hear the phrase "50 miles," remember that it only takes 12-13 miles for an oil rig or platform to be invisible from shore. Instead of huge arbitrary miileage figures, it would be better to simply have all platforms and rigs kept out of sight of the beaches, and placed so that they do not interfere with boating, fishing, and diving industries, and do not have an adverse impact on marine life;

3) Hang tough. Every dollar we don't send to "our friends, the Saudis" buys us more time to get our renewables" act together. And it's one less dollar that might find its way to a suicide bomber with his or her eye on Orlando.

Day by Day

. . . is rolling in the long green. Yippee!

I think that means there's hope for the rest of the undercapitalized blogosphere . . . . Coolness.

Status Report on Energy Supplies from the Gulf

It looks like if we can be especially frugal in our use of petroleum and natural gas for the next two weeks, we'll be in good shape.

Apparently there is a small amount of natural gas coming out of the Gulf, though most of those pipelines remain shut down.

Most refineries, of course, are concentrated in that region, so of course that will keep the gasoline supplies slow for a bit longer.

The good news is that there appears to be little or no actual damage to the existing oil rigs in the Gulf; apparently all the reconstruction/bracing that was conducted after Katrina/Rita was successful in further protecting the facilities there.

But I with so much of our petroleum supplies coming from the Gulf, I could really go for some OCS drilling right about now. Can I get an "amen" on that?

So, I'll be doing my part by walking to Ralph's for a bit longer . . .

Here's some footage from a news conference held by Red Cavaney, CEO and president of API, about the hurricane’s aftermath and industry efforts to recover:

Uh, Senator . . .

This doesn't make you look good, you know.

Sexism Behind Every Bush . . .

Oh, please. Stop!

Yes: Hillary Clinton experienced sexism in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Yes: Sarah Palin experienced sexism (of a particularly vicious type) in the weeks after McCain named her as his running mate.

But: not every attack on Palin is a result of sexism; mostly, right now, it's driven by blind fear. If she were a young, good-looking fresh-faced man of any race (say, JFK), they'd still be looking into every expenditure, every per diem, every banned-book-that-wasn't-banned.

They tried to focus on biology, on the fact that she's either too feminine, or too masculine, or a tomboy, or an airhead, or whatever. Now it's just scattergun time, because the perception is that she's breathed new life into whathisface's—I mean, McCain's—campaign.

Carly: the Saturday Night Live skit was brilliant. The comedy wasn't about Sarah Palin, either. It was about Hillary Clinton, and feminine archetypes (call 'em stereotypes if you like).

Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impression rested on the accent, and on making Palin into a bubblehead. But Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton got to do the heavy lifting, as she always does. Sure: she got to play the spurned, jealous woman. But she also got to play that person who is being goaded by a series of circumstances right to the edge of losing her temper, and barely keeping it under control. It was a thing of beauty.

Monday, Bloody Monday.

I'm not an economist; I got nothin'.

Except to get the government out of the way.

And maybe do some drillin'.*

There is the McCann-centric plan for fixing the economy, of course: hire yourselves a quality cartoon writer, or a terrific copyeditor/proofreader/fact-checker!

* And all the rest: flex-fuel cars, biofuels, clean coal, natural gas, some wind, a little solar. Some French-style nuclear power. But also . . . lots of drillin'.

Jill Greenberg: Wiki-Lock

For some reason, Greenberg's Wikipedia entry is locked to new/unregistered users.

The one that got away.

Wonder what that's all about.

I hope she doesn't have any self-portraits online, or someone is liable to start P-shopping her. Only it might be elephant-poop raining down on her head, rather than the monkey-shit she photoshopped onto the picture of McCain. Or perhaps it'll be moose turds. Sky's the limit, really.

These dyed-in-the-wool Democrats? Experts at mobilizing the veterans' votes.

And some of the print media are impoloding. Average Americans can only be manipulated up to a point. After that, one has to step off the gravy train.

UPDATE: Gerard continues to follow and update this story. I think those of us who have worked in print publishing—particularly on high-end four-color monthly titles, for which the standards can be quite exacting, and the hours, long—have a special feeling of empathy for The Atlantic over this scandal. And though it will be linked in a lot of people's minds, this affair isn't really related to the Atlantic website's carrying of Andrew Sullivan's blog.

The Greenberg photography scandal has to do with the fact that The Atlantic's Editor, James Bennett; Deputy Editor, Scott Stossel; Art Director, Jason Treat; Publisher, David Bradley; Circulation Director, Dave Bergeman (whom I have worked with; he's a nice guy, and very honest)—and its entire art, production, editorial, advertising, online, and promotional staffs—were stabbed in the back by a vendor who betrayed their trust.

Jill Greenberg is the person who puts razor blades in apples on Halloween. She is the reason we dare not trust our neighbors, have trouble doing business on a handshake, and look behind ourselves when we're walking alone on city streets.

This is not a partisan issue—though it will be linked to media bias by many. This is, at the end of the day, a human decency issue.

"Should I Worry About Becoming a Slave Again?"

I know everyone's mad at Whoopi Goldberg for asking that question, but she was simply articulating a common fear that people have about strict constructionism, and it's a fear that right-wingers must address, particularly if we are going to assert that as a matter of law, it might be more appropriate if abortion were to be decided by the states, rather than by Federal overreach.

And it is a stickier issue than people like to admit.

What Whoopi is asking here:

is "how far do you want to turn back the hands of time?"

And whenever we talk about how we want the Constitution interpreted with the Founding Fathers' intentions factored in, we're going to get asked that question by the "living Constitution" crowd.

I think we should get asked that question by the "living Constitution" crowd.

Because the way I see is—as someone who has never set foot in a law school—the dirty little secret is that even strict constructionists wink at a certain kind of Federal "overreach," especially of the "Brown v. Board of Education" type. Because that same clique of crazy guys who wrote the original Constitution without spilling any of each other's blood managed to put together that "Declaration of Independence" thingie, which declared that "all men are created equal" [clearing the way for "all men and women are created equal," English being a Germanic language—and "man" being German for "one," the individual, gender aside: the "smallest minority"].

So strict constructionism has to do with intent, and we have a lot of supporting documentation on the Founding Fathers' intent—which was to create a new type of freedom for the individual, by limiting the power of the State. They had a vision, and it was a capitalist, individualistic vision.

The problem in comparing abortion "rights" with other types of rights is that in the particular case of abortion there are two individuals involved, and their rights/obligations have to be balanced against each other.

That is why abortion is problematic, and could well at some point be returned to the states to decide. It is also why gay marriage is inevitable, whether or not we go through a couple of decades of calling it "civil unions" or not. (Or, as I would prefer, call all legal unions "civil unions," and make them all legally equal. Then people could do the church part if they liked, and call 'em marriages if they liked. And no one would have to use the word "marriage" for anyone else's "civil union" if they didn't want to. And we could all stop arguing about that.)

Once one looks at the Constitution through the prism of the Declaration of Independence, it's easy to see that constructionism is not going to roll back civil rights (again—unless you see abortion as a civil right, which is all well and good, but you got there [and I am pro-choice] by rolling over the rights of the fetus).

This clip apparently upset a lot of people.* I thought it was fine; McCain came off very well, and in order to do that he didn't have to pretend not to be religious, or pretend that Constructionists didn't pose a danger to Roe v. Wade.

He just had to be himself, and he was funny. People always forget that McCain's funny, and it catches 'em off-guard.

* Including Allah, whose answer on abortion would be a Constitutional Amendment. Ouch. I'd much rather see that one determined by the states, if Roe v. Wade ever were ever to be overturned.

If the U.S. Really Wanted to Improve its Standing in the World . . .

. . . it would do something about this habit of rogue legislators, former Presidents, grievance-industry "activists," Presidential candidates, and Hollywood celebrities to go around attempting to make foreign policy on their own.

I mean, I do realize that foreign governments must meet with people like Pelosi (third in line for the Presidency) and Obama (one of two people who might become President this coming January). It would be rude of them not to. And presumably our actual ambassadors/the White House make it clear that they cannot speak for the Executive Branch when they go on these little rogue missions.

But why waster their time? Why go out of your way to make the U.S. look weak and fragmented? I know why: Pelosi and Obama—and all of them—were acting in their self-interest, rather than placing a high importance on U.S. security.

But it's a sad thing that people would undermine their own country in this way.

This Is Clever

According to Stacy, McCain and Palin will be campaigning separately, so they can cover more ground.

But Obama could copy that—go to some states himself, and delegate the others to that charismatic guy he picked as a running mate . . . whatshisface, who's actually been in the Senate longer than McCain has been alive. Very dynamic speaker; not afraid to play the "I'm smarter than you, so there" card. Likes the sound of his own voice.

That guy. Joe something.

Drill, Baby—Drill.

Paul Kane at WaPo:

House and Senate Democrats have been assembling different proposals for the past few weeks after absorbing months of Republican criticism as gas prices soared. Under pressure from moderate Democrats fearful of November election losses, Pelosi took the first formal step Wednesday by unveiling a proposal that would open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling at least 100 miles offshore. If governors and state legislatures agree, drilling off each state's coast would be allowed 50 miles from shore.

Pelosi had previously suggested opening only portions of the southeastern Atlantic coast and some of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling, but ultimately offered to allow drilling off both coastlines. The eastern gulf off Florida's west coast would remain off-limits.

Under the Pelosi bill, scheduled for a vote Tuesday, the federal government would not share royalties with the states, devoting the money instead toward federal funding for renewable energy resources. Taxes on oil companies would be increased, with that revenue also going to alternative energy sources.

A separate proposal, developed by about 20 Senate Democrats and Republicans, also would move the drilling boundary to 100 miles offshore, with states given the option to set it at 50 miles. But under that plan, new Atlantic drilling would be limited to Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The Senate plan would allow no drilling in the Pacific.

In a key difference with Pelosi's bill, the Senate legislation would allow new drilling off Florida's west coast.

Some industry experts question the effect of the proposals, citing federal studies that show that more than 80 percent of known oil reserves are inside the 50-mile limit and therefore unavailable. Very little is known about oil reserves beyond 100 miles. Waters off almost the entire Pacific coast -- where all three governors oppose drilling at the 50-mile barrier -- is considered too deep for drilling 100 miles offshore.

"You would just open a door to an empty room at the end of a very long hallway," said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, an organization funded by the oil industry. Kennedy also said that, without some sort of revenue sharing for state governments, there would be little incentive for states to approve additional drilling.

With revenue sharing, Virginia and Georgia would quickly approve offshore drilling at the 50-mile mark, Kennedy and some environmental experts predicted. The biggest target for new drilling at the 100-mile mark would be in the Georges Bank, off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, where cod fishing was once the dominant industry. Oil and natural gas already are extracted not far away, in Canadian waters.

The most sought-after area, however, is the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida's western coast. Drilling rigs already operate in the gulf off Houston, New Orleans and Mississippi, giving oil producers a near-certain guarantee of finding oil near Florida. It also would be less costly for producers to move their production and delivery systems to the other side of the gulf than to place new rigs in previously unexplored regions of the Atlantic or Pacific.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has vowed to filibuster any legislation that would open the waters off Florida's western beach resorts, to protect his state's tourism industry and the military testing areas for Navy and Air Force bases in the region. "If they want to get something done, they have to deal with me," Nelson said in an interview Friday.

Republicans have been skeptical about Pelosi's proposal, because environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have endorsed it as "a chance for clean energy gains that would represent a giant step in solving our energy crisis."

Many lawmakers privately predict the energy legislation will stall in parliamentary gridlock, but Congress has its own statutory deadline to deal with by Sept. 30. At that point, the annual congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires. President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling early this summer.

That means Pelosi has barely two weeks to forge a compromise or face the end of the moratorium. That would allow drilling within three miles off all coasts. Faced with such a predicament, Democrats are increasingly likely to add their new drilling legislation to a catchall spending bill that will fund most of the government into next year.

Such a decision would dare Bush to veto the legislation and shut down the federal government over the GOP's preferred drilling plan. But if Republicans accepted the compromise, it would lead to increased offshore oil drilling under the watch of a Democratic Congress, a concept that was unfathomable just six weeks ago.

Well, we're getting closer. I still think 50 miles is too far; IIRC half that distance will keep facilities from being visible from the beach in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

There must be some revenue-sharing with the States, or they'll have no reason to sign on.

And whatever we come up with cannot forbid drilling off of Florida's West Coast; only set strict Environmental Impact rules (which we'll probably need to follow in California: tourism is a big deal in a lot of our beach towns).

Fortunately, we know from Katrina that these facilities can take a huge amount of pounding without spilling any oil; they are better-designed these days than they ever have been.

Give up nothing, Folks: don't take ANWR off the table. Instead of a strict 50-miles rule, let states collaborate on their own strategies for mitigating environmental impact, and let them keep some of the proceeds. And make sure that the R&D being subsidized is for a healthy proportion of alcohol-based fuels such as methanol and ethanol. Finally, make sure there are incentives to build new nuclear plants: if electricity is one of our solutions, let's make more of it available, and not just with wind farms.

The main thing, O my congresscritters, is not to lock yourselves into a bad deal; after all, we may be able to get a better deal next year. Don't take any promising areas off the table in a way that subsequent congresses cannot revoke. Just get us started.

Goodbye, David Foster Wallace.

I took you on my honeymoon; you were just what I needed.

That sounded wrong. I mean to say, I read most of Infinite Jest on a cruise in Alaska while I was recovering from an overwrought wedding. The book was very nice, though there was an awful lot of it.

Did you ever do anything about that attention-span problem? I really dug the footnotes; really.

* * *

Overheard:

A: I was in a bad way again on Friday night.

B: Are you okay?

A: I'm fine. I didn't think about The Bad Thing; I just threw up.

B: Throwing up is better than The Bad Thing.

* * *

Why didn't he just puke his guts out? This way is so . . . permanent. Nearly irreversible.

* * *

I keep finding out that circumstances push other people further than I will allow myself to be pushed. One time I was having one of those "make sure I don't do anything stupid" nights and the very same evening a friend of a friend swallowed a bottle of pills and had to get her stomach pumped.

* * *

I did discover that if you have a strong stomach, and you only barf every several years when afflicted by a bad case of influenza, there are abdominal muscles that simply don't get worked very often. No pain, no gain.

But I have concluded that it's not hormones; I think it's . . . sunspots.

It's all about . . . well, you know.

* * *

David Gates, in Newsweek:

In Wallace's last book, a story collection called Oblivion—oh, now we get it—the self-tormenting protagonist of "Good Old Neon," an ad man who has felt like a "fraud" his whole life (and who used to know one "David Wallace" when he was a kid) swallows antihistamines and drives his car into a bridge abutment. And in Wallace's commencement address to the class of 2005 at Kenyon College, he dragged in—if not exactly out of left field, certainly out of left center—"the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master . . . It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger."

It will take a while for all these apparent "clues" in Wallace's work to stop pulsing like neon signs when we stumble on them. But that work will outlast the garish particulars of his death. In years to come, no one will be able to dismiss it as the symptomatic productions of a depressive head case: the dread to which he gave artistic shape is too real, too universal. True, Wallace was a head case, but in the sense that we're all head cases: encased in our skulls, and sealed off from our fellow humans, we have worlds upon worlds of teeming, unruly sensations, emotions, attitudes, opinions and-that chillingly neutral word-information. "What goes on inside," Wallace wrote in "Good Old Neon," is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at a given instant."

Yeah. But that's no excuse; it's still an astonishingly selfish thing to do.

* * *

Marion Ettinger, the Los Angeles Times.

The Salon interview.

And the infamous/illustrious Ruth Reichl published him once, in Gourmet. Which is kind of cool.

The New York Press.

* * *

One thing, though: I think God secretly forgives; it's the people left behind who may or may not be able to accomplish that.

Willie Brown . . .

on what he calls the "Palin vs. Obama" contest:

Sarah Palin may indeed be president someday.

. . . [T]here is the question of how to boost the turnout in key states.

Palin has become an instant heroine with the Wal-Mart crowd in Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania and other critical states. And Wal-Marters are a lot more likely to volunteer or show up at the polls than the younger people Obama has attracted.

Right now, the best shot Obama has of winning is to get out and register 12 million or so unregistered blacks, especially in the South. But he has got to do it without anyone noticing.

Palin will have no problem signing up new voters in her group. She can go to the Mountain Dew 250 in Talladega, Ala., and pitch for votes, and no one will bat an eye.

But Obama can't go to a meeting called by Al Sharpton to get out the black vote, because if he does there will be a backlash.

He's got to do it under the radar.

I don't think anyone would mind if (1) Sharpton hadn't pulled so many dishonest maneuvers over the years, or (2) if the media weren't so far in the tank for the Big O. [Oh, hush with your dirty jokes.] That's where the "backlash" comes from; it ain't a black thing.

Re: The Atlantic, and Other Publishing Mishaps

Gerard has the whole story of how The Atlantic got screwed by freelance photographer Jill Greenberg during and after her McCain cover shoot.

I'm sticking it out for right now with The Atlantic; I do not believe the editors and art directors who work for a publication should "vet" their independent contractors on the basis of their politics (though they do, all the time, in the other direction—I'll let that pass—one must go along to get along, and if you cannot laugh at the "we hate Bush" jokes, I guess you must get out of the kitchen—and I'm out, all right).

If the folks at The Atlantic ever use Jill Greenberg again, however, I'm cancelling my subscription, and taking their site out of my bookmark collection.

If they keep Andrew Sullivan on among their bloggers, and/or do not take on any center-right bloggers whatsoever to balance out all of their center-left-to-left-left bloggers in the next six months, I'm cancelling. (And no disrespect is intended to their stable of weblogs; other than crazy-Ivan Sullivan, I like their crew a lot: McArdle, Coates, and Fallows, especially; but taken as a whole, the ship is . . . listing).

And if I continue to go to their website only to see that two of the five revolving "top stories" are critical about Sarah Palin—and none are critical of Democrats, and the cartoon is also anti-Palin—I'm cancelling.

I can take reading contrary points of view; in fact, I want it. I want intellectual honesty. I want challenge.

What I do not want, however, it to subsidize—with money, circ numbers for the paper version, or uniques for the online edition—a publication that wants to shade information all in one direction. (Unless that is its clear editorial mission, as with National Review, Weekly Standard—or, for that matter, The New Republic—or even, let's face it— Time or Newsweek.)

McCain's people should have been suspicious when Greenberg picked the "bad" angle on McCain that exaggerated his enlarged gland to make him look ugly.

Between egregious behavior from an Atlantic freelancer to extreme bias in interviewing and downright malevolence in editing at ABC, it hasn't been a great week for the mainstream media.

Hey, Guys? The audience is listening.

And if you've just cancelled your subscription to Us because of their slimy visual hit-job on Sarah Palin last week, the folks at People want your money: Check out the McCains on the current cover, and People's visible archives, which show clearly profiles of both the Clintons and the Reagans as cover stories—the subtext being, we aren't in this to take sides; we serve the readers rather than ourselves.

I bought a copy to have and to hold, just on general principle. I'm not a big celebrity-culture girl, but one wants to reward those who are making an honest attempt to keep their politics out of the workplace.

UPDATE: Ace is outraged!

Geez: Do you have any idea how complex an operation a high-end magazine is, Buddy? Have you any notion how many different editors, circulation bigwigs, publishers, and the like get "veto power" over a magazine cover?

Sez Acey:

Vanderleun has a different take on this than I do. He seems to know more "facts," but so what? I'm more confident in my assertions. That's all that really matters.

He puts the blame on Greenberg. I say nuts to that. There was no "betrayal" of The Atlantic here. She did what her masters wanted. She only betrayed them by letting the cat out of the bag.

Sure, Excitable Ace. The photo editor probably said, "take the out-takes home with you. Play around with P-Shop. And don't forget to blog about it."

FWIW, last month's issue featured portraits of both McCain and Obama, and McCain's was for more flattering.

We don't fight flagrant, dishonest bias with flagrant, dishonest bias of our own . . . do we? But don't mind Ace; he's experiencing "Andrew Derangement System."

On the other hand, sometimes The Lord of Reasonably Priced Spirits turns his evil powers to the cause of good: here's a collaboration between him and one of his "Morons," Lee.

Little did Jill Greenberg realize what she was unleashing upon the world—nor how much the world would love it.

UPDATE 2: Michelle suggests that they should have Googled Greenberg before using her, though that might prove impractical over the long-run: as it is, it takes a lot of time to look through all those porfolios. I could see that someone might know that this woman was a staunch Democrat, but also be happy with her shots of centrist Republicans such as Schwarzenegger, and conclude that she could handle an assignment that involved another centrist Republican.

It's my hope that no respectable magazine hires her after the way she betrayed The Atlantic. Even those who share her politics, or mainstream mags (but I repeat myself).

Save the Shooting Sports

Most of my gunwriter friends have been talking about this for a long time: how do we save the shooting sports? Most of the time, the answer I hear is, "introduce women to hunting and shooting." (This is one of the reasons I've written several variations on "how to pick your first gun" for women, and "how to turn your wife on to shooting" for men.)

During the Clinton Administration the outdoor industry was feeling embattled; later, the gun-grabbing mania subsided for a variety of reasons, though getting urban people of either gender into shooting has been an ongoing challenge.

But it turns out that all the outdoor industry needed for its XX-outreach was the right face:

Via Insty.

For a list of "woman-friendly" hunting and firearms courses near you, call your local chapter of the NRA—and/or check in with your state's department of fish and game for other instruction resources. (Yes: even Rhode Island has a department of fish and game; take it from the chick who used to put together Hunting's annual guide to hunting seasons for all the states—and all the Canadian provinces. Every state or province, every species. Primitive arms seasons. Bowhunting days. All fees and permits required. In eight-point type. Helvetica.

You might also consider subscribing to Women & Guns.

The site for my former employer, Petersen's Hunting, is here, but please note that it's sound-enabled.)

Women Who Love Publications Too Much . . .

I've been considering ending it with The Atlantic. Certainly, the magazine's website is cluttered with various tidbits of anti-McCain/anti-Palin propaganda (such as this uncharacteristically idiotic James Fallows post about Palin and "The Bush Doctrine").* The editors' choice of a photographer for this month's issue is a disgrace. And the continuing presence of Andrew Sullivan on their roster of bloggers is an ongoing black eye, and an insult to their readers' intelligence.

I have started to fantasize about leaving them for another print magazine, like National Geographic or Popular Mechanics. (And, yes: I must have one print magazine; web access from my bedroom can be iffy, and I don't like reading myself to sleep with a laptop, in any event.)

But then, The Atlantic is still running Christopher Hitchens, who continues to call 'em as he sees 'em.

And then there is this priceless Benjamin Schwarz piece about Christian Lander, the man behind the legendary blog Stuff White People Like.

Schwarz:

For those whose “politics” are almost entirely gestural, not only do the personal and the political insidiously entwine, so do the aesthetic and the political. The logic, born in college dining halls and now embraced by people well into adulthood, that holds that donning a colored plastic bracelet or a kaffiyeh is an act of personal and political self-definition can and does attach the same significance to snowboarding and to selecting one’s iPod playlist. When everything is “political,” of course, nothing is.

Perhaps I should give SWPL a look; I guess I've always been put off by the name, seeing the name "white" as a racial designation rather than a cultural one. But Benjamin Schwarz makes it clear that Landers is just going that final ironic mile:

Lander’s most entertaining and spot-on entries dissect White People’s elaborate sumptuary codes, their dogged pursuit of their own care and feeding, and their efforts to define themselves and their values through their all-but-uniform taste and accessories (Sedaris/Eggers/The Daily Show/the right indie music/Obama bumper stickers/uh, The New Yorker).

So why call this group “White People”? Lander is almost certainly being mischievous. After all, dismissing something or someone as “so white” has long been a favorite put-down among those who like to view themselves as right-thinking, hierarchy-defying nonconformists—that is, White People.

My issue with these "nonconformists," of course, is that they tend to buy their politics "off the rack." Which is a fine place to get one's clothing, but not the best venue for approaching the moral or administrative issues of the day.

Currently, The Atlantic and I are in counseling, and attempting to use "active listening" techniques to improve our communication styles.

So there is hope.

* Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase "the Bush doctrine," and points out that there are four separate incarnations of it: something that Palin may or may not know, but Charlie Gibson and James Fallows apparently do not. I tend to wonder whether Fallows' iffy internet connection led to him only seeing or reading the heavily edited version of the Palin interview, in which ABC went out of its way to make her look bad. It is also worth noting that Krauthammer has, in the past, been sharply critical of Governor Palin.

Gents Who Lunch

Barack and Bill had a two-hour lunch meeting this past Thursday, presumably while Obama was in New York City for the 9/11 memorial ceremony at Ground Zero with McCain; WJC expert John Harris speculates about what kind of words the Big Guy might have had for the newbie that day, including these:

Stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking.

In his cool treatment of both Clintons over the summer, and in the way he allowed expectations among Democrats and the news media to build, Obama has acted as if he were on a glide path to a relatively easy victory.

Clinton knows this attitude is delusional. Someone who grew up in Arkansas as the state — and much of the South — was growing more conservative can never forget how hard it is for Democrats to win in what for the past two generations has been a center-right country. Democrats have only won more than 50 percent in a presidential election there twice since 1944. Republicans have done it seven times.

One important thing to remember: Obama has never faced a serious race against a Republican. His important victories in Illinois and this year have all been against other Democrats in nomination battles.

Some Clinton allies say this may tend to warp his perspective about how politics works and what kind of issues and stories matter in a presidential context. Bottom line: it does not matter who is getting better coverage in The New York Times.

Read the whole thing.

"This Is Not Really Happening . . .

You bet your life it is."*

The left — both at home and abroad — while always prattling on about championing the little guy, seldom include the unwritten caveat to such support, specifically, provided the little guy shuts up, learns his place, and doesn’t try to crash any of our parties.

* With apologies to Tori Amos.

Super. Genius.

From Iowahawk:

hammer hammer hammer

Heh! Poor Sarah, my unsuspecting brood sow! By the time you realize my expertly-painted dinosaur detour was a ingenious ruse, I will have you trapped out here on the Bridge to Nowhere. Then for the plunge into the ravenous pit of pumas! Hah hah hah hah!

HONNNNK HONNNNNK

What the...? Yipes!

FWWEEEEEEEEEEE....

praypraypray

...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....

** plouffe **

pant.. pant... pant...

grrrfghh....

ohno...

RRROWWLROWLLL

Not the ratings! Stay away from the ratings!!

shhhrrredd shriiipppth

Sorry, Folks.

I'm nauseous, hormonal and just feel crappy.

No, it isn't the flu; no fever. Just some kind of peri-menopausal thingie. I'm fine, but I'm taking another day off.

On the other hand, Gerard is on fire. So go read him his entire main page; lots of bloggy goodness there.

How Many Governors

. . . shop at Out of the Closet?

I Solved This Problem

. . . by not allowing myself to develop iPhone lust. That, plus poverty, have prevented me from getting an iPhone.

Of course, late last-possible minute adopters like me benefit directly from the struggles of the early adopters.

Burning Man: Home Edition

Via Mikal, who says it's uncanny in its accuracy:

Pay an escort of your affectional preference subset to not bathe for five days, cover themselves in glitter, dust, and sunscreen, wear a skanky neon wig, dance close naked, then say they have a lover back home at the end of the night.

Tear down your house. Put it in a truck.
Drive 10 hours in any direction. Put the house back together.

Invite everyone you meet to come over and party.
When they leave, follow them back to their homes,
drink all their booze, and break things.

Stack all your fans in one corner of the living room.
Put on your most fabulous outfit.
Turn the fans on full blast.
Dump a vacuum cleaner bag in front of them.

Buy a new set of expensive camping gear.
Break it.

Lean back in a chair until that point where you’re just
about to fall over, but you catch yourself at the last
moment. Hold that position for 9 hours.

Only use the toilet in a house that is at least 3 blocks away.
Drain all the water from the toilet.
Only flush it every 3 days.
Hide all the toilet paper.

Set your house thermostat so it's 50 degrees for the first
hour of sleep and 100 degrees the rest of the night.

Cut, burn, electrocute, bruise, and sunburn various
parts of your body. Forget how you did it.
Don't go to a doctor.

"Downsize" last year's camp by adding two geodesic domes,
a new sound system, art car, and 20 newbies.

Don't sleep for 5 days.
Take a wide variety of hallucinogenic/emotion altering drugs.
Pick a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend.

Spend a whole year rummaging through thrift stores
for the perfect, most outrageous costume.
Forget to pack it.

Shop at Wal-mart, Cost-Co, and Home Depot until your car
is completely packed with stuff.
Tell everyone that you're going to a "Leave-No-Trace" event.
Empty your car into a dumpster.

Read "Dhalgren" by Samuel R. Delany.
Read "The City Not Long After" by Pat Murphy.
Cut off the bindings, throw all the pages up in the air,
and shuffle them back together.
Reread "The City After Dhalgren" by Samuel Murphy.
Burn it. Read the ashes.
Listen to music you hate for 168 hours straight, or until
you think you are going to scream. Scream.
Realize you’ll love the music for the rest of your life.

Spend 5 months planning a "theme camp" like it’s the invasion of Normandy.
Spend Monday-Wednesday building the camp.
Spend Thurs-Sunday nowhere near camp because you're sick of it.

Walk around your neighborhood and knock on doors until
someone offers you cocktails and dinner.

Bust your ass for a "community."
See all the attention get focused on the drama queen crybaby.

Get so drunk you can't recognize your own house.
Walk slowly around the block for 5 hours.

Tell your boss you aren't coming to work this week but
he should "gift" you a paycheck anyway.
When he refuses accuse him of not loving the "community".

Search alleys untill you find a couch so unbelievably tacky and
nasty filthy that a state college frat house wouldn't want it.
Take a nap on the couch and sleep like you are king of the world.

Ask your most annoying neighbor to interrupt your fun several
times a day with third hand gossip about every horrible thing that's
happened in the last 24 hours. Have them wear khaki.

Go to a museum.
Find one of Salvador Dali’s more disturbing but beautiful paintings. Climb inside it.

Before eating any food, drop it in a sandbox and lick a battery.

Mail $200 to the Reno casino of your choice.

Spend thousands of dollars and several months of your life
building a deeply personal art work.
Hide it in a funhouse on the edge of the city.
Hire people to come by and alternate saying "I love it" and "this sucks balls".
Blow it up.

Set up a DJ system downwind of a three alarm fire.
Play a short loop of drum'n'bass until the embers are cold.

Make a list of all the things you'll do different next year.
Never look at it.

Have a 3 a.m.soul baring conversation with a drag nun
in platforms, a crocodile, and Bugs Bunny.
Be unable to tell if you're hallucinating. Lust after Bugs Bunny.

Buy Ads!

Thank you.

Also, please send me money, so I can keep buying pineapple-mango juice.

So, ABC. Are They Learning from Michael Moore?

That's not Bidinotto's question; it's mine. He's being much more civilized than I am; I'm still outraged, and I didn't know that behavior of the MSM could still make me this angry.

Here's what Robert actually wrote:

A clear pattern has emerged: ABC's heavy-handed editing is lifting Palin's replies to questions out of context in order to undercut their coherence and substance.

Why do I say that? Because I have now seen the same questions posed by Charlie Gibson in these various broadcasts, and repeatedly, I've seen those questions paired with different fragmentary answers by Palin. Rather than allow her to be heard in her entirety on any given question, ABC yanks a one- or two-sentence snippet as a sound bite, sometimes blatantly cutting off Palin's reply in mid-thought or even mid-sentence, as if that reply represents the essence or entirety of her position. Only by watching all these various ABC interview broadcasts -- which are being scattered over a number of its daily programs in order to boost their ratings -- can you get a fuller, in-context understanding of her responses, which are often far more nuanced than ABC's editing makes them appear.

The only time that interviewer Charlie Gibson and Palin (are shown to) engage in an exchange of any length, it's when Gibson presses Palin on the meaning of "the Bush Doctrine." It is a clear "gotcha" question, intended to make her look like a confused rookie on foreign policy. But, as an ABC analyst just pointed out on "Good Morning America," you could probably have asked that same question to 500 random people at the State or Defense Departments and gotten vacant stares or stammering replies. Palin's full response -- when shown last night on "ABC News" -- turned out to be a solid defense of the doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes in the case of imminent threats. On "Good Morning America" today, however, that answer is deleted, and in its place ABC's editors substitute a vague sentence, obviously one of those that preceded her more definitive statement. The vague sentence gives the impression of evasion and lack of knowledge; "GMA" viewers would never know that Palin had said anything more.

[UPDATE: And she was right to ask Gibson to clarify his question, because there are a number of evolving positions subsumed under what pundits call "the Bush Doctrine." Why didn't Gibson simply ask, "What do you think of the Bush foreign policy?" Because he wanted to set a trap regarding "the Bush Doctrine," knowing that if she showed any puzzlement, she'd look amateurish. It was a "gotcha" question, and everyone knows it.]

Folks, this is dirty pool. And I have a suggestion as to what to do about it.

First, I think you should write ABC News demanding a release and posting of the full transcript of the interview, rather than these out-of-context clips.

Secondly, I believe that the McCain campaign should post, on YouTube or on their website, whatever video or transcript they may have of the ABC interview. The comparison between the full interview and ABC's hatchet-job version will once again demonstrate the blatant bias of the MSM "news" outlets in their treatment of Palin.

The more the mainstream media tips its hand in its (mis)treatment of Palin, the more disgusted the average voter becomes, and the less likely he or she is to believe anything else they say. And the more likely the citizenry becomes to seek out alternative sources of information.

But after mis-quoting Palin to her face, it's a bit rich that ABC is also editing her own answers to make her sound as stupid as possible.

So why was she so reluctant to expose herself to a flagrantly hostile media? Very mysterious.

AllahP on the way Gibson distorted Palin's prayer about the Iraq war.

Well, If It Were Me . . .

I wouldn't run an attack ad against someone based on a physical handicap—particularly one that he got while being tortured in service to his country because he declined an early release from a prison in Hanoi—where he ultimately spent over five years.

This is chutzpah.

The ageism is also, as usual, quite unattractive. And yet I doubt we'll be hearing anything about that from the gun-grabbers at the AARP.

Via Malkin.

A Little Yeats

. . . for obvious reasons:

Easter 1916

I

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

II

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse.
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vain-glorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

III

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter, seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road,
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute change.
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim;
And a horse plashes within it
Where long-legged moor-hens dive
And hens to moor-cocks call.
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

IV

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death.
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead.
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse—
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

How Strange.

(Gin-blogging; could you tell?)

I really used to think that Allah P harbored tremendous amounts of sexism—perhaps even misogyny.

Now I believe he's terribly enlightened—though perhaps a bit depressed. I think that suggests that either (1) he's been getting laid more in the past few years, and/or (2) I was even more puritanical and judgmental a few years back than I am now. [[[shudder]]]

Now, of course, I'm convinced that not only is Ragnar the most sexist creature in the Rightosphere, but he's also an asshole the likes of which I haven't seen since . . . well, since the last time I watched broadcast news.

And he's green. Seventeen or eighteen years old, tops.

* * *

Oh, yes. Assholes who happen to be male:

When I was nine years old, my brother was 11. No offense, kitten-boy, but you were horrible. (I was thinking of buying a house down the block from yours sometime in the next few years; that way, my mother and I could just check in on you and your wife from time to time and make sure you two are alright—and that the boys don't need more iTunes gift certificates, so they can buy stuff from "Scars on Broadway.")

Then I was ten, and he was 12. This did not help matters whatsoever. He decided to teach me chess, which he accomplished by showing me how the pieces moved, and imparting nearly no strategy to me. In an odd turn of events, he found it easy to beat me rather rapidly when it came to chess.

So, see? It was a win-win situation: he got to win, and I got to lose, which was almost certainly good for my soul.

Surely that gives me the moral high ground in the years to come, and if it does not--well, I'll take it by force.

Perhaps my nephews need a place where they can go to shoot pool, and have a few beers. Like the garage/bonus room in the old days in Santa Monica.

I would hate to be a bad influence, of course. But my mother and I think we should live somewhere nearby, so that we and the dog could . . . enhance your lives! And I, for one, promise not so supply your sons with weed. Unless they ask me really, really nicely. For a nominal fee, I will not tell then (too many) stories from your days as a party boy.

* * * * *

[Actually, I'm completely making this up; the mom will be moving up to east LA: Pasadena, La Canada, or something like that.]

* * *

Fortunately, I shot the television a few nights ago with my .40-caliber Glock. My husband seems testy about it, even though I invited him to "watch the idiot box go boom!"

He's been muttering under his breath. I've only been able to pick out "football," "high-definition?" "sports bars" and "fuckin' bitch."

He does seem quite angry at the forces of radical feminism that have tried to shut down debate from equity feminists over the last few decades. So angry, in fact, that he barely speaks to me any more.

Oh, Where Does One Start?

Here it is, Sweetie.

We haven't come far enough, and my name ain't Sweetie.

Via Goldstein, via a comment from Darleen, via another rockin' Goldstein post:

[Sayeth Billy Jack] I mean, at least in my day when we had to pretend to take them seriously they had the good sense to go without bras and embrace that whole ‘free love’ business. Nowadays, though, it’s like, ‘Christ, don’t you bitches have an oven to clean or something…?'

I think we're right on the cusp of the Robo-Cop Revolution, wherein we're just told, "Bitches—leave." Except that it'll be Gloria Steinem saying it.

Community Organizers, Explained.

The bad news? It's Frank J doing the explaining:

Q. Maybe it's a BS job Barack Obama made up.

A. It's not made up. There's even a Wikipedia article on community organizing. Here's the opening paragraph:

Community organizing is a process by which people are brought together to act in common self-interest. While organizing describes any activity involving people interacting with one another in a formal manner, much community organizing is in the pursuit of a common agenda. Many groups seek populist goals and the ideal of participatory democracy. Community organizers create social movements by building a base of concerned people, mobilizing these community members to act, and developing leadership from and relationships among the people involved.

Q. Huh?

A. See, it's very complicated and important.

Q. If it takes that many words to describe and it's still not clear what it is, I'm pretty sure it's a BS job.

A. Know what? Why don't you rot in your disorganized community, you @#$%ing caveman.

Q. And who are the idiots paying these people salaries?

A. It's the community! They want this! Without the organizing there would be riots and cannibalism!

Q. I'm pretty sure we'll be fine organizing ourselves.

A. You stupid, gun-toting redneck, this is why people like us don't even bother trying to talk to people like you. You belittle important things you don't understand while clinging to your book about the invisible sky fairy!

Q. It's a made up job.

A. One day Barack Obama will force all your ignorant communities to be organized! Then you'll get your comeuppance! All of you who laughed at him, we'll see if you're laughing then!

Q. I'm pretty sure I will be laughing. I'll actually make a point of walking up to the community organizer and laughing at him because he wasn't able to get a real job.

A. Then you're just mean.

I Hate to Admit This.

But sometimes I split my infinitives.

I've also been known to end my sentences with prepositions.

English is, after all, a Germanic language. We mustn't get too hung up on word order.

Naturally, this has led to ostracism from other English majors, who have started referring to me as an "EMINO."

Once again, I'm just not part of the club.

Rush Limbaugh

From Wolking's World:

When you get a 20-point swing in white women from Obama to McCain, that’s unprecedented. I don’t think anybody’s seen that kind of movement that quickly in presidential politics in their lifetimes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Thomas] Friedman, you’re a little bit late to the party here. Obama’s idiotic lipstick and dead fish comments were examples of Obama getting tough. That’s how he gets tough! This is how community agitators man up, folks. The real problem — and I say this to Tom Friedman and to all the others who are getting quaky in your boots. I mean, this clown that calls here right before the end of the hour, if that doesn’t illustrate liberals, I don’t know what does. Call here and say Sarah Palin can’t put two sentences together, when his own candidate can’t put a paragraph together without an "uh," and an "eh, you know, uhhh." Obama doesn’t have any ideas he can get tough on. See, this is the real problem.

How would he get tough on tax increases? How would he get tough on surrender in military conflict? How does one get tough about not drilling for oil? I mean, is he going to sit there and angrily pound his fist and say, “If you don’t properly inflate your tires, I’m going to lose it! Shut up about high gas prices and listen to me, quit your whining. Go out and buy a tire gauge and use it in an air pump or stick it where the sun don’t shine!” What’s he gonna do? How does he get mad about that and get tough about his issues? How do you get tough telling people how you’re going to screw ‘em? You hide the fact that you’re going to screw ‘em. Barack Obama does not have any ideas that Americans want, Barack Obama does not have any ideas that Americans need.

The guy is a one trick pony. He climbed into the arena of ideas with a speech from 2004 in one hand and in the other, a speech about him being The One we’ve been waiting for. And now that he’s punched out, his followers are stunned, that’s all their guy had. They have been passionately backing a man who has accomplished zilch, zero, nada. He hasn’t accomplished anything. He has no life story he can tell. Well, he has a life story, but he won’t tell it.

It certainly is quite a meltdown. I'm on the verge of . . . schadenfreude.

More from the Morrissey Grand-Slam

Yeah. Worth linking twice:

Did Obama really mean to call Sarah Palin a pig, or at least refer to her in that sentence? In order to answer that question, people have to look at the full context of his statement here. He also said this:

“You can put lipstick on a pig,” he said as the crowd cheered. “It’s still a pig.”

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink.”

“We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

Given that Palin had very publicly made the lipstick/pit bull joke during her widely-seen acceptance speech, it certainly seems that Obama intended to reference both Palin and McCain respectively in this sequence, with Palin being the pig and McCain the “old fish” wrapped in change. The crowd certainly understood what Obama meant, and roared appreciatively.

Now Obama and his team want to pretend that this sequence had no meaning whatsoever. It’s always difficult to gauge intent, but one would have to think Obama an idiot for not seeing the subtext of his own statement, especially since the crowd understood it all too well. Obama himself has cried about the supposed racist attacks of Republicans and the McCain campaign all summer long, without ever once giving any evidence of it, and certainly not a data point like this.

If Obama wants to argue subliminal racism, he has no defense against overt sexism now. This is his game, and he just proved himself incompetent at it.

Glenn's original roundup on this is excellent and extensive, despite the fact that he read the remark differently than I did; can you spot the quotation from a famous piece of children's literature in his post? (And what is it that Insty's mom blogs on, again?)

Good Career-Juggling vs. Bad Career-Juggling

You'll never guess where the distinction lies. Never. Guess.

Malkin:

NBC’s Meredeith Viera asserted that only blogs went after Palin’s motherhood abilities while running for veep, even as her colleague Brian Williams slyly raised feminists’ “fears or doubts that she should be able to do this, that she should be doing this.”

How would CNN’s O’Brien like the [Howard] Gutman standard applied to her? She’s been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage, nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disney’s Family Parenting website lauds her as “a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of America’s top news anchors along with her four children” – two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste O’Brien’s professional pursuits?

How about Katie Couric? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBC’s Today Show through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of America’s most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans, and off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?

Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 ½ months’ pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Sarah Palin’s commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveld late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When she initially left the Today Show in 2007, Brown said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around the next day and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.

And at NBC, famous balancer of work-and-motherhood Viera replaced Couric on the Today Show. She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts with colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.
As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight. I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. I’ve filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. I’ve worked hard to strike the “balance” we all seek. I’ve made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities I’ve taken and the opportunities I’ve rejected. I couldn’t have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals – the kind of spouse that the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse I’m sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalist all have.

I don’t challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a “Family First” double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.

Michelle—that is because conservatives aren't just wrong; we're bad. And stupid. And also not-good.

So the ends justify the means, no matter how sexist those means are.

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are doing back-flips in their graves right now.

Another Fake Obama Quote

"Sometimes when I'm not at the peak of my powers—if you know what I mean, and I think you do—I imagine myself playing basketball, albeit with my shirt tucked in, against that little pipsqueak of a girl, and I'm able to rise to the occasion once again.

Who says half-white men can't jump?"

"The Bobby Riggs of 2008"

Chris Muir has Obama's number. If you don't want to deal with the scroll-thingie on my sidebar, or you're looking at this tomorrow (or, um, yesterday), here it is.

Oh, right—for non-time-travelling youngsters, start here.

Avoiding Inappropriate Sexual Activity

. . . by encouraging emotional incest. Nice.

Um, guys? The way that the presence of a good, decent man in the household helps a teenage girl avoid risky behavior of any kind—whether it's related to drugs, food, sex, or cars—is by example, and by showering her with unconditional love—and his wife with respect, affection and erotic energy.

I know I'm not supposed to say it, but holding off entirely until marriage seems a bit dangerous to me. What if one gets married, and then discovers that there is a true sexual incompatability? That's a disaster—or a divorce—waiting to happen.

"Subliminal Racism vs. Overt Sexism"

Ed Morrissey on Obama's latest breakdown. He's got video of that time Obama flipped Hillary the bird, and a "Sexist Memory Lane" of past woman slamming by the Mighty O.

My favorite is "'I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.' — February"

No, I don't think either Palin or McCain should respond directly, but it's fine for the rest of us to notice. The more he puts down women, small-town folk, older people, and gun owners, the faster his free-fall among those demographics.

Actually, my favorite part of the "lipstick on a pig" clip is how the Harvard man suddenly develops a little whisper of a Southern/traditional Black dialect, mid-speech: listen to him talk about "police-uh" instead of "policy."

Now that's cynical.

I know he's playing defense, but why does he have to be so defensive about it? Because once in a while, when Obama's feeling limp and small, he has to say hard things, just so he can walk erect. (Hm. Maybe that's why he suddenly developed a black accent, too.)

Democracy Hits the American Congress!

Pelosi's going to allow a full standard vote:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday morning that the newest Democratic energy bill will be brought to the floor under normal rules and will be subject to a vote on a Republican alternative that is likely to call for even more drilling than Democrats are prepared to swallow.

Hoyer, holding his weekly session with reporters, would not discuss details of the new Democratic energy bill — which was first outlined by caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) over the weekend. But Hoyer did outline the process for bringing the bill to the floor, and said it will be brought up under regular order.

“[Republicans] will have the opportunity to offer their alternative, yes,” Hoyer said in response to a question about how the energy bill will be introduced. “We understand that their motion to recommit will be their Republican alternative.”

The move is a dramatic departure from Democrats’ pre-August recess strategy, in which they brought up each of their energy bills under suspension of the rules and, in doing so, avoided having any votes on Republican measures calling for offshore drilling. But by embracing this strategy, Democrats also failed to get the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the majority of their energy bills.

Now that Democrats are introducing their own proposal to allow drilling of the coasts of a handful of Gulf Coast states, they believe they can hold back the GOP energy bill, which calls for opening up both the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, who remarks:

Pelosi miscalculated in her heavy-handed tactics before the recess. She attempted to push through her own plan under suspension of the rules, a tactic she decried in 2006, which kept Republicans from offering an alternative. When it failed, she adjourned Congress, hoping to put off the debate until after the conventions … and her book tour.

Instead of regrouping, the Democrats found themselves routed by an angry electorate and motivated Republicans. The House Oil Party kept the issue in the media eye, at least to an extent, but high gas prices kept it on the minds of voters while Democrats took their summer vacation. It was as poor a political calculation seen in recent years, and the sudden shift in generic Congressional ballots and in party identification has been the result.

Pelosi and Harry Reid may have finally figured out that they could lose this election on energy policy. Will this be enough to stanch the bleeding?

Note: I'm under deadline in my money-work; I'll try to sneak a real blogpost up tonight; in the meantime, keep your eyes on the way the electoral college is swinging in McCain's favor, and watch the House and the Senate; we need to know the details of any bill they vote on this week. We've got to keep them honest on this, and make sure they aren't taking options the table that we may need to use to become closer to energy-independent.

And make sure to get your comments in to the MMS, supporting exploration and drilling!

They're Playing Our Song

And it's benefiting both sides, apparently:

The track — played at the Republican National Convention in honor of the Vice Presidential nominee, who earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" playing high school basketball in Alaska — was pumped through the streets of Lebanon, Ohio on Tuesday morning at an outdoor rally before the GOP ticket showed up.

When the song was played after Palin's convention speech last week, the band members quickly requested that McCain and Palin pull the plug.

"Sarah Palin's views and values in no way represent us as American women," Ann and Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. "We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image."

But the McCain camp said last week that it had paid for and obtained all necessary licenses before using the song.

And the band's former guitarist, Roger Fisher, told Reuters last week that the McCain camp’s use of the song benefited both sides: Republicans get "the ingenious placement of a kick-ass song" — and Heart gets headlines and royalties. Part of that money, said Fisher, would be heading to the Arizona senator’s opponent: "With my contribution to Obama's campaign, the Republicans are now supporting Obama," he told Reuters.

I noticed that they made a point of using it as bumper music on Rush's show yesterday.

"Drill Here, Drill Now"—The Song.

Aaron Tippin has a new song that encourages lawmakers to take the concerns of ordinary American seriously when it comes to domestic energy production.

And you can find out all about it at American Solutions.

So we have a country anthem—but I'd like a hard rock one. I wonder if we can adapt something written by the Wilson sisters, specifically for the current energy crisis. Though didn't they write one about the Speaker of the House? "Dreamboat Nancy"? (Someone let Paul Shanklin know about this; he might like to do it, if he hasn't already.)

h/t: Newt Gingrich, whose interview today with Sean Hannity is now available for your listening pleasure.

Action Alert: Support Drilling Now

. . . from the API:

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is collecting comments on its next five-year offshore leasing plan. The MMS--the federal agency responsible for administering the offshore oil and natural gas program--considers the size, timing, and location of the areas to be considered for federal leasing, and it bases its recommendations on the public’s comments. The plan is reviewed by Congress and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. MMS is accepting public comments on its 2010-2015 plan until next Monday, September 15th. Apparently several anti-drilling groups have called on their members to flood MMS with comments. Therefore, the majority of comments oppose new leases. Numerous national polls have shown Americans support increased drilling; their comments do not reflect the nation’s sentiments.

Showing support for drilling via MMS can have an immediate impact on the next leasing plan and can send a message to lawmakers.

That is a great idea; it sounds like the anti-drilling people are stacking the deck.

Comment here.

Another Pic of Palins

I really like this one.

Uncle John.

Ed Morrissey once referred to Levi Johnston as "the most nervous teenager in America."

The "Scandal" of Sleeping at Home

. . . instead of charging the state for hotels.

Sigh.

"It's So Good to Know There's Still a Little Magic in the Air . . .

. . . . I'll weave my spell:

I'm sorry, but I really love Queen. Pour a cup of coffee or a drink, and lose yourself in Brighton Rock: Mr. Brian May's superb homemade guitar, which complements the singing and showmanship of Mr. Freddie Mercury, Mr. John Deacon, and the essential, the drummer, the foundation—Mr. Roger Taylor.

If you are really compulsive, shame on you. Try prayer. Or, perhaps—

>

This will do the trick.

Dear Legislators,

When in doubt, run the clock outon OCS drilling and shale oil. Three more weeks is all we need.

Certainly don't accept any bill that places the Pacific Ocean off-limits, or significant parts of the Gulf—or large stretches of the Atlantic, either. Fifty miles from shore (any shore), BTW, is too far; it's several times what's needed to preserve the aesthetic appeal of our beaches.

And don't vote on anything that places ANWR off-limits long-term in any irrevocable way. We can start with the OCS and Wyoming, but I left my heart in the bleak tundra near Prudhoe Bay.

Meanwhile, I want all the other goodies: nuclear power, wind, geothermal, ethanol and methanol. Conservation. Importing of sugar-beet ethanol from Brazil. Superior production of methanol from non-food sources, such as switch-grass and algae. And immediate transfer of our best ethanol-makin' recipes to underdeveloped countries, where it might help them to grow nonedible material that can be made into alcohol-based fuels.

But not at the expense of developing petroleum-based sources to bridge the gap, while we figure out what our best sources of liquid fuel and electricity will be in the future, and how to keep optimizing car batteries for hybrids (and expanding the range for plug-ins).

So don't take a bunch of money away from the oil companies; I want them to build rigs. Lots of rigs. And pipelines. And refineries.

And of course we need flex-fuel vehicles, Joy of Joy's Desiring, that will accept gasoline, ethanol, or methanol.

This is going to take a while; don't get talked into half-measures by the Gang of Ten/Gang of 14.

They'll bargain—they will if they've been looking at the polls. If McCain and Palin have any coattails at all—and they continue to push energy in their speeches—the Democrats will get reasonable in a hurry.

"Drill, Baby—Drill."

Otherwise, let the government shut down. Hey--what have they done for us, lately?

Would Someone Hose Ace Down?

(Uh . . . not you, Andy.)

The boy is just having too much fun . . . he sounds like the look on Clinton's face when he got deposed about that damned cigar:

Rasmussen: McCain Leads Obama in Ohio By "A Shitload;" Trends Predict Possibility of "A Serious Skull-Fucking"

I think that's what it said, anyway. So, I skimmed. Sue me.

It's 51-44, actually, if you're a "Numbers Fag."

This month, McCain enjoys a solid 58% to 32% among unaffiliated voters in Ohio. That is a major improvement from the five-point deficit the Republican received from this demographic a month ago. Among men, McCain leads 59% to 36%, but the Republican trails among women 50% to 45%.

Okay, enough with the polls. We see which way this trainwreck is heading.

. . . . . . . .

Eagleton Scenario? Under/over: I say Palin drops out by next Monday.

Bank on it.

Drudge Slug -- NYT TUESDAY: FAR FROM CERTAIN OBAMA WILL MEET AMBITIOUS FUNDRAISING TARGET... DEVELOPING....

Now it's just starting to feel dirty.

Not even good-dirty.

Honestly, the posts I want to write now are along the lines of: "Obama wasn't a bad guy. He probably meant well. And I do understand the excitement about electing our first black president; I could get excited about that too, were the candidate in question simply [not] so far to the left of me on so many issues..."

Honest[l]y, that's what I want to write. I feel bad.

He sometimes has this jolt of remorse toward the end of his posts—not enough to actually edit the term "skull-fucking" out of his headline, but remorseful remorse nonetheless.

That's pitch-perfect Ace, right there. And it is magnificent.

"Checking Twitter Again?" He Asks.

"Um, no," I reply. "I'm just looking at my SiteMeter stats."

"How many times does that make, today?"

"I dunno. Can't count that high. Are you accusing me of ego-surfing?"

"Yes. Yes, I am. 'Who's reading my blog? How popular am I? Who likes me today?' It's like being in cyber-high school."

"Maybe," I tell him.

He leaves the room, and I mutter under my breath, "except even I wasn't getting thousands of hits a day in high school. And I was cute back then."

Democratic

. . . Stalinism.

Sean's Thought Experiment.

What if it were Jindal instead of Palin?

Well, then—people would still question his experience. But I doubt they'd be all over his family life and religious beliefs in quite the same way.

The experience argument wasn't sexist; sexist was the way she was attacked for being so "stupid" as to have a child with Down syndrome, and such a "bad mother" that her daughter got pregnant a bit ahead of her wedding day.

Questioning Palin's experience wasn't the sexist element; it was the part that was merely factually wrong (depending, of course, on how heavily one weighs executive experience, which is the subjective aspect). It was bringing her family life into things, holding her responsible for her daughter's misstep, suggesting that she should be placing her family ahead of the nation's best interest, etc. that were exercises in sexism.

Then, when we used the word, we were told blithely that we aren't qualified to use it; only the Left knows what it is.

Blazing Saddles

Couldn't help yourself, could ya, Glenn?

I Feel Like Peter Piper, Here.

How many Piper Palin pix would Peter Piper post, if Peter Piper were putatively a Palin?

It's like eating potato chips . . . or drinking dirty martinis.

Treacher:

Over at PJM:

Palin Dodges Tough Questions About Existence of “Alaska”

By Elizabeth Bumiller, New York Times, Wednesday, September 3, 2008; A1

Media Bubble, Sept. 2 — Embattled former beauty queen Sarah Palin continued to wilt yesterday under the pressure of numerous fair, evenhanded media questions regarding the alleged state of “Alaska.”

Palin has claimed to be “governor” of the legendary northern land mass, which, while heretofore undiscovered by explorers, was once rumored to contain vast expanses rich with oil, gold, and “eski-mos.” Palin first made the “Alaska” claim during an Aug. 29 public appearance alongside elderly, mean-looking cancer victim John McCain.

McCain, a white man with even whiter hair, has long publicly blocked efforts by Barack Obama, a youthful black man with a certain indefinable aura about him, to move into Obama’s new house. Palin, also white-skinned, has been linked to the McCain offensive.

After four days of telling silence from the McCain camp, Palin finally deigned to reappear in public yesterday. In a followup press conference, Palin, who is a girl, lashed out at the media. “Listen to me: Alaska. Is. A. State. Seriously. The 49th state, in fact. Way up north there. What, did somebody go around your newsrooms and hide all the maps underneath the ethics manuals? Or are you idiots just completely insane?”

Shaking her head in a transparent attempt to feign exasperation, Palin — who is perhaps not as pretty as she thinks she is — then left the podium without answering followup questions regarding her plagiarism of CBS’s Northern Exposure. Internet reaction to the unfit mother’s unhinged rant was swift. Andrew Sullivan, right-wing blogger for The Atlantic, saw Palin’s comments as a major misstep. “She’s working the refs. This is what they do. Sure, blame the media. Is it their fault she’s too chicken to back up these suspicious claims? “Look, I’m willing to entertain the idea that there really is a place called ‘Alaska.’ We’ve all heard the old wives’ tales, and I’ve dreamed about such a rugged, outdoorsy paradise since I was about 13 or 14. But why is she so afraid to give us some proof? I mean, I’ve never been there, have you?”

Yukon Cornelius could not be reached for comment.

Update: After consultation with the Association of American Geographers and several DC-area kindergarten students, the Times can now report that many current world maps contain a small area in the northwest corner of North America labeled “Alaska.” Palin’s relationship with the mapmaking industry is currently under investigation.

Piper 2044!

I stole it from Jack, who blogs for Ace, who isn't involved, but anyway, Jack stole it from the Richard Starr, who blogs at Weekly Standard, which doesn't lie in the house that Jack built.

Stacy McCain

. . . on the myth of Axelrod's genius, and the delicate nature of Obama's momentum.

Argument #2,498 For Increasing Domestic Petroleum Production.

Every time there is a hurricane in the Gulf, the oil rigs therein have to be evacuated 48 hours ahead of time. Production is actually shut down until the danger has passed, and this all has to be done before it's entirely clear whether/when any given storm will gain hurricane force, or hit a given area at all.

Drilling the OCS would help, particularly in the Pacific (I know that very often the Gulf Storm affect the Atlantic as well, so from that POV the Pacific might be a safer bet).

And shale oil from Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado would allow us to hedge our economic bets even further until our renawables become cost-effective. As would illing-dray in Anwar-Yay.

It's also worth noting that after Hurricane Katrina, the standards for Gulf Oil rigs were raised even higher, but despite the damage to the rigs, there were not any significant oil spills resulting from a direct hit during the worst natural disaster in this country since at least 1906.

Bottom line: we need petro-based fuels, and alcohol-based fuels, and wind, and solar, and conservation, and geothermal, and nuclear. We need clean-burning coal, and enhanced use of natural gas. And we need to lift tariffs that keep us from importing ethanol from countries like Brazil. We need more hybrids, and more plug-in vehicles, and more Smart Cars, and a lot more flex-fuel vehicles.

We need, in short, to become a nation of energy sluts.

The "Five Stages of Liberal Mourning Over Palin."

Via Hot Air. Right here.

Oooh, Anna!

Quindlen announces that the GOP has just discovered sexism. Well, no: we've known about sexism all along. Which you might realize if you interacted with real Republicans, and not just the far-right fringe and those little cartoons inside your head, Ms. Quindlen.

When Democrat James Carville said he found the choice of Palin perplexing on the merits, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said she found that "offensive to American women." I found her offense offensive to American women . . .

Well, I'm offended by your offense to her offense. So I win, right? Apparently, the prize goes to the most offended . . . For the time being, I've got you outflanked.

. . .since at its core was the notion that Governor Palin should not and could not be judged by the same standards as her male counterparts.

No; at its core was the old adage that, to be considered equal to a man, a woman has to be twice as qualified. (Usually answered by some wag-ette with the line "luckily, this is not difficult.")

Governor Palin has more executive experience than any of the men on this ticket, including Senator McCain, but the Hard Left is twisting itself into pretzels trying to discount that experience under any gossamer-thin pretext it can find.

In fact, all the cries of sexism suggested that, yet again, the Republicans had underestimated the ability of women to lead; when the governor finally took center stage, it was clear that she needed no protections or excuses. If she is as sharp and self-assured as her convention speech, the first thing she will do, in the parlance of the sport she played under the nickname "Sarah Barracuda," is to slam-dunk the notion that she can't take an elbow. She certainly knows how to give one.

That was, in fact, what she did. But that doesn't mean that it was warranted to attack her family. In her article, Ms. Quindlen brings up the passions that the Clintons inflamed during the years Bill Clinton occupied the White House. They were certainly high—but the efforts to "slime" the Clintons were not conducted by the mainstream press. And—more significantly—no attacks were directed at Chelsea Clinton, either before she turned 18—or 21—or afterward. In fact, Chelsea Clinton never endured what the Bush twins have gone through for the past eight years, either. As long as we're talking about double-standards.

John McCain has been no advocate for women; when asked during the primaries, on the subject of Senator Clinton, "How do we beat the bitch?" he responded, "Excellent question." (Note to the GOP: that IS sexist.)

Nope. First of all, Senator McCain expressed disapproval of the phrasing before he answered the question. Secondly, the word "bitch" was used by a woman, so if it's a slur, it was used by a member of the group in question (which brings us back to the "nigger" debate, I suppose). Third, it's no more sexist to call a woman a "bitch" than it is to call a man a "prick." Fourth, the "Feminist" left is applying that exact word to Governor Palin. One can now buy anti-Palin T-shirts from Cafe Press with the legend "a pit bull in lipstick is still a bitch."

Ms. Quindlen, you represent old feminism. There is a new feminism out there that allows women religious and ideological freedom, as well as reproductive freedom. You might want to look into it.

Via a tweet from ConBelle.

Uh-Oh. Watch the House and Senate Races . . .

It never rains, but it pours, huh?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, commenting on the latest numbers from USA Today:

Allahpundit flagged an interesting point in an updated version of the USA Today story on their latest polling in the presidential race. According to the internals of the Gallup survey, McCain’s ascension to the leadership of the GOP may have healed the brand. Democrats lead Republicans in party identification by a single point:

In the new survey, more voters call themselves Republicans. Now 48% say they’re Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party; 47% say they’re Republicans or lean to the GOP.

Not since February 2005, right after Bush’s second inauguration, have Republicans been within a single point of Democrats in party identification.

What’s more, voters by 48%-45% support the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, the party’s narrowest advantage this year.

Needless to say, this has huge implications for the election, and not just at the presidential level. Democrats had hoped to ride their large advantage to big gains in both the House and Senate this year. Voters have apparently begun realizing that Democrats controlled one of the most useless Congressional sessions in recent history, and the 9% approval ratings have finally taken their toll on Democratic leadership.

Energy policy is the likely locus for this sea change. Nancy Pelosi’s early adjournment without taking action to increase domestic production of oil — a policy favored by 70% of voters — undoubtedly damaged the party’s support, already weakening over the summer. Republicans have hammered Democrats for their refusal to create American jobs and keep American wealth at home, especially with the House Oil Party, and voters have begun to notice.

It also calls into question Obama’s coattails, and suggests much stronger coattails for McCain than anyone might have guessed. Of course, those coattails may belong to Sarah Palin, but regardless, the Republican ticket appears to have caught the nation’s attention, which apparently has begun fatiguing on Obamamania. . . .

. . . . . . . .

Hold on to those November narratives. Republicans may just pull a surprise in the House if these numbers continue to move in the GOP’s favor. They have the momentum now, and they need to keep pushing energy policy to fuel it.

Bleep Baby

Sez:

I lived in AZ for all but for the last two years of John McCain's political career. I always saw him as a carpetbagger who moved to the state because it would probably be easier to get elected than back east especially since his trophy wife's family made a fortune in AZ distributing alcohol.

There were never any feel good stories about John McCain in the local press but plenty about the chauvinist pig aspects of his behavior including the story of his first wife.

Add to that the willingness of the Palin's to throw their 17 year old daughter under the bus, in that they knew the story of her pregnancy would go all over the globe and make this personal and painful time in that girl's life a target of speculation and judgment. My mom and dad would have protected me. They have been pissed out their skull but they would not have put me in any kind of spotlight.

The character of the Republican ticket is so shady I get chills.

I love these lefty critiques of the Palins that presume we, the die-hard Socialist Democrats, just can't help but obsess about her daughter's early pregnancy, and spread ugly lies about Sarah herself and the rest of her family, so John McCain should have taken anything unorthodox about her family situation into account, rather than select the person who has the courage, skill set, expertise and leadership we need in a Vice President right now. Forget the War on Terror, forget any attempts to achieve energy independence; all that counts in wartime is the feelings of one 17-year-old girl, who might be embarrassed because we on the left are doing our level best to humilate her. Which is John McCain's fault.

If Bristol Palin were one year older, she would be qualified to die for her country. She'll pull through this smear campaign, albeit with no help from the Obama-pushers in the press.

One assumes that Bleep Baby's indignation about male infidelities extends to President Clinton and Senator Edwards; I'll be eagerly awaiting posts from her on what male chauvanists they are.

UPDATE: I'm still rather aghast at the idea that having one's mother nominated to be the Vice President of the United States, and future standard-bearer for a political movement as equivalent to having a scarlet "A" placed upon one's clothing. But I shall try to move on.

John Hawkins Sees the Light

Six months after I decided to vote for John McCain—even if he were up against Hillary Clinton, whom I still wouldn't want to face down if I were the Russians or the Iranians—Hawkins has decided that the possibility of an Obama presidency is really too ugly to contemplate.

In Right Wing News, he explains how the extraordinary smear campaign against Sarah Palin put him over the top:

"Politics ain't beanbag" and everybody with half a brain knows the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama, so it's no surprise that Sarah Palin hasn't been treated fairly by the press.

However, the rumors, lies, and attacks on Sarah Palin's family, many of which have been spread by the mainstream media, have been absolutely despicable.

Barack Obama was celebrated for being the first black candidate to have a chance at the Presidency. Hillary Clinton was celebrated for being the first woman to have a chance at the Presidency. Even Nancy Pelosi, who has been a political disaster, was celebrated for being the first female Speaker of the House.

Yet, when Sarah Palin, a woman more qualified to be President that Barack Obama, was selected as the first Republican VP, there was no celebration, no congratulations, just a smear campaign that has been unprecedented in American politics.

Andrew Sullivan, the Daily Kos, and the rest of the slime merchants drug everyone from Palin's baby to her husband through the mud. Then the same mainstream media that spent weeks protecting John Edwards immediately launched countless attacks at Palin's family. Do a search on Sarah Palin's name and you'll find more disproved rumors and outright lies than facts -- and it's meant to send a bullying message to other conservative women.

"If you oppose the left and we won't just lie about you and try to destroy your reputation, we'll come after your children, too. So, you just keep your mouth shut and stay out of the spotlight."

The only way the left can be persuaded not to continue these tactics is to defeat them.

The Snopes Site of the Palin-sphere.

For those who haven't seen it yet, Charlie Martin of Explorations has the Definitive List of Palin Rumors, with the status of each.

("Yes, she does have a tattoo of the Big Dipper on one ankle; she lost a bet." [Though I think she might be covering that with makeup for the durations of the campaign; we know she isn't wearing hose, and we have concluded that she must have be best spray-tan product in the world, or she's getting it in one of those fake-tan booths. All the better to show off her signature high heels. But in all the footwear shots people keep forwarding to me, I have yet to spot the Dipper. I'll bet she stops with the ankle-makeup once she moves into the Vice Presidential mansion. Of course, it's so cold in D.C. that she'll have to wear hose, or maybe tights.])

h/t: Everyone.

Energy And Palin.

Well, it was the biggest reason that I was hoping McCain would pick her. Of course, his head-fake was so convincing that I thought we'd lost out.

I'm so grateful I was wrong about that.

October 1 is a red-letter day in America.

On that day the offshore drilling ban, enacted in 1992, under immense pressure from overzealous environmentalists, expires. On October 1, unless that ban is reinstated, the American people will once again be free to develop and secure our own resources for our own needs.

President Bush’s approval rating bumped up immediately when he announced last month that he was in favor of lifting the ban.

Republicans are ready for the fight.

The Obama-ites Court People of Faith.

Hilarity ensues.

"Country First."

No. Not fascism. Not even nationalism, as I pointed out in my original reaction to McCain's speech.

Certainly, the international dimensions of Cindy McCain's charity work underscores this point: McCain is not so much asking us to love this country blindly as he is exhorting us to try and make it better.

Patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing. We just really like this "all men [and women] are created equal" stuff. We like it a lot.

We are right to like it, and we are right to want to shore it up—both here, and abroad.

Uh-oh: Obama's Playing Defense

From Political Lizard:

There is an old saying in politics that says you can tell the state of an election by the States the candidates are campaigning in. The candidates have tendency to visit states they believe are battleground states they can win in November. I find it interesting that McCain has visited 4 States since his convention and two of them voted for John Kerry. I also find it interesting the Obama has visited three Sates; two of which voted for John Kerry. So out of the seven Sates visited post convention four of them voted for John Kerry in 2004 and three voted for George Bush.

What does this tells us? Well it tells us that Obama is in trouble. Obama visited Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. George Bush won a very hotly contested Ohio but Pennsylvania and Michigan have become reliable democratic. Neither of these Sates have voted for a Republican since 1992. That is sixteen years that these have been reliable states for the democrats and really have not been all the close. Ohio has a history of voting with the winning ticket. So Ohio is a typical swing state. McCain on the other hand immediately traveled to Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, and New Mexico. Two of these States voted for John Kerry. Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican since 1984. Michigan hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988. Colorado has been a reliable Republican State with the exception of 1992. New Mexico voted for Bush in 2004 but was Blue Prior to that during the Clinton/Gore era.

None of this bodes well for Obama. If Obama can't close the deal in Michigan and Pennsylvania he will be unable to continue campaigning in Western States. If he pulls out of Colorado or New Mexico they will stay red. If Obama must stay in high cost areas like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvannia; McCain will be able to stay on the offensive and turn States like Minnesota and Wisconsin. These are easier States to campaign in and will be energized by the progressive middle class appeal of McCain and Palin.

. . . In a Democratic year there should be no reason for Obama to be camped out in reliable Democratic States like Michigan and Pennsylvania. . . . [R]ight now this is a campaign where Obama is defending and McCain is on offense.

Wow.

Just wow.

The Liberal Limbo: Every time I think they've hit a new low, they show that they can, indeed, go lower.

That New McCain Ad

. . . that everyone's talking about, and by "everyone," I mean Ann Althouse:

I was able to follow it much more easily than Ann was, for whatever reason. But I don't know that either she or I was the target audience for it. (Well, Ann might be, as an Obama supporter.)

Is it over-produced? Is it effective? Does it have an intellectual point, or is it strictly an appeal to emotions? (And is that a bad thing?)

h/t: Insty.

US Weekly Covers

. . . throughout history.

Doggie!

Doggie, doggie, doggie!

Here It Is!

That video of Piper smoothing her brother's hair, which was everyone's second-favorite moment from Palin's acceptance speech the other night. (The first one being when Sarah kicked the Dems' asses. Oh, wait: that was the whole speech.)

Via Rachel Lucas.

A Word From Presidential Candidate

. . . Dave Buerge:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Ooo-oooh, Caribou Barbie makes a funny, hardee-har-har. Well yuk it up now, little miss former junior college baby machine, because your sarcastic attempt to belittle America's community of hardworking professional community organizers is about to backfire -- big time. Because, for your information, I am America's community organizer community.

By now most of you know I am a candidate for President of the United States. What you may not know is that for the past 4 months, I have also been a proud member of Campaign For a Better Humanity, a non-profit community outreach program I created with a joint grant from Johnson County Community Services and the Iowa State Work Release Program.

What do community organizers do? As you know, Americans today are struggling with problems. These problems include rising unemployment, energy cost, alienation, animosity, corporations, and increased death. Like no other time in our history, Americans are staring into an abyss of a hellhole of helplessness. And this is where community organizers like me come in and provide needed solutions. Specifically, America's community organizers:

• reach out and work with communities in various ways;
• liaison with, and for, community agencies for service within affected areas;
• fight to make a difference;
• raise awareness;
• deal with community issues;
• raise awareness in the community of how we are making differences about undealt-with issues;
• when necessary, refer inquiries to outreach coordinators;
• help coordination agency administrators identify and address outreach opportunities;
• model timetables and conceptualize benchmarks;
• issue guidelines for poster contests and interpretive dance festivals;
• gather voter registrations, win valuable prizes.

And that's just the beginning. Let me give you some specific examples of how community organizer organizations like CFBH are making a difference right here in Majestic Oakewoods, a subdivision off exit 242. As you know, in the year since I moved here my community has experienced a rash of crime, despair, and abandoned homes. To address these community problems, I reached out to local groups of disaffected dropout youths who were struggling with unemployment. During a rap-session kegger at my home, I spoke with them about ways they could get involved with the community and help protect the environment. Together we organized an innovative free community bicycle / metal recycling program. I am proud to say that it has been so successful that our private-sector partner, Kyle's Salvage, has encouraged us to create an expanded free community car program.

I am also proud to report that my outreach efforts have also helped get local disadvantaged youths involved in the community through politics. We met with local elected officials and showed them how successful programs piloted by ACORN in Chicago and Milwaukee could be adapted to keep local youths off the streets. The result is CFBH's wildly popular Beer and Smokes for Votes program.

So take that, Governor Bimbo—I mean, Mayor Bimbo.

(But do read the whole thing. As usual, I was tempted to quote it all, but I once got busted by Treacher for doing that . . . So, go. Now.)

Happy Birthday, Freddie.

According to Uncle Joe Benson of KLOS, it's Freddie Mercury's birthday today. Benson played "Dragon Attack" in his honor (though of course it's not one of the songs Freddie wrote). Nice to hear it; it had been a while.

Sir Elton on Freddie:

He was an extraordinary man; Benson says he would have been 62 today.

Cute Todd Palin Video.

"If I’d had a crystal ball a few years ago, I might have asked a few more questions when Sarah decided to join the PTA. It wouldn’t have mattered, though; when my wife starts talking about reform, corruption and making government work for the people, it’s just best to get out of the way."

Todd Palin
Speaking about his wife Sarah Palin
September 3, 2008

Via Gateway Pundit, via Yeah, Right, Whatever.

Oh, Yeah. Friendship.

Harrell on friendship, which he claims to be rather bad at:

If I can’t have friends, and I can’t just give up on friendship, then can’t I at least — please — learn better to recognize the point at which I should stop throwing good money after bad?

It happens to me every time, man. Things go very well for a while. But then they turn sour, and then they suck. And eventually I reach a point where I just have to say “This isn’t going to work, give up on this, try to forget this and move on.” But I always seem to do it about a month after I should have done it in the first place.

A month? Some of us do it for years or decades. Harrell—you might be a more prudent emotional investor than you think.

I'm good at friendship, because I share who I am relatively easily, and I can be extraordinarily open with people from the get-go. And I'm fiercely loyal.

I've been hard on my friends for the past year or two, because I've been so unhappy; that's hard for people to watch. But after years of making deposits, it's not a horrible thing to withdraw from a handful of accounts for a period of time.

* * *

Why did I remember to go to Harrell's blog, though I haven't been there for a while? Ah, yes: today's tweet from him:I'm doing my part to take us into a post-racist century by trying to bone as many bi-racial chicks as possible.

It reminds me of something Professor Fractal once said, back when he was single: "Not only do I think the races should be mixed, but I want to mix them personally. I doubt he remembers saying it, either. I should remind him, maybe via one of his students, or his wife (who would get a good laugh out of it).

* * *

My father once told me that the most important things in life are friendship, money, and sex. Before you jump all over that, let me just point out that the man knew what he wanted; many people, after all, don't.

Oh, Yes. McCain Gave a Speech Tonight.

It's hard to write about it; one fears coming across as a bit sappy.

I believe a few years ago, aggravated by the good Senator's stances on the Bill of Rights (in particular, the First and Second Amendments), I was ready to write in a ham-and-cheese panino if Johnny Mac were to secure the nomination this year.

Certainly, it was no secret that I was a Thompson girl, and that my second choice was Rudy Giuliani, if only to finally have a cross-dresser in the White House.

I spent a few weeks or months in the Coulter camp, convinced that Hillary Clinton was the closest thing either party had any chance of nominating that fit in with my particular brand of conservatism. (Which is rather muddy, but has something to do with government incentives to get Chrysler to manufacture flex-fuel Cruisers, and a methanol pump in every pot, or possibly around the corner, or perhaps an outlawing of the use of normalcy as a noun, or any other part of speech for that matter. Guns, free markets, democracy, whiskey, and sexy. You know.)

James Joyner, with his military background, was able to talk me into taking McCain seriously last winter. Prosecuting the War on Terror, James pointed out, was something that Hillary might do well—but mechanically, and without the level of heart, commitment, and intuition that McCain could bring to the job. With her, it would be a matter of politics. She might put on a show, but it would only be that.

And so I began to consider The McCain Idea. And I was ready to vote for him, finally, but with a heavy heart and plenty of libertarian reservations—even after I heard that Johnny Mac had definitely passed on Governor Palin as his Veep pick, despite what I felt to be her pragmatic approach to helping us through the energy transition.

And, yeah, I do have Palinmania. It isn't all a matter of XX team-spirit, either, and I shan't dissect it completely right now. It can wait.

The fact is, Palin gave a great speech last night, though I think it took a lot out of her; she looked really uncomfortable tonight, looking around as if to say, "are the spotlights still on? I thought if I did well, they'd go away." But she knows they won't go away for a little while. Maybe not ever. It's the burden she's taken on.

McCain, though, took my breath away—not because it was a great speech, but because it was a good speech. And because he was willing to speak frankly about how his military family and his POW experiences had shaped him, and because he showed millions of people something he doesn't like to wear on his sleeve—that he is a good man. And that he exposed his basic goodness while giving a speech, which seems to rank a bit lower on his "good time" scale than getting a root canal, impressed me a lot.

And I wept to see it. And I wept that he could go through the hell he went through, and come out of it without bitterness. And humbled. Humbled? I would have become an axe murderer, myself.

This project is not about John McCain's ego; it is about stepping up and doing something that needs to be done right now.

He had kind words for Senator Obama, and he repeatedly declined to throw red meat to the crowd. He aimed, instead, for something higher: rather than devoting ourselves to a political party, he seemed to ask, couldn't we reach a bit higher? And he made it clear that "country first" is not, for him, a matter of nationalism as it has traditionally been understood. But just as a true public servant serves the people, a nation can the world. Directly, and by example.

Not all at once, and not perfectly. But by using some of what we've been blessed with to show other people and other nations what happened when those crazy loons signed that document in 1776, and why some of what that gave us might help them as well.

And it all changed for me tonight. I still disagree with McCain on several policy issues. And I'm sure I'll find plenty to disagree with when it comes to Sarahcudda, too.

But one has to start with the people who are doing this with a minimum amount of ego, and with a vision unobstructed by the remnants of murderous Marxism.

John McCain didn't pander to the crowd tonight. Instead, he chose to bare his soul, and I'll never forget having witnessed it.

I'm, you know. I'm Dumbledore's man.

Everyone Has a Glass Jaw in Some Regard or Other.

The question is: to what degree—or when—is it a virtue to hide it?

Very often, it is. But when it isn't, it really isn't.

Okay, Ladies.

Ann and Nancy, are you sure about this?

Because I buy music. I buy it compulsively. I buy more music than I buy premium gin.

I have several of your albums on vinyl, and one on CD, and several more tracks that I got through iTunes. I've been meaning to get Hope and Glory, and was considering picking up another album from the old days of the 1970s. I know I can listen track by track off my computer, or on the iPod, but . . . there's something about listening to an entire album all the way through that really floats my boat. Something about having a Cruiser with a sunroof, I suppose.

I saw you in concert in 1980. Really: I'm that fucking old.

You must reconsider, O My Heart-throbs. There are a lot of Libertarian rock and roll people out there; didn't Reynolds mention recently that he'd just listened to to Dreamboat Annie again, and thought "Crazy on You" was the best song ever written about oral sex? (Oh, sorry: "the best Cold War-inspired song about oral sex ever." My bad.)

Even Chris Muir has been promoting you.

* * *

Hog Beatty: "Dreamboat Annie? Now that album is great, from beginning to end." The man is a walking encyclopedia of rock and roll, dressed up as a blueprint salesman. I was actually going to ask him to dissect for me the differences between the drumwork in "Barracuda" versus "The Immigrant Song," which of course Ann Wilson covered in Hope and Glory. Both songs depend on drums and superhuman lungpower. When I was in high school I was more of a Queen chick than a Led Zepp girl; something to do with the fact that my friends played chess more than they smoked dope, I suppose. Now that I am putatively a grownup, I can listen to whatever I like.

* * *

And, um, RNC? If we're going to use the song, we should be paying the Wilson sisters something for it; fair is fair.

Can't we find whoever-it-is that negotiated the deal between Rush Limbaugh and Chrissie Hynde, and get this ironed out?

We can work it out. Can't we?

CalTech Girl:

"Who was that man? And what has he done with John McCain? Well done, Sir!"

Via a Tweet. More of CalTech Girl here.

Fear the PUMA,

almighty psuedo-Messiah.

Robin Robinson started by saying that “This was the demise of democracy… The Democrat party forced their delegates to vote against the will of the people.” Robin and Bettyjean were bitterly disappointed. When they heard that Sarah Palin was going to be the Vice-Presidential candidate, “our spirits rose and we headed to St. Paul.”

Robin continued, “We were heartbroken that [the Democrats] were going to do this to a woman.” Bettyjean pointed out that, “they turned against Hillary and then they attacked Geraldine Ferraro.”

Robin and Bettyjean said that “the MSM is hiding us, they won’t cover us.”

“Governor Palin will be able to be Vice President and we’re going to support her,” adding, “when we heard the Democrats’ personal attacks against Palin’s family we decided that this is not a ‘Democratic’ party after all.”

“Women’s issues are human rights issues, and without human rights there is no democracy at all.”

They exhorted Hillary supporters to step in now: “If Palin doesn’t become Vice President, no other woman will feel that she’s going to be able to run again…. look at the candidate, and look at the person. Palin’s real.”

They both ended by saying, “If you want change, vote for Sarah Palin.”

Aha. Here It Is.

Rudy's entire speech from last night. Magnificent! Pour yourself a cup of coffee or a drink, and get comfy:

h/t: Drew, over at Moron Palace. I was seeing snippets here and there, but this is the entire thing.

The Moron King

succumbs, and lets the Palinmania wash over him like the water from a natural hot spring deep in the woods of the Northwestern wilderness:

I'm not in this for analysis. I'm in for gloating. And I need to be winning to be gloating.

You ever try gloating when you're getting your ass kicked? It doesn't play.

It's been a while since I could really, genuinely, deeply gloat.

Thank you, John McCain and Sarah Palin, for once again letting me laugh.

And thank you, too, liberals. DKM (Daily Kos Media). Barack "Community Organizer" Obama. Power Glutes Andi. Keef Olbermann. You have played no small role in elevating my spirits and bringing joy into my life again.

In fact, to be honest, it has relatively little to do with McCain or Palin and almost everything to do with you.

You shit-for-brains clown-nosed jerkoffs are just about the best thing I've got going on in my life.

You are the wind beneath my wings. I . . . . I think I love you guys.

Was that too forward? I don't want this to get weird. Let me take back the l-bomb and just say: Don't change. Don't change a blessed thing.

After that, the post gets ugly in a hurry. But the soaring rhetoric above? It was so sweet, so . . . beautiful. I nearly cried.

Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.

I mean, if the litmus test is that every member of the family live a letter-perfect fundamentalist/traditional-style Roman Catholic life . . . . Dubya messed up.

From The Advocate:

In what represents a marked shift from the Republican campaign rhetoric of 2004 – where some George W. Bush advisors stoked anti-gay sentiment in an attempt to drive social conservatives to the polls – Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist for the McCain campaign, stopped by a Log Cabin Republican luncheon Thursday to welcome the group to the convention.

“I just wanted to take a second to come by and pay my respect and the campaign’s respect to your organization and to your group,” said Schmidt, who many view as the new architect of the Republican Party. “Your organization is an important one in the fabric of our party.”

In his brief remarks, Schmidt weaved in a personal anecdote about his lesbian sister and her relationship to him, his wife, and his children. “On a personal level, my sister and her partner are an important part of my life and our children’s life,” he said. “I admire your group and your organization and I encourage you to keep fighting for what you believe in because the day is going to come.”

This convention marks the first in history that Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBT rights organization, have been fully credentialed official guests of the GOP host committee, and Schmidt is not the only high-profile party figure to address the group. Sen. Alren Specter of Pennsylvania, RNC treasurer Tim Morgan, and McCain political director Mike DuHaime – the first hire made by Schmidt after he took the helm in July – have all spoken at Log Cabin events this week.

That Republican Party leaders are reaching out to Log Cabin members is another sign that neither side of this pitched battle for the presidency wants to concede a single vote. Michelle Obama, after stumping at the LGBT delegate luncheon during the Democratic convention last week, spoke just last night to about 300 donors at an LGBT reception in Los Angeles.

For his part, Schmidt didn’t miss the opportunity to throw a few zingers at Democrats using the backdrop of vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin’s well regarded acceptance speech Wednesday night.

“You saw one of the great speeches in the history of political conventions last night by an accomplished governor of a state who has just announced herself as a major force in the Republican Party in her own right, and I think the other side this morning, when you consider the backlash that is likely to occur after all the vile filth that’s been thrown at her, they ought to be sitting on the other side saying, Oh – My – God,” Schmidt said to the cheers of some 50 attendees. “I’ve been in some tough political fights in my career, and I will just tell you that over the last 48 hours, the smearing and the defamation of this family is unlike anything I have ever seen.”

Yeah. One of the stupidest missteps I ever saw was when the Dole campaign returned money from the Log Cabin Republicans. For what it's worth, when Reagan got money from them, he was perfectly happy. And I don't even want to talk about how misunderstood Goldwater was on this issue. Now there was a man who wanted to keep the State out of our bedrooms.

Anyway, Schmidt's appearance represents a welcome change; it's nice that I no longer have to hear a lot of high-pitched wailing about "the gay agenda." (Which I always picture as a sort of crododile-hide embossed appointment book, "LGBT" monogrammed tastefully in gold in one corner.)

Reader-Participation Time!

I'm almost out of multiple vitamins. Please advise. Should I:

1) Just get more vitamins geared toward premenopausal chicks, with the extra iron and calcium?

2) Look into Bausch & Lomb supplements, since my eyesight is my biggest asset? (I am, after all, a proofreader.)

3) Try to get more of my nutrients from actual food, instead of living on breakfast cereal, canned soup and Luna Bars when I get too busy?

Or:

4) Stop taking vitamins. Americans have the most expensive urine in the world, and I'm unlikely to out-live my grandmother, in any event. (At 95, she's the Energizer Bunny of Shell Beach.)

"Alaska's Maverick"

I hear they'll be playing this tonight at the Convention.

Patterico Reads Sully

. . . so you don't have to. Don't follow the links back, though! (Patterico didn't get the memo on that.)

My favorite Andrew Sullivan contradiction WRT Sarah Palin is that the public supposedly needs to see Trig's birth records, to verify that the baby is her own—but he's apparently appalled that Trig was present last night, used "as a prop" for Palin's campaign. Can't we make up our minds about whether Palin's family life is something that needs to be endlessly discussed in the public sphere?

Veep candidates usually bring their families to conventions. Deal. Next, we're going to be hearing about how awful it is that Bristol isn't wearing a scarlet "A" on her maternity dresses.

Though I think it would be awfully nice if we could lay off of Andrew on the gay thing. Were any of us making a fuss about that when he supported the War on Terror? It's beside the point for most of us, and you know it, Boyz.

h/t: A tweet from Flap.

Morrissey on the Media's Sexism

Over at Hot Air:

The sexism of the media certainly helped stoke the fires that created the rift between Hillary supporters and the Obama campaign. If a rerun does anything, it will remind these same voters of the Obama campaign’s silence in the face of these attacks. And so far, although Obama warned people off from attacking the Palin children, they have said nothing about the audacity of questioning Palin’s mothering skills.

This sends a more subtle message, too. Hillary’s aides certainly came to Palin’s defense rather quickly. They could just as easily have waited to make this point on November 5th. The media attacks certainly help Obama, at least in the short run, to define Palin as some sort of denizen of the double-wides. If they put a stop to that by getting vocal in the early stages of this media mauling, does that signal Hillary supporters to continue rejecting Obama?

Well, Ed. To ask the question is to have answered it. The Clintons will continue to go through the motions of supporting Obama, but they are unlikely to be terribly convincing about it.

Nice Address, Sarah.

I sat down with my husband's two remote controls and figured out how to turn on the television. A few minutes later, I'd persuaded it to snap out of some sort of Charter-stupor and give me a news channel; Palin was at the podium, and about to give her speech.

I had just long enough to run to the restroom and pour myself a Tanqueray on the rocks before she started.

It was lovely; the buzz, of course, was that she'd stick to a sort of "getting-to-know-you" speech, rather than taking on the Veep candidate's traditional "attack dog" role.

No.

She re-introduced her family, focusing on her daughters and on her son, who is about to deploy to Iraq (her future son-in-law simply stood up as his fiancee did, when Palin introduced her daughters). Palin introduced her own baby, and talked about special-needs kids. She spoke about small-town values, and how as a mayor she had to actually make decisions, versus just "organizing." Then she spoke about energy, went on the attack, and finished up by highlighting McCain's biography and his qualifications for the job he's, um, applying for.

It's hard to critique the speech because the Palin-mania in the room was already so strong, but I really think she turned in a nice performance. She lost her place once, for just a few seconds, and made two or three little single-word errors that I doubt anyone noticed.

Mostly, though, she held the room. Again, it's hard to say how she would have performed in a crowd that wasn't already so pumped to see her, but I still think she did beautifully.

The makeover was also brilliant: no "Republican red" for Sarah, although I think she's got a soft spot for strong colors. Rimless glasses (the sides in a soft, translucent blue), subtle jewelry, and a light-blue suit that said, "I'm telling the truth, and I can hold my own; but I don't need to be in the spotlight." Hair both up anddown: down, but with a small bun in the back. (I'm including this information because male politicians sometimes complain that women are permitted greater latitude in how they dress, and this is true. But the McCain campaign toned Sarah down considerably for this speech—right down to the glasses and the barely-there lipstick.)

It was a lovely performance, and I think her attacks on Obama were reasonably effective.

I decided I should listen to some analysis, so I tried to turn to another channel. The television went blue, and wouldn't budge. I turned off it and the cable box, and then turned them both on. This time, no pay-per-view menu. No Charter hell. Just a blue television that refused to pay attention to either of the remotes.

And now I'll have to tell my husband that I think I broke the TV, and he'll laugh and show me what I did wrong. And I won't remember, and I'll ask him to write it down.

But I saw Sarah's speech—with any empty bladder, yet, and some bottled water and Tanq-on-the-rocks by my side.

I really think she struck a balance, there. She killed 'em. Softly.

I Do Not Believe This Is Lisa Nova.

I think it's Audrey Rapaport, who has apparently relocated to New York City.

I can kind of see a ballpark similarity between Audrey and Lisa, but I still think this is an Audrey production because of that distinctive curl of the lips that's much more Rapoport-esque than Nova-ish.

But I cannot be sure.

Will the real fake-Sarah, fake-Hillary stand up? (And, with all due respect for both John McCain and Sarah Palin, I do thing the first clip is hilarious. It's essentially the Republican version of that SNL skit from a few months ago in which Obama gets into the White House—but has to call up Hillary every night to ask for advice. So relax!)

I just wish I could be positive. Lisa, or Audrey?

I still think it's Audrey, because I've seen her in a few plays here in Los Angeles—and I got a good look at her up close once when she was doing improv.

Original Sunset Boulevard clip is here, for reference. Audrey (or is it Lisa?) does a wonderful job. I love Lisa (or is it Audrey?).

And, by the way, I hope the Mad TV fans are not mixing up Lisa Nova with Lisa Arch, (aka Lisa Kushell) who is, of course, also a veteran of that show.

h/t: This whole thing started off via Allah's post at Hot Air earlier in the day. I just can't look at that Palin impression and think it's anyone other than Audrey.

UPDATE: Pwned. It was Lisa, which I would have realized if I'd followed the link back to her playground on YouTube in the first place.

But the resemblance, and the knack for caricature, is uncanny.

Hm. She and Rapaport should do something together: Desperately Seeking Sarah, or something like that.

Stay Classy, Us.

Media bias? What Media bias?

Experience: Palin vs. Obama

So, if I'm getting this right, Obama supporters are irritated to see Governor Palin's record compared with his.

Hm.

UPDATE: Ah, here we go. Stole it from King Moron.

Twin-Talk Radio Takes on Darfur

Teenaged Maddy will be podcasting today on BlogTalk Radio about the crisis in Darfur (possibly with her twin sister, Amanda). The girls' channel is here, and they will be taking calls and broadcasting live starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 p.m. Pacific (those of you in Flyover Country—Illinois or whatever—will just have to do the arithmetic . . . 'cause you know me and the adding/subtracting thing).

The idea for this very important podcast is to promote the work that Teens for Peace do on behalf of Darfur and other war-torn areas.

Anyway, Maddy is very bright and engaging. Please listen in tonight, and call in with your questions about Darfur, and what the average person in an industrialized nation can do about the situation there.

AW . . . That's a Shame.

See Dubya will be leaving Malkin's site, or at least taking a sort of hiatus.

He's one of my favorites; I hope his new gig makes it all worth it!

Now Even Fred Thompson . . .

is stealing my original (and utterly brilliant) comparison of Sarah Palin with Teddy Roosevelt. Dirty Harry (the blogger/film reviewer—not the, uh, "maverick" cop) has a snip of the transcript from Thompson's speech over here, which I actually appreciate, since I'm working a money job today and cannot watch the convention.

Of course, I wouldn't have watched the convention anyway, because it's on television—though I shall really try to watch the next two nights if I'm not too busy and don't get my nose in a book or something.

Really. I will try. But my usual method of watching television goes something like this:

1) at around 3:00 p.m., remember that there's something on that I might want to watch that night;
2) at around 11:00 p.m., remember that there had been a thing on that I thought I might want to watch, but clearly didn't want to watch that much, or I would have remembered.

I Think I Might Be Even More in Love with Governor Bimbo

. . . than my straight male SoCon readers are. If that's possible.

Oh, Holy F***ing Crap.

The latest smear is that McCain has been playing up his experiences as a POW—rather than playing 'em down:

From: Robert Greenwald Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:11 PM Subject: P.O.W.

1. Watch the video;

2. Send it to everyone you know.

"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience. And by cheapening his own experience in war, he degrades all of our experiences in war. He turns the horrific incidents we've all seen, touched, smelled, and felt into a lame excuse to earn political points. And it dishonors us all."
-- Brandon Friedman, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan

Dear Supporter,

John McCain has been exploiting his prisoner of war experience every chance he gets. He has used this story to justify everything from not knowing how many homes he has to his healthcare plan to his marital infidelities to his taste in music. The McCain campaign is even using his POW story in paid ads. But now a veteran who was a prisoner with McCain in Vietnam is explaining loud and clear that being a POW does not qualify McCain to lead our country.

Dr. Phillip Butler knew McCain as a fellow POW. Watch and listen!

We are sure this video will draw an onslaught of right-wing attacks, but we bring it to you because it is our job to continue to convey the truth together and give these issues national attention. As Dr. Butler has said, McCain does not have the temperament to have his finger near the red button. Get this video to everyone you know: friends, family members, coworkers, and especially those who don't share your political views. The video is designed to reach them. Get it on your social networking sites like Digg. And get it to every blog, newspaper, and TV station that has ever overplayed McCain's POW story. It is time to fight back with truth!

The mainstream press has already begun to call out McCain for overusing his POW story. And it's cut across all political persuasions.

"Whether he's deflecting criticism over his health-care plan or mocking a tribute to the Woodstock music festival, Senator John McCain has a trump card: the Hanoi Hilton. - Edwin Chen, Bloomberg

"Noun, Verb, POW" - Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Monthly

"The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past is weird bordering on irrational..." - Ana Marie Cox, TIME

"I think they are going to it way too many times." - Howard Fineman, Newsweek

Remember how Joe Biden got the press to refer to Rudy Giuliani as "A noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well, let's actually take Andrew Sullivan's lead here and get the media to boil McCain down to a similar phrase: "A noun, a verb, and POW." Considering how often the McCain campaign invokes his POW story, isn't that what they're already doing?

Yours,

Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New team

---
Paid for by the Brave New PAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Brave New PAC is supported by members like you, please consider making a donation. To stop receiving the latest videos from us, click here. We are located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232.

And here's their cute little video:

To summarize:

• All Vietnam-era POWs are crazy and physically delicate;
• John McCain has always had a bit of a temper;
• John McCain didn't suffer as much as some of the other POWs in Vietnam;
• John McCain did the worst, most horrible thing that a person can possibly do!—he converted to Christianity. And he isn't sincere about it! And he was really likeable before he did that. Except for the temper, and for the pretending that he had it worse at the Hanoi Hilton than he really did, because there were others who suffered more. You see?

And this man wants to be President, with a hick bimbo next in line!

I think they make a very good case. Like they say—pass the video on!

No; Really. There Are Men in the GOP.

It's just that we had this hurricane, so we weren't able to showcase them properly.

Because of the hurricane, you see.

So Laura Bush and Carly Fiorina had to kick things off.

Hurricane. Couldn't be helped.

But we do have males in the party. Some of 'em are even old and white.

Malor,

over at Moron Mansion:

As usual when it comes to any of the -isms embraced by the Left, what would ordinarily be branded a base attack is excused so long as the right credentials are brandished. Here, the writers of this piece (both of them women) are setting up the rest of their article. What follows would be met with the fiercest opprobrium were it to be uttered by a man, but they found bona fide mothers who were willing throw womens' equality away. So it's all chill.

With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

Indeed, with two pre-teen daughters, Mr. Obama has set off a fierce argument about whether there are enough hours in the day for him to take on the presidency, and whether he is even right to try. Oh, wait a minute. He didn't. Huh.

We catch the drift of the article already: perhaps only childless men and women should run for office? Or those whose children are grown? Or given the free pass Mr. Obama got (and I assure you I'm whispering very softly now), only men?

It’s [sic] the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.

No, it's the War of the Clamoring Fools: Legacy Media Edition. Notice the casual juxtaposition of social conservatives with working mothers. As if the two are mutually exclusive. And as usual, liberals mistake the strawconservative they titter about at parties for the real thing. Social conservatives are staunch protectors of stay-at-home mothers and their prerogatives, but only the most fringe groups advocate forcing mothers to stay home.

I'm going to miss this campaign when it's over: the sheer hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

I'm, Like, So Above Posting Pix of Sexy Levi Johnston.

But not above linking to them.

I'd also like to point out my restraint in not posting any pictures of Sarah Palin nude, or Sarah Palin in a bikini, nor Bristol Palin nude, nor Bristol Palin in a bikini, nor Todd Palin nude, nor Todd Palin in a tank top, nor Todd Palin shirtless.

I'm you know . . . classy that way.

Of course, since the spouses of candidates are not off-limits, I might be tempted to post pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt if I had access to pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt. So if anyone actually has any pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt, please send me those pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt.

Or, you know: videos of Todd Palin interacting with the mainstream news media who have just libeled his wife and outed his daughter. I'd post that, if it weren't too incriminating. (Todd: Wear a mask! But no shirt!)

Buy Ads from LMA!

If I get at least two more Blogads of at least one month's duration each, I'm willing to pledge not to raise my rates until after the election, even though those rates are set at about one-fifth of my current traffic.

The Blogads adbars move to the top of their respective columns when they actual have promo material in them from paying customers.

Arrangements can also be made for "advertorial" content; please inquire.

But mostly, please just go through Blogads, 'cause I can't be bothered. Or just send me money via PayPal. That works, too.

Or just send me gin. (Not you, D--I'm still working on those exotic cordials. Yum!)

Palin as Pit Bull

Just got this via email, and I'm too busy to go find the link for you. Would someone go confirm this, please?

From The Weekly Standard blog:

Kristol on Sarah Palin, Hockey Mom:

McCain aides whose judgment I trust are impressed by Sarah Palin. One was particularly amused by this exchange: A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc.:

Palin: "Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?"

McCain aide: "No, Governor."

Palin: "A hockey mom wears lipstick."

Ah, Yes. Excitable Andy.

Just got response to a question I sent to some new-media friends and colleagues: Is it time for bloggers to boycott Andrew Sullivan in a more formal way now, given the salacious and destructive nature about his speculations regarding the Palins' family life?

I heard this from a gay conservative political activist I know:

He [Andrew Sullivan] is hurting himself more than anyone else with his juvenile rants. Had dinner today with another gay writer, also a conservative, but more sympathetic to Andrew that I. This is it for him. He won't even read Andrew's stuff any more.

Yup. Yet another gay conservative, a friend, once remarked that Sullivan was "an important voice" in the 6-12 months after 9/11. It's been sad to see Sullivan's analyses degenerate over the years, to the point that I'm not sure the National Enquirer would hire him now.

But, given that, the man's writing does not belong in the pages of The Atlantic. Not next to Loh, Hitchens, Steyn, Fallows, and Rauch.

"He Didn't Vet the Bimbo"

Of course he didn't. And having Palin on the ticket will be a disaster for the Republicans (oh, please God, please!).

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

And the Palins continue to hide important facts from Americans. Not only have we not seen Trig's birth certificate, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out—we also haven't seen Sarah Palin's obstetrical records during her fifth pregnancy, so we don't know if she was gaining weight at the proper rate, or getting enough beta carotene.

And the American People still, to this day, haven't been told what brand of prenatal vitamins Bristol is taking, so we can verify that they have sufficient iron in them. We haven't been told where Bristol and her boyfriend will be living, or what their childcare arrangements will be. We haven't been reassured who will be watching Trig, should McCain die six moths into the Presidency, as old men so often do, leaving Governor Bimbo as the estrogen-driven supervisor of the nuclear football!

Haven't the McCain people ever heard of "post-partum depression"? And what if Bristol has breastfeeding questions, calls her mother up at night, and leaves the now-President too exhausted to face the Russians with a clear head the next day?

Also, women bleed a lot, whether they have kids or not. Aren't we putting the White House sheets at grave risk?

Hey. Here's Some Palin Video.

I suspect this went out over Memorial Day weekend; that seems like such a long time ago.

h/t: Darrell

I Wasn't Going To Run This Video,

because I thought it was beneath my dignity. But it is so perfectly outrageous that I just had to. Also, I remembered in the nick of time that I have no dignity. So, no worries.

This video clip is as good as that Dan Rather-Mary Mapes "National Guard" memo.

How many errors can you spot?—and, how high can you count? *

Delicious, isn't it?

I stole it from Ace, who has some hilarious fun at the filmmakers' expense. Of course, if you want to play spot-the-mistakes, don't read the AoS comments section first thing. King Moron names all the obvious errors in his post, but it's a long list.

Warning: there is a little sarcasm over there. Like, a tinge of drollness.

I've heard it suggested that this vid might make the real Todd Palin angry, and he might be tempted to beat up or sue the perpetrators. My guess? He'll be too incapacitated by fits of helpless laughter to do either of these things.

Though he might—just might—break with the Democratic Party, knowing that this level of malice/incompetence is associated therewith.

Holy shit this thing is funny. A bit too long, but pretty darned good.

* I stole that line, but I'm plagiarizing myself, so it's okay.

Not Just a Bimbo . . . But a Secessionist,

The subtext was, "go ahead and secede; then we can re-institute slavery. I'm particularly looking forward to owning Native Americans . . . like my husband."

McCain Will Win.

Peter Robinson of the Wall Street Journal has some great analysis on why the John McCain of 2000 is not the John McCain who is running today.

I have no idea whether he had a hand in the headline for his editorial, "Why McCain Still Has a Chance to Win." But it's more than a chance, Mr. Robinson. I'm pretty certain at this point that it's going to happen.

He even offers an explanation as to why McCain attempted that ill-fated misstep on the road to financial reform, McCain-Feingold:

The John McCain of 2008, journalists and activists understandably assumed, would be the same man they encountered during the campaign of 2000. The irreverent, wisecracking John McCain. The John McCain who cared about the good opinion of reporters at least as much as he cared about the good opinion of Republican voters. The John McCain who had proven -- let's face it -- unserious. Why expect anything different this time around?

In the set of his jaw, the cast of his eyes, and the whole attitude of utter sobriety he displays whenever he discusses foreign policy, Mr. McCain has provided the answer. In 2000 the country was still enjoying the untroubled decade that followed the Cold War. Today it faces warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, an Iran racing to acquire nuclear weapons and a North Korea that has already done so, a Russia intent on reclaiming its old empire, a China busy devoting heaping portions of its new wealth to its armed forces, and the constant, inescapable threat of another terrorist attack.

If he sometimes treated his 2000 campaign as a mere attempt to move up the ladder, Mr. McCain treats this campaign as a duty. And this, I think, represents the underlying reason Mr. McCain has been able to defy the odds, keeping the presidential race wide open. Whereas Mr. Obama remains a complicated, enigmatic figure -- in the profile it published the day he delivered his acceptance speech, the New York Times called him "elusive" -- Mr. McCain has come into focus, becoming a candidate voters can understand.

The man is a patriot. Grasp that and you have grasped John McCain. Refusing 40 years ago to accept early release from his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton and running for president today -- both are of a piece. Seen in this light, even Mr. McCain's shortcomings make a certain kind of sense. McCain-Feingold? Bad legislation. But you can almost understand why he backed it.

Mr. McCain sees the money sloshing around Washington as an insult to America -- and he takes such insults personally. Patriot though he is, Mr. McCain is too imbued with the military ethic (which of course eschews ostentatious displays) to trumpet his patriotism.

And this brings me back to the question with which I started. To place himself in the company of President Reagan, I believe, Mr. McCain need only overcome his inhibitions for an hour, using his acceptance speech on Thursday night to tell the American people about his feelings for this Republic.

Well. Scaling back the GOP convention in favor of foregoing the Gulf State delegates (and GOP governors from that region) shows what Senator McCain's sensibilities may not quite allow him to say out loud. As does the fact that we are now being encouraged to donate to Red Cross and similar organizations instead of McCain's campaign (despite the fact that his campaign cannot accept donations after Thursday, and is being carpet-bombed with funds from conservatives and feminists who are impressed by the Palin pick).

I'll give to the Red Cross on Friday, if they need it. Before then, any stray funds I can scrape up by rolling quarters and taking them to the bank are going to the McCain campaign.

And I'll be knocking on doors and/or manning the phone banks this November, just like I did four years ago for G.W. Bush, about whom I may sometimes have mixed feelings.

But these aren't times to indulge my feelings; these are times to put . . . oh, what is it they say? Oh, yes: country first.

Palinmania? Shit, Yeah.

Look, Ma! No InstaLanche!

The same thing is apparently happening to those who blog from the Mt. Olympus of mega-high hits. Here's Ace:

How big is Palinmania? It's a phenomenon. I don't know how widespread this is, but if you ask bloggers, I suspect they'll tell you (on both right and left, and jackoffs who pretend to be "moderate" but are on the left like "Moderate Voice") that internet traffic is not merely record-breaking, it's record-shattering.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Biggest traffic day of this site's history? Friday. Ninety thousand plus uniques. Previous record? Somewhere around 55,000, during the Fautography feeding frenzy; maybe I hit that level a couple of other times.

Biggest traffic weekend in this site's history? This Labor Day three-day weekend. Three day holiday weekends are always bad for traffic.

This weekend I'm breaking previous records on weekend days, except for Friday's new record. I think Saturday was almost seventy thousand, and yesterday was sixty-three thousand. Typical good weekend day: 20 or 22 thousand. Frequently less.

Yeah: I did get a few mentions on Malkin's sub-sidebar, but that normally wouldn't give me more than 100 unique hits. This traffic is crazy—particularly over a holiday weekend.

CalTech Girl

. . . reflects on Sarah and the Palins.

Hey, Now!

I was the first one to make the Sarah Palin-Teddy Roosevelt comparison, and I can document it! But check out these great Heath-Palin family pix from Flopping Aces!

Obama: Back the Fuck Off of Bristol and Levy

Via The Washington Times.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama Monday afternoon issued a strong statement to "back off" reports of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, telling reporters families — and especially children — are off limits in this presidential campaign.

Mr. Obama, campaigning here, also noted that his own mother was 18 when she gave birth to him.

"People's families are off limits," he said. "People's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. "

"I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories," he added. "That shouldn't be a topic in our politics."

He vehemently pushed back against an unnamed McCain aide suggesting his campaign had any ties to the blogs that were spreading rumors before the news broke, saying he was "offended" by that and if any of his staff was involved in spreading the issue, "they'd be fired."

Thank you, Sir. I hope that puts that end to it; I fear that it will not.

But most people of good will—left, right, and center—know that this is an offensive and unfair line of attack. But the voices on the left-fringe and the right-fringe will keep yapping about it.

The solution? Ear plugs, and common sense. And the marginalizing of any medium or voice that gives the issue undue play or handles it in an insensitive fashion.

Via Malkin, via a fairly rawkin' post by AllahP at Hot Air.

Family Values,

radical feminism, core conservatives, and The $47-Million-Dollar Woman.

Like havin' it all. Know what I mean?

Oh No!

Olbermann has left the Twin Cities; the GOP delegates are all now draped in black. A sad day for overwrought shallow media, indeed.

Sarah's Going To Be a Grandma!

Cool.

The McCain campaign has asked that the young couple's privacy be respected. That won't happen, of course. I hope that Bristol has a backbone of steel like her mother's, and that her boyfriend's mettle compares well with that of his soon-to-be father-in-law, Alaska's First Gentleman.

As a matter of fact, as the lower elements within the MainStream Media speculate about whether the self-proclaimed "First Dude" owns a shotgun, I would caution them that (1) I am almost certain he does (although I know he lives in long-range rifle country), and (2) the scattergun in question is unlikely to be pointed at Bristol's boyfriend—but rather the bottom-feeders from the press.

I would, however, suggest that both households invest in shredders, since both families' trash cans will be gone over with fine-tooth combs. Any signs that any occupant therein has eaten junk food, for instance, or supplemented breastfeeding with the occasional bottle of formula, will be met with harsh reprisals, wall-to-wall media exposure, and suggestions that we might as well just hand the Russians and the Iranians the keys to every city in the U.S.

Seriously: if I were the Secret Service, or involved in Alaskan Law Enforcement, I'd extend extra protection to Levi and Bristol.

The jackals are going to be running loose for the next two months. Carry your Grizzly-rated pepper-spray canister with you, okay?

That family's been through hell over the past year, and it's going to get tougher before it gets better. Pray for them to have strength, forbearance, and the ability to see the face of Christ Himself in the jackals'.

For I confess that I cannot.

UPDATE
His Aceness Weighs in:

Faaaake... Bristol's faking the pregnancy to cover for the fact that her mom actually just got pregnant again, and the birth is very dangerous and she should abort but because she's a fundie she won't, she's just going to fly planes every singe minute for the next nine months, but we're supposed to believe the "daughter" is "pregnant" and then, gee, Sarah Palin will gain weight at the same time, "coincidentally," and then, gee whiz, we'll see Sarah Palin holding this "granddaughter" in a very motherly way.

Yes, of course. But Trig is still actually Bristol's son. Wake up, Sheeple!

This Just Isn't Right.

John Hawkins' application to cover the Republican National Convention this year was declined. Yes: I'm aware that Hawkins has found himself unable to support John McCain, and has been critical of other members of the GOP as well. He certainly, like many, has been very skeptical of any approach to immigration that includes any variant upon the "amnesty" theme.

But isn't there just a little bit of irony in the Republican Leadership touting both McCain and Palin as "mavericks," and "reformers"—near-saints—making it a virtue to be willing to buck one's own party (it usually is), only to turn around and exclude someone like John Hawkins? Let's recall who Hawkins is:

• He runs one of the largest websites on the rightosphere;

• He has been particularly generous in granting exposure to bloggers who are less well-known than he is;

• He runs periodic polls/articles that elucidate the "pulse" of New Media on the issues of the day;

• He has a huge corral of co-bloggers and guest bloggers that maximizes the coverage he can give those issues.

Look; I'm a Moderate Republican, capital "M." I'm probably more open to the RINO charge than any other blogger I know. John Hawkins has given me enormous publicity and traffic over the years by periodically making me "blogger of the day," and by giving me a slot as a guest blogger on Saturdays (being enormously flexible, by the way, when work demands, family commitments, and a brief health problem left me unable to generate weekend posts of the correct caliber for his site multiple Saturdays in a row—I had to beg off for around a month; John was quite patient).

John goes to a huge amount of effort to include dissident voices on his sites, including my very own voice.

And yet the RNC, with "maverick John McCain" at the top of the ticket, and "reformer Sarah Palin" backing him up, apparently wants a more homogenized coverage of the Republican convention than John Hawkins allows at The Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, or within the Conservative Blogad Network [which, by the way, he has allowed me to be part of, despite all our ideological differences].

Shame on the RNC for this ill-considered action. I thought I belonged to the party that allows—even encourages—criticism and debate.

Coverage of the Convention will continue at Right Wing News, courtesy of John's "stringers," but when the media team declined Hawkins' application to attend personally, they tarnished the reputation of the RNC more than they ever could have affected Right Wing News, or John himself.

Yeah, yeah. It's only "censorship" when it's done by the government—not by a party that would like to have a majority stake in government. What a relief that is.

Not a great day for New Media. Not a great day for the GOP.