A Spork in the Drawer

Monday Poll

.

Sunday (!) Palate Cleanser

(I was addlepated yesterday and got my days mixed up...art posted yesterday.)

Some trip-hop:

.

Man Of The People

St. John:

WISCKOL: When was the last time you pumped your own gas and how much did it cost? 


McCAIN: Oh, I don't remember. Now there's Secret Service protection. But I've done it for many, many years. I don't recall and frankly, I don't see how it matters. I've had hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, many as short a time ago as yesterday. I communicate with the people and they communicate with me very effectively.

If Obama had given that answer it would have been proof of his latte-sippin', arugula-munchin' elitism. But since this is a Republican it's a non-story.

.

Self-Immolation

Writing in the LATimes Neal Gabler explores one of the great mysteries of our day: Why liberal pundits hate liberals. After mentioning Matthews, Stephanopoulos, and especially MoDo (described as "[having] never met a Democrat she hasn't disparaged") Gabler continues:

Democrats wading into this year's rough media surf don't really have to fear the right wing because the right has staked out its own beach with its own folks and not many Democratic voters go there. For instance, only 7% of regular Fox News watchers voted for Kerry for president in 2004, according to Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. What the Democrats generally and Obama specifically have to fear is what the liberal media -- pundits, TV commentators and even some reporters at reputedly leftish newspapers -- will wind up doing to them. That's because, far from delivering the kind of spirited to-the-death defense that even the widely unpopular President Bush gets from most right-wing commentators, the liberal media almost always eat their own.

Anyone who's spent more than a few minutes listening to or reading "liberal" opinion leaders knows the veracity of this:

What we get, then, is a bunch of wealthy journalistic stars bending themselves into pretzels pretending that they are down-to-earth working stiffs vastly different from the politicians, at least from the highfalutin' liberal ones they cover. This was certainly a large part of the appeal of the late Tim Russert, who frequently mentioned that he was a poor Catholic kid from Buffalo, N.Y., where his father was a sanitation worker. Matthews and Dowd, among others, have also prattled on demagogically about their humble beginnings even as their stars have risen and they have become even less connected to the rest of us.

Republicans/conservatives/rightwingers are by default "everymen" simply by ridiculing book-larnin' and reducing every argument to its most simplistic (as opposed to simple) form, however ridiculous. (The examples are legion.) In contrast, liberals (generally) recognize that few things are black and white:

Right: Taxes are bad!

Left: Tax policy has to be determined by... (By this time most people have tuned out.)

Gabler concludes:

Which is all the more reason why Democrats' expectations of a favorable November should be tempered by the cold reality that Obama will be taking heavy fire from both sides. After all, hasn't left-leaning Newsweek already told us that this election pits arugula against beer?

And that is the reality of the situation: Anyone identified as a liberal begins a fight with one hand tied behind the back.

What's the solution? Beats me. I suppose the only thing that can be done is to keep beating on the "liberal" pundits the way the right has done since at least the time of Nixon and Agnew. Not a happy thought for anyone who values intelligent debate but there it is.

.

Annals Of Dimbulbery

Apparently the rulers of Dubai are suggesting that Barack Obama and St. John hold a presidential debate in their corrupt little city-state.

The WaPo's David Ignatius thinks this is a sterling idea because it might teach the Iranians a thing or two.

Or something.

Ignatius is a bit of a dink, isn't he?

.

Four More Years!

No, really. By way of Sadly, No! we find Write in Bush 2008:

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "spork, isn't there an amendment to the Constitution limiting a president to two terms or ten years?" Yes, gentle reader, that is correct. But irrelevant:

What about "term limits"

The important thing to understand about so-called "term limits" is that they are man's law, not God's Law. The God who parted the Red Sea is surely not worried about so-called "term limits". When you vote your faith you let Almighty God take care of the details.

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951.

That settles that!

Here's the thing: Part of me thinks that the site is a put-on but, then, there are people who really do think this way. I'm genuinely not sure.

Of one thing I am certain, though: The last 7½ have killed satire dead.

.

Whoopsie!

Cindy McCain: Tax cheat.

Another fine example of Republican fiscal responsibility.

.

A Bit Of Thomas Nast

The "Brains", 1871


Good background on Nast here.

.

If It's Election Season...

...it's time for the Republicans to play the bigot card.

The proposed Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution:

Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

While it's not going to even get out of Congress it's worth mentioning because of two co-sponsors: "Diaper Dave" Vitter and Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.

GOP hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Meanwhile in a likely effort to help St. John's flailing campaign the great state of Arizona is putting a ballot initiative up for a vote that would ban marriage amongst Teh Gaiz. This would be the same initiative that was voted down in '06. Try, try again, I suppose.

See, if the Republican Party had a platform that most people could support they wouldn't need to engage in such silliness.

.

Open Water

Scary:

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice-free North Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

[...]

The polar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increase in average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine, said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which has never been experienced before. People are expecting this to continue this year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said.

Good thing there's no global warming. Think of how bad it would be then!

.