HALL OF FAME OF PORK

I KEEP LOOKING at the headline for these posts from Adam Sachs's "blog," and I keep thinking that Adam is now writing about wasteful, patronage spending in congress.

BUT NO. He is writing about PORK.

That is all.

VOTE HOOK II

APART FROM the other contest in Oregon tomorrow, I trust you will not forget my early fascination with, and after seeing the ad below, my UTTER FONDNESS for

STEVE NOVICK, a hook-hand away from the presidency.



THAT IS ALL.

NOTES FROM MY COPYEDITOR PART 1

RACHELLE MANDIK writes in the margins:

"Websters says 'bloodred' is one word, but I'll be damned if I'll go that far. Hyphen OK?"

ANSWER: OK!

That is all.

NOW I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GET SOME WORK DONE

HONESTLY? How is this fun for any of us?

That is all.

TWITTER

I THINK I did something bad at twitter.

That is all.

"SELECT ALL"

"TWENTY YEARS AGO WHEN I WANTED TO BE A WRITER? A big part of the dream was being able to put little videos on the internet."



The great and lovely and smart and funny DENNIS CASS promotes his paperback edition of HEAD CASE.

If you support greatness, loveliness, smartness, and funniness, YOU SHOULD BUY IT.

AND I'M NOT JUST SAYING SO because, long ago, when I really needed it, Cass took me to lunch at the North Food Court at the Mall of America.

THAT IS ALL.

QUATCHI

I CAN UNDERSTAND how I might forget that Vancouver will be the site of the Winter Olympics (a sporting event) in 2010.

BUT TO FORGET that its mascot is a Sasquatch? SHAME ON ME.

ACTUALLY, "QUATCHI" is one of three mascots for the Vancouver Olympics, all of which are either MYTHOLOGICAL or CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL, because

CANADA IS PERFECT.

That is all.

(AND, PLUS: even the mascots have a mascot. FINALLY)

I AM IN CANADA

AND SO I WILL be blogging less than my usual pathetic output.

BUT THIS TIME, I have an excuse:

CANADA!

That is all.

RICKY GERVAIS SHAMES ME INTO UPDATING MY BLOG

NOT ONLY MY BLOG, but his.

WHAT MAD POWER does he wield over us all?

That is all.

ALL TWITTER FRIDAY

NO BLOG: MICRO BLOG.

See you Monday.

That is all.

A-LAD KEEPS IT ROLLING

H in sunrays
Originally uploaded by Ape Lad.

AND HE DESTROYS a keyboard doing so.

That is all.

I GUESS ON SOME LEVEL I KNEW

I GUESS ON SOME LEVEL I KNEW that my posting below on the word "tharn" got 37 comments,

BY FAR A RECORD,

BUT I GUESS I needed to see them all laid out in front of me for me to really grasp it.

THANK YOU

That is all.

SACHS IS NOW POSTING TWICE A DAY

FOR SERIOUS.

HE MUST HAVE only had 87 whiskeys this morning.

THAT IS ALL

WHILE SEEKING IMAGES OF GENE RAYBURN FALLING DOWN...

I CAME ACROSS this remarkable collection of SMOKING ON NATIONALLY SYNDICATED TELEVISION.

I RECALL the first time I saw Ed Asner light up on a Match Game rerun. It was like staring into an alternate dimension.

ALSO: REALLY, Alex Karras? Were you not supposedly an ATHLETE?

I ALSO ESPECIALLY ENJOY: Skip Stephenson's blue jumpsuit.

(OH: if any of you are wondering, I am extremely heartened by last night's POLITICAL RESULTS; but I feel we have been here twice before....)

That is all.

SACHS IS WATCHING SHIHAB

SINCE WE MET HIM IN LONDON 17(!) years ago, I have not kept in touch with Shihab the way Mr. Sachs has.

AS YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY TELL WHEN YOU VIEW this obsessive photo gallery.

YET I LOVE THEM BOTH.

That is all.

JUST TAKING A QUICK CULTURAL TEMPERATURE CHECK

HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW what "tharn" means?

That is all.

SACHS AND I ARE IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION

...BUT EVEN SO, I am still able to update my blog .

UNLIKE ONE PERSON I KNOW.

That is all.

PHOTO COURTESY: "Meow Meow" Kays.

HELLO RICKY GERVAIS BLOG READERS

MY NAME IS JOHN HODGMAN, and you have reached my blog.

I DO NOT know why the famous actor Ricky Gervais is claiming that I wrote something for his blog about his upcoming movie about LYING.

I WOULD NEVER associate with such a person.

ALSO: his accent is obviously fake.

AND I WAS NEVER HERE.

That is all.

EMILY FLAKE FOR THE VICTORY

APPARENTLY the great FLAKE won a Prism award for her fantastic book of cigarette cartoons entitled THESE THINGS AIN'T GONNA SMOKE THEMSELVES.

THE CATEGORY in which she won: best "accurate depiction of drug, alcohol, or tobacco use in a comic book story line"

Here is the winner now.

HOORAY

That is all.

TONIGHT, I AM ON THE WEST COAST

...SO IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO SAY:

"First of May, First of May/
Outdoor Fucking Starts Today."

That is all.

HEADLINE: SACHS HAS UPDATED HIS BLOG

SEE here.

AND tell him to update more frequently. ESPECIALLY WHEN I SEE HIM IN CALIFORNIA THIS WEEKEND.

MEANWHILE, BM continues to do a good job updating his blog regularly and finding bits of spooky coral.

That is all.

RYAN MCSHOWOFF WANTS TO KNOW IF I UPDATED MY BLOG TODAY

DID HE update his blog?

That is all.

DRIVE GERVAIS

SPEAKING OF INCREDIBLY FAT AND BALD, I presume you all know about this, yes?

That is all.

THAT'S NOT MY HAIR

IT'S A TIME HELMET. Come on, Matt Tobey. Get it right.

That is all.

HERE IS THE TRUE STORY

RYAN unveils the horrid truth, from a time long ago (2001), before I was fat and balding.

PS: Thank you, CC Insider and ANGRY Jesse Thorn, for defending me. OR AT LEAST MY HAIR.

That is all.

THANK YOU ALL

WHILE EVERYONE, including Xeni, had proposed able solutions, I found Chris's suggestion of cutting and pasting within the "Edit HTML" pane to do the trick.

THAT IS: if it works.

THANK YOU, in any case.

That is all.

TRYING AGAIN

I AM SEEING THIS. Are you?

That is all.

I DON'T GET IT

I CAN SEE THE VIDEO when I check Blogger's "Preview" mode.

BUT NO ONE CAN SEE IT once it gets published.

XENI--can you help?

That is all.

SOMEONE TO HOLD ON

MY LATEST ATTEMPT to embed the brilliance of bOINGbOING.tv



"SPAM THEATER."

That is all.

MIRMAN? MOREMAN!!!!

WATCH THIS, SHELLEY--I'm going to blog this right now.

That is all.

MORE FROM DETROIT OCTANE

Minimal blog activity due to television.

See you tomorrow.

That is all.

NPR and TRAUMA

LISTENING TO NPR this morning (imagine that) re: a panel of PA women voters speaking on the state of the primary election, I had exactly two faults.

1. The listener who is concerned she has not heard enough about how the White House will specifically be different under either Democratic administration.

2. I think we're all traumatized by the Republican attack machine. YES, they will "pounce," come the general election. But we're already seeing them pounce. And we're already seeing (one) candidate effectively fight back against those right wing attacks. But there seems to be this idea all the same that, when they REALLY REALLY pounce, we're history, no matter how powerful our ideas, how sophisticated our election organization, how strong we are on counter attack, and no matter how weak their candidate.

WE REALLY NEED TO GET OVER THIS. McCain is a weak candidate. In my mind, the only thing that would really make him a strong candidate is having Clinton as a rival. But even if you don't agree, you must agree to the truth: DEMOCRATIC REGISTRATION IS UP, REPUBLICAN REGISTRATION IS DOWN, THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE IS INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR, MCCAIN HAS TERRIBLE LIABILITIES,

...and the non-issue of both the Wright- and Bittter-gate controversy among the actual voters (most polls remain unchanged) suggest that among actual voters (if not the media) the "attack politics" that so frightened us away from core principles in 2004 really aren't as effective as we fear they are.

THAT IS ALL.

ASTONISHING

THIS PIECE from the Atlanta Journal Constitution about Michelle Obama's old Princeton roommate is astonishing. 

FOR THOSE ON TV who like to believe that THEY know what's going through the minds of people in the South or North, whites or blacks, liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, here's evidence that it's all so much more beautifully complex. 

IN THIS ONE FAMILY, all these worlds blend together, learn from each other, and change one another. And I don't think this family is the only one either. 

That is all. 

SENATOR ASSCRACK

JOHN WARNER mercilessly reveals the fundamental problem with Senator Asscrack's candidacy.

NARRATOR: (In voice-over.) Confused? Lost? Wanting to take a tire iron to these two? Don't they remind you a lot of Senator Asscrack—pretentious and sort of French? Do you really want a president who hates America? That doesn't make sense, and neither does voting for Herman Asscrack.

DRAWING THESE KINDS OF important contrasts is perfectly fair, and not AN IDIOTIC, CONDESCENDING, DISTRACTING, REDUCTIVE, AND SELF-DEBASING ATTACK at all.

That is all.

PS: John Warner is NOT a Senator, but a very good writer of books. PROOF EXISTS HERE.

See, he's one of us. NOT ONE OF THOSE WASHINGTON FAT CATS.

PERHAPS BECAUSE HE IS CANADIAN

I FIND PAUL TOUGH calming.

That is all.

BLOGGING!

SO THIS is what it's like.

HERE IS A WEB SITE THAT I VISITED and liked. I will "web log" it.

FROM JOSH MARSHALL...

With the Wright business and now with this, the more nuanced version of the Clinton line has been that what 'we' think is not really the point. It's what Republicans will do with it in the fall. And that's a real concern that I definitely have. I won't deny it. I've never thought Obama was a perfect candidate. But as we get deeper into the primary calendar, increasingly so, this 'what the Republicans will do' line has become more of a simulacrum, or a license, if you will, to do what Republicans actually do do. That is to say, to grab for political advantage by peddling stereotypes about Democrats and liberals that are really no less offensive than the ones we're talking about about Americans from small town and rural America.

That is all

A READER NAMED HILLARY W. SENT THIS IN LONG AGO

...BUT APPARENTLY, this was a "picross" puzzle.

WHATEVER "PICROSS" is, or "puzzle," or "this."

THAT IS ALL

BOOZE CLUES

PAULINE AND DAVE'S pub quiz "Booze Clues" moves to the Echoplex starting tomorrow night, TUESDAY, at 7PM in Los Angeles.

I BELIEVE I AM TECHNICALLY STILL A MEMBER OF TEAM NEAL POLLACK. Perhaps you can go and ask him for me.

That is all.

BITTER STICKER=PURPLE HEART BAND-AID

YOU KNOW, I probably just should have twittered it.

That is all.


PHOTO and background courtesy: CNN

FROM TURNERS FALLS, MA

THIS, THE GREAT SARAH REID, believes:

I started waitressing when I was 16 years old. I would get up at 4 am to be at the diner by 5 and I would watch the sunrise from my bike as I rode down the nearly empty highway. My customers were mostly regulars- truckers- and what they didn’t give me in cash tips, they gave me in genuine and warm compliments, camaraderie and jokes. One very drunk college student one night didn’t have tip money, so he wrote me a check for a million dollars. I still have it in my desk, waiting till I see his name someday in Forbes magazine or something.

As I grew older I returned to waitressing a couple times. I was good at it. Eventually, I opened my own café, the only one in my tiny town. We didn’t have waiters, just bar help. But we had a big glass tip jar on the counter. My small staff and I always noticed who tipped well and who didn’t – did you know that, that we talk about you behind your back if you don’t leave a tip, even at a counter or a bar?

READ ON , or perish.

OBVIOUSLY I AGREE WITH SARAH, and not merely because I wrote great chunks of BOOKS ONE AND TWO in her and her "husband's" good company at the Bookmill and the cafe they used to own there.

(AND I HOPE TO GOD I TIPPED ENOUGH)

SARAH AND MATTHEW don't own the cafe anymore, but maybe you can go and buy them a drink at the Rendezvous some time. It is Turners Falls's only Space Shuttle themed bar, and it's hard for me to recommend a finer place to tip heavily in.

Meanwhile, AS I AM SURE YOU KNOW, you can find more "THIS I BELIEVE" essays and contribute your own HERE.

UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING. In which case, go HERE. (That is one wacky picture of the Kremlin).

That is all.

WHAT AN ELITIST

DUMB PHRASING IN SF, I think. But I'm not talking for 20 hours a day.

BUT OBAMA'S RESPONSE to the hamfisted attacks from his rivals is kind of beautiful--as rhetoric, as incredibly deft politicking, and most of all, as truth, rough and simple. The kind his rivals don't seem eager to tell.



I THINK this moment will either lose him or win him the Penn. and Indiana for good.

That is all.

STOLE IT FROM BOING BOING, BUT:

HOW CAN I NOT POST my hero: http://kcet.org/explore-ca/web-stories/graphic_novels/jaime.php

That is all.

A BEGINNING IS A VERY DELICATE TIME

BOTH KAKI KING AND I LEARNED THE HARD WAY this week that not every single person in the crowd has read or seen DUNE.

BUT SHE IS STILL incredible.



That is all.

MERLIN MANN REMINDS ME THAT YOU LOOK NICE TODAY

MERLIN MANN alerts me to EPISODE 3A of the sterling podcast he produces with his friends Scott Simpson and lonelysandwich: "YOU LOOK NICE TODAY."

YOU SHOULD LISTEN AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.

MEANWHILE, I trust I am the last person on the internet to arrive at this party, but is not Merlin Mann one of the finest names ever? It is great enough that he is actually named MERLIN, but then the name just comes back and hits you with a classic oxymoron

It is almost like being named WIZARD NONWIZARD.

OR MORE ACCURATELY: WIZARD NONWIZARDD.

That is all.

CONCERN TROLL

I'VE NOT DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, but I have some actual writing to do today, and I've found no other way to procrastinate yet.

CLINTON SUPPORTER LANNY DAVIS'S OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal, discussing Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, suggests "This issue is not going away."

WELL, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT. At least, not so long as Lanny Davis continues to write Op-Eds about it.*

BUT DAVIS'S FURTHER POINT--that Obama's history with Wright will be brought up in the general election should he be the nominee--is true.

IN FACT, it is so true as to be self-evident, and hardly necessary to point out, unless you want to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt among certain voting blocs right before a big primary. In this regard, Lanny Davis is the definition of a concern troll.

BUT TO BRIEFLY FEED THE TROLL, I will take Davis's concern seriously for a moment. Let's ask: should Obama become the Democratic nominee, will the Republicans attack him over his relationship with Wright?

YES, OF COURSE... just as they will happily attack Hillary Clinton over her relationship with Bill Clinton should SHE become the nominee.

BUT HODGMAN, you ask, DO THE TWO LIABILITIES REALLY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT?

No, the candidates' guilt-by-association problems are NOT equal.

FOR ALAS, Clinton's is worse.

Not because Bill Clinton is somehow more "guilty" than Wright (I'll leave that for the angels to debate), but because the association is closer, and because Clinton has never had to defend against these kinds of attacks in this election.

DEMOCRATS are not trying to tie Hillary Clinton to the Bill Clinton scandals, for obvious reasons. And I'm not even talking about what you think I'm talking about. Indeed, I can think of two attacks against Bill Clinton that are not stupid and disgusting and that I actually find substantive and troubling, though I will not air them here.

BECAUSE NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT LIKES TO USE RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS AGAINST FELLOW DEMOCRATS.

AND REPUBLICANS have not really deployed this line of attack yet either. I'm not sure why. It's either because they have had a complete change of heart about Bill Clinton in the past 8 years, or they have been biding their time until there's a nominee.

WHAT'S YOUR GUESS?

BUT IT WOULD BE HOPELESSLY NAIVE to believe that these attacks are not coming. And we really haven't seen how Clinton will handle them. Whereas I would argue we have seen how Obama intends to handle the Wright smears, which is to say: PRETTY EFFECTIVELY.

SO I WILL DO MY OWN BIT OF CONCERN TROLLING HERE AND SAY: yes, Obama's relationship with Wright may undermine his appeal to certain white voters, and will certainly lose him the racist vote. But he's shown he can take the punch and shake it off in the polls.

BUT WILL NOT HILLARY CLINTON'S RELATIONSHIP WITH BILL CLINTON energize a currently disinterested Republican base? And won't constant attacks on this front undermine her support among Independents?

And wouldn't you like at least some preview as to what her strategy will be for fending off these attacks?

I, FOR ONE, AM VERY CONCERNED AND TROLLISH.

That is all.


* (Although most polls suggest that for Democrats at least, the issue has indeed gone away. And double indeed, there is reasonable debate as to whether it deserves the word "issue" at all, as opposed to a simple character smear--except among those within the Clinton campaign who wish it to BE an issue.)

IT'S LIKE A MINI-RAVE

THIS IS YOUR MAN Dave Hill: still doing it, only Jedi style.



THAT IS ALL

EVERYONE WATCH BATTLESTAR GALACTICA TONIGHT OR ELSE

SORRY TO BE PUSHY. But it is important, because it is good. And good is in short supply.

WOULD HAVE BLOGGED earlier, but failed due to book-work and no more talk English style exhaustion.

That is all.

MADDOW TO BLOCK

(POST TITLE UPDATED to reflect the strange, Hollywood Squares-ish format of the new David Gregory political game show).

HERE IS MY FEELING: if bees had knees, RACHEL MADDOW would be those knees.



That is all.

PS: Actually, it looks a little more PRESS MY LUCK than H'wood Squares, now that I think of it.

MORE FROM THE BIG BM

MORE FROM BRETT MARTIN, on Durian.

I HAD DURIAN PUDDING once, and it was fine. It was better than the scotty dog pudding.

SORRY I MISSED FOOL'S DAY. I wan't paying attention.

AT LEAST I'M POSTING faster than Sachs. Would you do me a favor and bombard his comments with demands for NEW MATERIAL, and not the same old mountain shots?

That is all.

IF YOU READ JESSE THORN'S BLOG

IF YOU READ JESSE THORN'S BLOG, then you knew about this 100 years ago,

BUT BILL WASIK BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION TODAY, and I have to say, New York Times Magazine contributor Jon Glaser has got SERIOUS PIPES.

(That is slang for "vocal cords")



AND HERE'S THE ESSENTIAL "making of video" that you saw 100 years ago on Jesse Thorn's blog.



That is all.

FOUR FINE FELLOWS, PLUS BILLY BRAGG

1. COULTON covers BRAGG. In the words of his wife, "FINALLY."



I HOPE VERY MUCH that Billy Bragg supports creative commons, because it would be sad to be sued by a communist.

2. SACHS has a blog about his mad, lovely travels around the earth. It is worth reading, because SOMEDAY HE WILL UPDATE IT.


TO FIND OUT WHY SACHS RUNS* SO HARD, you can read this month's GQ.

*(or SANDBOARDS)

3. BRETT MARTIN has a worldly blog as well. It is worth reading because HE UPDATES IT EVERY DAY, and also it is named after his initials.


In the words of MARTIN, "FINALLY!"

4. JOHN SELLERS has always had an ANGRY BLOG, and plus he is reading from his book about his life as a GUIDED BY VOICES stalker at BOOK COURT tomorrow night. SEE YOU THERE.
(and: COVER by POTTS: a secret FIFTH FINE FELLOW)

THAT IS ALL.

I CERTAINLY WAS ASTONISHED, HUMBLED, AND THRILLED BY OBAMA'S SPEECH ON RACE

AND I THINK its unabashed intelligence and its signal that he is unwilling to play the game of predatory politicking is one of the reasons I am so bloggingly open about my support for his candidacy.

BUT I MUST CONFESS, this was a very smart, compassionately wonky, and meaningful speech for Clinton to give today. And she lays claim to the economy as an issue, which it undoubtedly is to those of us who are not latte sipping bazillionaires.

OBAMA IS EQUALLY WONKY, but unless I've missed something, he's been very shy recently about offering this kind of meat-and-potatoes policy-meal to Democrats who need more than just inspiration. I wish he had taken the lead on this one.

AND PERHAPS IT'S ALL EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT, but I don't like to hear David Plouffe giving up on PA at the end of this AP story. I don't think it's wise to cede Clinton this state and the important, if symbolic, victory she'd take with it if she trounces him.

AND SURE, I'M ALL FOR THE NEW POLITICS, but seriously--why isn't the sideshow media jumping all over this plain lie?

OK. That is all I wanted to say....

That is all.

SPEAKING OF THE ROBOT MENACE

EVERYONE HAS SEEN THIS ONE about the robots...



BUT MAY I JUST CALL ATTENTION to the brilliant Brian Huskey and Tom Shillue (the humans on the left).

THE OTHER PERFORMERS are equally great, but I don't know their names, and thus I naturally wonder if they are not actually just androids.

That is all.

COULTON SAYS THIS IS A ROBOT

BUT I AM STILL PRETTY SURE that it's some kind of Mumenschanz stunt.

YOU DECIDE:



That is all.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUMMARY 1

IN WHAT MAY BE A RECURRING FEATURE for this non-blog, please find today's very beautiful, strange, and surprisingly Gene Shalit-y

SUMMARY FROM AMERICA'S LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

...describing a Look magazine photo-essay on that new campus trend of 1965: computer matchmaking.

*****BEGIN QUOTED TEXT*****

SUMMARY: Photographs show a computer matched couple on a weekend date in New Haven, Conn. Includes students Nikos Tsinikas, of Yale University, and Nancy Schreiber, of Smith College, at parties with other students; touring an exhibit at the Yale Art Gallery; dining in a restaurant; kissing. The job also includes portraits of Harvard student Jeff Tarr, founder of Operation Match, a computer dating service based at Harvard; the Operation Match computer room; MIT student David DeWan founder of Contact dating service operating a computer; Chris Walker, of Yale, looking at computer printouts. Also a portrait of writer Gene Shalit, wearing an Arabian headress and smoking a cigar.
Unpublished photographs show young adults in a computer lab(?).

*****END QUOTED TEXT*****

That is all.

UPSIDE-DOWN LAND

JUST TO BE CLEAR, I was not intending to use my iPhone upside-down in order to make a "joke."

I WAS MERELY DISTRACTED by the gigantic and authentic STOCK TICKER, and the fact that if I broke it, it would cost the show ten thousand ACTUAL DOLLARS.

That is all.

CALL IT BLIND PREJUDICE...

BUT I WILL ALWAYS VOTE for the writer.

That is all.

YES, NO, SORRY

YES: of course I have seen the Playmobil Security Checkpoint. IT IS AWESOME. But I trust you have seen the 19th CENTURY PLAYMOBIL CONSTABLE ROUSTING THE DRUNKEN TRAMP?

NO: I have not yet seen Olberman, but I am going to ask the Internet for it for Xmas.

SORRY: I gave you the wrong URL for Ape-Lad's book. Here it is again, I hope.

AND ALSO I AM SORRY: for I have been out of town.

That is all.

APE-LAD URGES US ALL TO DIE

die, die, DIE
Originally uploaded by Ape Lad.

THIS, from Ape-Lad, re: the legacy of Gygax.

WHAT WOULD RICKY JAY SAY ABOUT THIS?

AS WELL, have you seen Ape-Lad's book?

HOLY CATS! (literally*): It is awesome.

That is all

*(Not literally)

POTTS AND ROGERS IN THE NYT, PLUS BOINGBOING

ADAM ROGERS, my editor at "WIRED,"

and SAM POTTS, whom you may know from the Brooklyn Superhero Supply Company and the design of A BOOK

(and whom I know from Mr. Koestenbaum's Photo 1 class)

TEAM UP TO SEND OFF GYGAX with a lovely essay, and an amazing chart.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION OF SAME on boingboing.net and marvel as Potts fends off the typical comments board sniping by OUTGEEKING THEM ALL:

[BEGIN QUOTED TEXT FROM POTTS]

"Vin Diesel is included because he's a self-avowed (-confessed?) D&Der. His connection to Asimov is that "Pitch Black" was based loosely on Asimov's story 'Nightfall.'"

[END POTTS QUOTE]

(C. Alan Joyce of the World Almanac also jumps into the fray.)

FINALLY, and BELATEDLY: thank you, Gary Gygax, and safe journey. We shall all be raiding your tomb forever.

That is all.

SEE?

THIS IS WHAT I'm missing while I'm going crazy.

That is all.

POWER AT TED

WHILE THE VIDEO IS NOT THERE, I did manage to find this abstract of POWER'S TED TALK from the TED blogger Bruno Giussani.

READ, if you like, and MARVEL at all the links Bruno puts in his post!

BEGIN QUOTED TEXT

Harvard political scientist and writer Samantha Power is tasked with the closing speech. She wrote a book on genocide, and a new one (just out) called "Chasing the flame", a biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN envoy in Baghdad who was killed in the first suicide bombing in 2003 (book cover left). She is a powerful proponent of bringing human rights back to US foreign policy -- see her essay on "The Human-Rights Vacuum", arguing that the erosion of US influence around the world has created "a void in global human-rights leadership". She may get her voice heard by the next president: she's an adviser to Democratic candidate Barack Obama (she wears an Obama badge on stage).
On April 31st, 1994, in the middle of the Rwandan genocide, the NYT reported that 200 to 300'000 people had already been killed. An American congresswoman from Colorado met that day with a group of journalists, and one asked why there is so little response out of Washington, no hearings, no denouncing. She said: "It's a great question All I can tell you is that in my congressional offices in Colorado and in Washington we are getting hundrds of calls about the endangered apes and gorilla populations in Rwanda, but no one is calling about the people". The truth is that while we have developed endangered species movements, we don't have an endangered people movement, we have a Holocaust museum but we haven't really created the movement-of-never-again. Now, almost out of nowhere there is an anti-genocide movement, it grew up in response to the atrocities in Darfur, there are more than 300 anti-genocide chapters in universities in the US (bigger than the anti-apartheid movement) and the idea that not being an up-stander, but being a by-stander, has a price. This has led to the referral of the crimes in Darfur to the international criminal court etc. But evil lives on, people in refugee camps are surrounded by janjaweed militias. We have achieved alot, but still far too little. Why? Several reasons. The movement such as it is stops at America's borders, it's not a global movement (BG: that's not exactly true, there are movements in other countries, the UK government has been a key player in trying to broker peace, etc). Second, US has a credibility problem in international circles, it's difficult to remain credible when you denounce genocide on Monday, declare waterboarding as acceptable on Tuesday, and ask for troops on Wednesday, as the current US administration is doing.
She turns to Sergio Vieira de Mello. He was a cross between James Bond and Bobby Kennedy. He was ingenious, spoke 7 languages, was successful with women; and one could never tell if he was a realist masquerading as idealist, or the other way around (BG: I met him twice, and that's an accurate description of him). He worked for the UN in Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Kosovo, East Timor and many other countries. "He was the cutting edge of our experimentation with doing good with limited resources". Four lessons from his life on how to prevent evil from prevailing:

• His relationship to evil is something to learn from. Over the course of his career he changed alot, he had alot of flaws but he was very adaptive. He started as someone who charged, attached, accused. Then in Southern Lebanon in 1992 he said to himself that he would never use the word "unacceptable" again. He became almost obsequious, even negotiating with the Khmer Rouge. But towards the end of his life he had achieved a balance, don't ignore history, don't ignore what the wrongdoers have done but go into the room and discuss with them.
• He espoused and exhibited a reverence for dignity that was really unusual. At a micro-level the individuals around him were visual, he saw them. At a macro level, dignity was at the center of his action.
• He talked alot about freedom from fear. Fear is not a concept that we want to walk away from, but let's calibrate our relationship to the threat. Let's not hype it, let's see it clearly. Fear is a bad advisor.
• Because he was working on all those hard place, he was very aware of their complexity, humbled by it, but not paralyzed by it. We, there seem to be a temptation to pull back from the world. We can't afford to pull back, it's a question on how to be in the world.

If we want to see change, we have to become the change.

END QUOTED TEXT.

All I can say is: THANK HEAVEN WE HAVE CHASED THAT POISONOUS MONSTER SAMANTHA POWER AWAY FROM OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE!

that is all.

SAMANTHA POWER

I HOPE THAT they post Samantha Power's TED talk from last week as soon as possible.

FOR IN IT, you will get to see what a smart and funny and deeply principled scholar looks like when she gets tired of the annoying absurdities of political life, such as PRETENDING THAT GENOCIDE ISN'T REALLY HAPPENING.

I FOUND her call and efforts to organize a meaningful policy to deal with genocide one of the most inspiring things I heard at the conference.

(THAT, and Joshua Klein's plan to crowdsource litter management to enormous packs of CROWS).

BUT BECAUSE Hillary Clinton apparently can't bear to be called a name, a brilliant, talented woman is chased from public service--at least for now.

I CALL IT MONSTROUS.

That is all.

PENNSYLVANIA AND DILBERT

ANOTHER NOTE on the matter of Pennsylvania.

I DID NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST that Clinton's victories last night were hollow by calling them "symbolic."

SYMBOLIC VICTORIES are extremely important. Even if she hasn't changed the math, she has fundamentally changed the tenor of the conversation, which is absolutely what she had to do. Her win in Texas, as of this writing, is only by three percent; but had it gone only 3 percent to Obama, an argument could have been credibly mounted that she did not meet her own expectations and should now step aside.

BUT SHE WON THAT MARGIN and now people are asking Obama if he would settle for VP.

(NO ONE SHOULD SETTLE AT THE MOMENT, though any combination of those two would be a ticket I would probably vote for, either as a Dem or Ind, depending.)

BUT IN THE SAME VEIN, Pennsylvania shapes up not only as a necessary MATH victory for Obama, but a crucial SYMBOLIC one.

Even though he might lose PA by a small amount and STILL come out ahead in pledged delegates; and even though the general election relies less on core Democratic support than it does on the candidate's ability to attract independents and swing voters (where I believe Obama has a significant advantage)...

Even though all of this, Clinton's SYMBOLIC victory in Ohio suggests that the post-industrial OLD-LINE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS are still not sold on him. That is to say, the working class white men and women whom he had been attracting in Wisconsin, but lost ground with in Ohio.

HE NEEDS TO PROVE THAT HE CAN WIN THEM OVER, decisively. And he needs to win them in primaries, not caucuses, in order to beat back the Clintonian myth that he can only win in caucuses because they are stacked with LATTE-DRINKERS AND COLLEGE PROFS AND ACTIVISTS.

Pennsylvania is not only a big state, it is a post-industrial state conveniently full of old-line Democrats with a Democratic-only primary. From a MATH point of view, it's a "would be nice to win" state.

But from a SYMBOLIC point of view, it's a MUST TO WIN state if Obama is to have any hope of convincing the party elders (ie, superdelegates) that he's earned the full backing of the party he seeks to represent.

ALL PREVIOUS EVIDENCE suggests that the longer voters are exposed to Obama, the more they like him. So my feeling is: he has seven weeks before Pennsylvania: HE SHOULD GO LIVE THERE NOW.

I GAVE YESTERDAY, and I will wait to give again until I see evidence of a clear, powerful Pennsylvania strategy. And when I do, I will not only give, I WILL GO VOLUNTEER.

(PS: hey, matching donor Mark F, where are you?)

ON ANOTHER NOTE, it looks like Scott Adams is one of COULTON'S 1000 TRUE FANS.

That is all.

MY INCREDIBLE INSIGHT

CLINTON WON the two big states. She fought hard and deserves congratulations. It's a symbolic win, given that the delegate math does not seem to have shifted very much, but not entirely so. She can now easily make an argument that she deserves a fair hearing from the super-delegates regardless of the pledged delegate count.

THIS WILL BE HARROWING. Given their respective support and the clear ambivalence of the electorate, it would be foolish for either candidate to drop out. Yet it will be hard on the party for them both to stay in. My hope is that they work together to find a way to at least make it fun and interesting, and not just oppressively petty and painful.

ONE SUGGESTION: please don't go out saying McCain is better than Obama on any issue, no matter how it helps you. Obama could still be your party's nominee, after all.

SINCE THE WORLD WAS DEPRIVED of my incredible insight and unbeatable political strategy until it was too late last time, I'll say this right now: Obama must focus on winning Pennsylvania, and by a good margin. It's the only fight left: the only way to counter the argument that he cannot win the big, traditionally democratic, Clinton-leaning states, which is the argument Clinton will use should she face the convention with a minority of pledged delegates.

I LOVE MY WYOMING AND MISSISSIPPI, and they should not be wholly neglected.
But it's time to shift from a 50 state strategy to a one state strategy.

AND NO MATTER WHOM YOU SUPPORT, LET'S BE CLEAR: the only way to avoid a convention decided by politicians instead of voters is to provide Obama with a clear, undeniable electoral mandate. He has one now, and every time he broadens the delegate gap, he gets closer to an uncontested convention.

IF YOU REALLY SUPPORT CLINTON, then you must face facts and realize that she gained very few delegates last night, despite all the press. No matter her future performance, her road to the nomination relies almost surely on political gamesmanship and her ability to convince the super delegates to her cause.

BY ALL MEANS, FIGHT ON. But harbor no illusions. Unless you can show me math that proves otherwise (and I've seen none), she comes to the nomination by a questionable mandate and a lot of political arm-twisting. And as you know, I don't think that's such a hot position to lead from.

WASN'T THIS POST HILARIOUS?

That is all.

AFTER ALL THIS...

H in Sunrays on Cracker.
Originally uploaded by weirdel.

I need another cracker.

WITH CAPS FLAVORED CHEESE

Thanks again Weirdel.

That is all.

HELLO, KELLY AND LEX

To reply to Kelly and Lex from the comments below, let me clarify regarding my decision to leave the Democratic party should Clinton become the nominee.

First, I did not say I would vote for John McCain. No matter what happens, I will vote for the nominee whose ideals are closest to my own. Despite my self-smear as a latte drinker above, I am actually pretty small-government in my social and economic thinking, and so I doubt I would ever be able to vote for a person aligned with the privacy invaders of the anti-abortion, anti-gay right wing.

Second, I support Obama because I support the party. I believe that Obama as nominee will strengthen and broaden the party. I think his nomination is our best shot at winning the presidency with a broad, clear mandate and in winning back to our cause the independents and moderate Republicans that the Clintons, rightly or wrongly, seem to have lost.

(ironically, they lost them over the same tactics they used to seek them, but more on that later)

Pragmatically, such a mandate would create coattails upon which other Democrats, as well as Independents and Republicans I agree with, will be able to ride into office. Far more so than a scorched-earth, 51%, dare-I-say Clintonian victory in November, this kind of mandate and broad based electoral success is our best chance of actually enacting the kind of change both candidates want to make.

Third, Obama represents the model of the Democratic party I wish to belong to. It is a party that is inclusive. It is a party that does not tell me that I'm the wrong kind of Democrat (ie, latte-drinking). It is a party that does not imply that the Democrats of Texas or Iowa don't count because they don't fit into the electoral calculus. It is a party that is committed to innovative grass roots organizing: raising funds and building policy support voter by voter in all 50 states, and does not rely solely on entrenched political machines and top-down, mass media, which is dying.

I acknowledge that Obama is not pure-as-driven snow on these metrics. I am sure some may find quotes that would support that he alienated a voter there, or benefited from a political machine here. But is clear at least to me that he is closer to the mark on these principles than his rival, and he is a leader insofar as he is showing us why they matter so very much. These models for the party, especially the matter of inclusiveness, are not merely inspiring ideas, but also represent a blueprint for what I would consider to be a broader, more vibrant, and more powerful Democratic party.

Fourth, and to specifically answer Lex, I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I voted for her husband twice, and I think she would be a capable president, were there not a better option available.

However, she nonetheless represents what I consider to be a model for a failed Democratic party. A party that divides its own membership against one another--by suggesting that a rival is not black enough, for example, or too maybe-Muslim--in order to conquer it. A party that prefers a meaningless, symbolic conflict over an effective struggle, or reasonable compromise. A party that is essentially unprincipled, following the DLC line of tacking further and further to the right to capture what I consider to be a mythical conservative majority until finally it is merely a shadow republicanism. A party that mocks inspiration and villifies optimism.

Again, I do not just find these qualities loathsome. Pragmatically, they add up to a party that loses elections, loses core support, and presides over a dwindling collection of special interests instead of a national movement. Our success in 2006 stemmed from our firm principled opposition to the war, resonating with a motivated electorate, and our embrace of disillusioned republicans like Jim Webb. Yet we have retreated from that stance ever since. On the war alone, the defining issue of our day, there is little meaningful difference between McCain and Clinton. If Clinton's democratic party is, in policy and tactics, merely a shadow of the Republican party, then independents and moderate republicans will simply and understandably vote for the real thing.

Fifth, and this goes without saying, my loyalty is to my country and its principles first, not to the private enterprise that is a modern political party. Like most, I didn't choose my political party, I inherited it. I've always been proud of it and its stances. But I think we see a clear difference here not only in which way the country goes, but the party. If Clinton is nominated, and especially so if she is nominated without a clear electoral mandate, then I will conclude the democratic party is not interested in being the party I think it can become, the party I wish to be a part of. And while I might vote the democratic ticket in the future, I would in that case become an independent.

I hope that all make sense. Did you notice? NO CAPS!

That is all.

HOPE ON A CRACKER

H in Sunrays on Cracker.
Originally uploaded by weirdel.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE, this easy-cheese reminder from Weirdel that

IT IS TIME FOR THE HOBOES TO TAKE OVER THE US GOVERNMENT.

Vote.

That is all.

MY TWO CENTS, WHICH ARE WORTH EXACTLY 1/2 OF A CENT

I AGREE WITH BILL SCHER'S FOOLISH PREDICTIONS, though it is not a happy agreement.

Obama's message since Wisconsin has been that the delegate math proves that OBAMA IS INEVITABLE, and that message has consistently annoyed voters in this primary.

AN ALTERNATE, and better story might have been that the delegate math proves that, unless Obama is the clear nominee, there WILL BE a brokered convention.

FOR, AS I HAVE NOTED BEFORE, the voters have consistently rejected the notion that this election be decided by super delegates, the press, or anyone who is not them.

ALL DEMOCRATS and all voters instinctively loathe the idea of the brokered convention.

AND A BROKERED CONVENTION WILL HAPPEN if Clinton wins both OH and TX, or maybe even just OH, as she is unlikely to step aside EVER.

I TRUST OBAMA has been concentrating on his ground game, as that produced large wins in what had seemed like close races, as in Wisconsin. I hope that's what happens here.

BUT IF HE LOSES EITHER OH OR TX, I think it will be because of this rhetorical error.

(And also, I think, because of the insidious, Limbaugh-esque pigeonholing of his supporters as latte-swilling liberal freaks. Far more than the empty-suit-plagiarist-crypto-muslim-weak-baby smears that have gotten all the attention, I think THAT is what's really driving working class Democrats to Clinton in Ohio. AND I DON'T JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE I AM A LATTE-SWILLING LIBERAL FREAK)

AND IF OBAMA LOSES BOTH OH AND TX, I think it's over. Because at that point the nomination will go to whomever wants it enough to destroy the party over it, and I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

AND NOT THAT IT SHOULD MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU, but if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I'm leaving the party.

I MAKE THIS PROMISE TO YOU, in internet writing.

That is all.

I HAVE BEEN OUT OF TOWN

...at the TED conference, and now I am trying to figure out if it really happened.

I KNOW IT SOMEHOW involved both Craig Venter and Goldie Hawn.

BUT THAT cannot be true, can it? WAS IT A DREAM?

Meanwhile, I just matched Mark F.'s contribution to Obama. I will let you know if he writes back to me.

That is all.

YES: I READ ANDREW SULLIVAN

AND I AGREE with him.

MORE GARFIELD minus Garfield is found here.

That is all.

A CULTURAL SINGULARITY BEYOND WHICH THERE IS NO RETURN

IF YOU ARE TRULY interested in fact-fiction event horizons, please see:

COULTON playing his own STAY ALIVE on Rock Band accompanied by that old anthem rock power trio,

LAPORTE, MANN, & BELMONT

I am very angry I could not be there.

AND NOW SO ARE YOU.

That is all.

COURTESY: Ms. Belmont for the link and video. Click the second link above to learn more about these INCREDIBLE MUSICIANS.

CRYSTAL METH: FRIEND OR FOE?

THERE IS NO TIME FOR pithy commentary.

IT IS SIMPLY IMPERATIVE that you go here, now.

LINK COURTESY: Sean McDonald.

That is all.

IN OTHER NEWS: TOUGH

IN OTHER NEWS, I always knew that my friend and my editor Paul Tough was a very smart person and a very fine writer about aliens and humans

(AND not a bad singer, as you will recall if you attended the LITTLE GRAY BOOK LECTURE on the subject of "What Will Happen in the Future").

BUT I AM ASTONISHED by how astute and readable his political blogging is.

ESPECIALLY compared to mine.

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO HIS WEBSITE RIGHT NOW?

There is no reasonable answer.

That is all.

THE CENTER OF THE WORLD

RAMONA brings my attention to this SHIRT

DESIGNED BY one Ian Leino.

IT IS the best picture we have to date of the world of the MOLE-MEN.

SO WHY DON'T YOU IMMEDIATELY BUY IT?

I trust you see my logic.

That is all.

FROM THE COMMENTS

"TIM" WRITES from the comments:

"You know what would really complement a cape? A goatee. The last time we elected a president with facial hair was 1908. Exactly one hundred years ago. The time for a comeback has arrived."

OBVIOUSLY I agree, and that is why I was so excited when Al Gore grew a beard.

HOWEVER, not a goatee. NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. As we learned in the NINETEEN NINETIES, the goatee is the facial hair of the desperately ambivalent, and that is not what we need in a PRESIDENT today.

(ALSO, The Potts Famous Beard Manual indicates that a GOATEE signifies "false hopes" and "flash over substance." As well it is suggested that the GOATEER is someone who might lead a "CULT OF PERSONALITY" and maybe even "QUOTE WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION." And as you know, THOSE ARE THE WORST THINGS ON EARTH.)

That is all.

AND REGARING THE ELVEN vs. ERMINE vs. SUPER-HERO CAPE-CLOAK DEBATE GOING ON IN THE COMMENTS

WHAT I HAD IN MIND was more of a Roosevelt-at-Yalta cape, as per this HISTORICAL IMAGE.

I THINK THIS IS SOME KIND OF TRADITIONAL naval watch cloak.

(BUT IF THERE IS A CAPE HISTORIAN or "cloakist" in the crowd, please do enlighten me.)





UPDATED: Though of course, your imagination need not be restrained to this particular model if something like this is more up your alley.



I JUST DON'T THINK IT'LL WIN ELECTIONS.

That is all.

OBAMA EN-MANTLED

Obama with cloak
Originally uploaded by Trophiogrande.

AS PER yesterday's post. Here is Trophiogrande's rendition of Obama wearing a cape.

That is all.

SINCERITY POST

IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS by the tenor of my recent posts and the recent Obama victories that

I AM NO LONGER TOTALLY FREAKING OUT.

I AM NO LONGER AS DESPERATELY WORRIED AS I WAS that my preferred candidate for President (hint: Obama)--who represents what I consider to be the smart, inclusive, decent, and inspiring Democratic politics of the future--might be KIDNEY PUNCHED TO DEATH by the grim Rovian politics of the past.

AND I AM NO LONGER AS PROFOUNDLY DEPRESSED AS I WAS that Hillary Clinton, whom I've always liked and defended, was the one doing the Rovian kidney punching.

SO YOU NICE PEOPLE MAY GET SOME RELIEF from the relentlessly sincere posts about politics and my worries

AND SOON WE CAN ALL GET BACK TO THE MOLE-MEN.

That said, I will offer just 2 MORE BLASTS OF PURE, EMBARRASSING, NAIVE SINCERITY...

SINCERITY BLAST ONE!:

If you are perceived as being the darling candidate of the young, educated, liberal activists, you don't really change that impression by having your triumph in MADISON, WISCONSIN.

TO THIS POINT: Obama's little joke about his whispered conversation with a Republican who had come to the Obama fold was funny. But I winced when it became clear he was only using the exchange as a joke.

IF WE ARE ALL INDEED EACH OTHER'S KEEPER, he needed to call back to that Republican handshake in his speech, and remind his young, educated, liberal activists that the Republicans are humans as well. We need to welcome and talk to them, and not just in an embarrassed whisper. We need to stop demonizing one another by party, by region, by class, by race. And the logical next step after that rally was to urge every one of those young, educated, liberal activists to go out into their state and meet their neighbors--not just to spread the word; but also to just shake hands.

It's not just good politics for the primary. It's not just how we'll form a new, strong, young, inclusive Democratic party. It's what the Obama candidacy, at its best, is all about.

SINCERITY BLAST TWO!

I like the fact that Obama is ahead of Clinton by about .338787 of a delegate, or whatever it is. It is appropriate for him to take up the mantle of the front runner at this point.

(AND WERE YOU AWARE of the meaning of the word "mantle" in this context? It means a kind of ceremonial cloak or cape)

HOWEVER: It seems to me wrong to promote Obama's nomination as INEVITABLE, as Obama's campaign seems to be doing.

Many have come off the crazy ups and downs of this race and called it absolutely unpredictable. All roller coasters feel that way when you're on them. But when you actually look at it from the outside, you see the peaks and valleys, and twists and turns are clearly structured and very predictable.

EVERY TIME CLINTON OR OBAMA is coronated as "inevitable"--by themselves or others--they lose. Look at what happened between Iowa and New Hampshire.

EVERY TIME CLINTON OR OBAMA is portrayed as the insurgent--by themselves or others--they win. Look what happened bewteen New Hampshire and South Carolina.

HISTORICALLY, no matter what you've read, AMERICANS HATE AN UNDERDOG--they love a winner. HENCE: BUSH.

BUT IN THIS RACE ESPECIALLY, voters HATE HATE HATE the presumption that someone else will be making this decision for them--be it the press, the superdelegates, the pundits, or the candidates themselves--before they've made up their own minds.

Obama is absolutely correct to capitalize on his winning momentum and A GENIUS to start taking his arguments directly to McCain, where he should finally show off the substantive policy chops the voters want and need to see.

But the primary races still to come will be hard. They could easily shift the balance back to Clinton, especially if she is able to cast Obama, perversely, as the establishment candidate, the pre-coronated king.

If Obama is to limit the inevitable sympathy vote that will accrue to her in the states to come, he needs to resist wearing a crown. He needs to remind Americans that his candidacy, if only by virtue of its inclusiveness, is ALWAYS at a disadvantage next to the harsh political gaming of Rove and his proteges.

The real triumph will come when he wins in spite of it.

OK, that is all I am going to say about all this. Since I have become NOTHING BUT A SHILL, I'll encourage you now to donate.

BUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, I THINK YOU WILL AGREE: it is time for Obama to start wearing some kind of actual cloak or cape on the campaign trail.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD LOOK AMAZING.

(Maybe Ape-Lad can envision it for us some day.)

That is all.

I GIVE UP

JUST GO here.

That is all.

THERE IS NO OS CONSPIRACY

I merely entered the embed code wrong.

I APOLOGIZE.

Try this:




THAT IS ALL

WOODCHUCK COME LOOK AT IT?

THE DRIEST JOKE on the internet today.



THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS with this idea:

1) WRONG operating system.
2) UNTIL they get a monotreme up and running, I REMAIN SKEPTICAL.

That is all.

DERRICK

NOT MUCH TIME for pontificating today. I AM TRYING TO WRITE EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT MASSACHUSETTS.

BUT ENJOY THIS if you like watching pointless confrontation become meaningful conversation.



That is all we need right now

THAT IS ALL.

THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION

THE PERSON WHO DELIVERED BEACON, NY to Obama and did all that volunteering and good writing below was DAVID REES, not me.

I live in Brooklyn and have just been blogging.

POORLY.

That is all.

FROM DAVID REES PART 2

BEGIN QUOTED TEXT FROM DAVID REES

We held Hillary to a measly five-point victory in Dutchess county, one of
the slimmest margins in the state.

Obama won in Beacon [NY]

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF MY ENORMOUS YARD SIGNS.

Here's an interesting article, positing that Obama's campaign itself speaks
to his strategic and executive abilities.

To which I can only add: Any candidate that can convince an agoraphobic,
depressive internet addict like myself to stand on a highway overpass waving
a sign and talking to strangers is a GODDAMN STRATEGIC MASTERMIND.

END QUOTED TEXT

That is all.

HOLD NO LEVEL OF FEAR

That is all.

HOPE

AND VOTE

NO MATTER WHOM YOU ARE SUPPORTING, there are few actions that are so profoundly entwined and joyfully United Statesean as these.

AND FEWER STILL that have been so hard won, and so nobly, by those who were unable to do either.

AS YOU KNOW, these two rights and responsibilities of citizenship were not won in 1776.

IF YOU ARE TO BELIEVE JEFFERSON, we were born with them long before that year, for one is liberty, and the other the pursuit of happiness.

AND EVEN AFTER OUR REVOLUTION, many of us had years of fighting still before they got them.

AND WE ARE ALL STILL FIGHTING, year after year, election day after election day. Because as difficult as it is to accept, there are those still, this very day, who will rob us of both if they can.

PLUS: you get a little sticker and maybe a brownie if there's a bake sale on.

SEE YOU AT THE POLLS.

That is all.

3,000 PEOPLE IS NOT NO PEOPLE

I WILL SAY THIS THOUGH, whoever suggested the Meadowlands for today's Obama rally should consider resigning.

ESPECIALLY WHEN the alternative was a much more public-transit friendly arena in Cory Booker's backyard.

"Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark, who was at the rally, said that the rainy and snowy weather, the mid-workday timing and the relative lack of access to the Meadowlands were to blame. Mr. Booker said that he had hoped to play host to the event at the Prudential Center in downtown Newark, which is much easier to reach via public transportation and — for the city’s thousands of office workers — by foot."

That is all.

FROM DAVID REES

THIS JUST ARRIVED in my mailbox from the great David Rees, creator of the comic strip GET YOUR WAR ON.

I DO NOT KNOW ANY CLIP ART CARTOONISTS who are funnier, more principled, and less likely to swoon for a politician.

AND THAT IS WHY I feel compelled to pass this on.

REES has been organizing for Obama tirelessly up in Beacon, NY, as he knows that even if Obama loses the state, he will keep the delegates he wins here.

(CHECK AND SEE IF THIS IS THE CASE IN YOUR STATE AS WELL, and then vote, for heaven's sake).

WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING? Bloggin'.

SO YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO DAVID REES:

BEGIN QUOTED TEXT.

Dear Mailing List,

In the eight years I've managed this list I've never agitated for a politician. I hope you'll let me abuse your trust this one time.

If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.

It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall, and it has been my pleasure and my honor to donate the royalties from the two GYWO anthologies to Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5, a landmine removal team in western Afghanistan.

If you ever attended a GYWO reading, you probably sat through my video of landmine removal teams in the field, or listened to me read off statistics about that dangerous mission, or indulged me by taking an informational flyer about MDC Team #5 and the sacred work they do.

(If you bought one of the GYWO books, you've helped that work, and I thank you.)

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.

But Senator Obama did the right thing.

Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.

But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.

Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.

(DEEP BREATH)

I urge you to vote Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States.

Thanks,
David Rees

END QUOTED TEXT

Please note that David is interviewing Amy Sedaris on Feb 7 at 7PM at the Brooklyn Public Library, and for free TO BOOT!

That is all

CARTOON COURTESY: Rees

NOW WE NEED A COULTON VERSION

That is all.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY

I CAN SEE a cynical argument that points out that most Americans don't care what Michael from LOST or Scarlett Johansson thinks about politics.

BUT I SURE THINK this is beautiful.



Whatever you do: VOTE. And PS: NY is not a winner-takes-all primary.

That is all.

FROM YOUR COMMENTS

BRANDON, from your comments, shares this link, one of my favorite moments in television.

IN CASE YOU were fool enough to believe that words don't matter:



THAT IS ALL

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT LIVE

(I DID, but I'm glad to have seen it now.)



I REMEMBER once being asked for advice on parenting. Deciding to be sincere about it for once, I simply said: JUST WATCH MR. ROGERS. I could tell you what I think on the subject, or what I've learned from my own experience, but why bother?: EVERYTHING FRED ROGERS KNOWS AND SAYS ABOUT CHILDREN IS CORRECT, and I realize this astonishing fact again, every day.

SO I SAY: just watch.

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

That is all.

SCRABBLE REPORT

BELATED CONGRATULATIONS to Elaine and Davin, who were extremely good company and beat Oliver and me...

UNFAIR AND SQUARE.

DAVIN TELLS THE TRUE STORY of how it all went down.

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN for contributing to the event. It was exceedingly fun. I wish it happened every weekend. And it raised MANY AMERICAN DOLLARS for the cause OF CHILDREN.

That is all.

Photo of triumph COURTESY: the website of THE SCHOOL LIBRARY JOURNAL (!), though I forget exactly who took it.

THIS BOILS IT DOWN FOR ME.

THIS ISSUE OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY that is so compelling that it has literally chased every last laff off this page, alas.



That is all.

IN RESPONSE TO JESSE'S POST

I LOVE RANDY NEWMAN as much as the next guy.

BUT I ALSO LOVE this from frequent COULTON COHORT: "PAUL & STORM"

IF YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE, I also recommend"

"IF JAMES TAYLOR WERE ON FIRE"

"IF LEON REDBONE SUFFERED A MAJOR HEAD INJURY"

and

"IF JAMES TAYLOR WERE ON FIRE AT THE BOTTOM OF A WELL."

That is all.

NORTHAMPTON, MA (TECHNICALLY: HADLEY)

WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD is true.

I SHALL BE RETURNING to the land of Silent Cal this weekend to join

MANY ILLUSTRIOUS COLLEAGUES in a

BOOKISH DANCE PARTY, the details of which are HERE.



I DO THIS FOR MANY REASONS.

1. I cannot pass up a chance to appear with THURSTON MOORE
2. I am always looking for a chance to SHAKE KELLY LINK'S HAND
3. I always need more books, rubber stamps, bottle openers, Tintin paraphernalia, and gymnasium shelves.

THAT IS ALL

MLK

MLK

EVEN OBAMA KNOWS WHEN IT'S TIME TO DEPLOY A LAFF

WHEN WILL I LEARN?

“I said, ‘Well, I don’t handle paper that well. You know, my desk is a mess. I need somebody to help me file and stuff all the time.’ So the other two, they say, ‘Well, my biggest weakness is I’m just too passionate about helping poor people. I am just too impatient to bring about change in America.’ If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. I could have said, ‘Well, you know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.’” - Barack Obama, Las Vegas

NOTE: the beautifully curved quotation marks.

CUT AND PASTE COURTESY: Paul Tough. His actual name.

That is all.