…meaning, their taste buds are more sensitive to the sensations of sweet, bitter, etc.
What did you think I meant?
Rick Warren As Invocation Speaker
A-list blogger acknowledge that Barack Obama is Time's Person of the Year, and then imposes on him Wanker of the Day.
Why?
Because of Obama's decision to have Rick "A Purpose Driven Life" Warren give the inaugural invocation.
In fact many, particularly in the gay and lesbian community, are NOT happy about the selection of Warren. For example:
This selection is clearly not about “change”—it’s about making a high profile decision to give the stage over to a known homophobe; choosing Rick Warren is tantamount to asking any of the professional anti-gay “Christian” set to stand up there. There is no excuse for this; given there are so many leaders of the faith community that are in alignment with equality for all.
True. He's not the best choice. But viewed in the proper light, this is really more of a slap in the face to the religious right — those of the James Dobson and Pat Robertson ilk. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice. He's at the forefront of getting rank-and-file evangelicals invested in "creation care" environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS. He's far more moderate than the religious leaders we've come to know (and disdain) for the past few decades.
And it's not like Warren is going to be dictating social policy… on gays or other issues. Obama clearly doesn't subscribe to Warren's views on gays:
Besides, it's just an inaugural invocation. So I can't find myself generating the outrage that others seem to.
P.S.: The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.
Brain Tumor Turns Out To Be Foot
A 3-day year old baby born in Colorado Springs had what doctors believed was a brain tumor. He underwent a delicate operation, and the tumor turned out to be a fully-developed foot.
Yes, a foot. And possible another foot, hand and thigh. All embedded in his brain.
Full story here. Spoiler alert: happy ending.
“He Kept Us Safe”
President George W. Bush, ever focused on his legacy, said Wednesday "there can be no debate" about his record of preventing another terrorist attack.
Rrrrright. And I guess he's entitled to a mulligan on that first one that happened under his watch.
Hitler Youth
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.
You name your child after the world's most, uh, intolerant (to say the least) man in history, and then ask for tolerance?
I. Don't. Think. So.
Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
Here comes the irony quote of the day…..
"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview conducted in Easton, on the other side of the Delaware River from where the family lives in Hunterdon County, N.J.
He defends his decision to name his child Adolf Hitler this way:
"They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did."
It's true: Adolf Hitler is a name, and a name is a name. You know what else is a name? Frank. George. Mike. Steve. There's literally thousands of names. Let's not pretend that the selection of "Adolf Hitler" was mere happenstance, okay, buddy?
And yes, it's true that the kid probably isn't going to grow up and do what Hitler did. Instead, the kid is going to grow up getting his ass kicked. And not finding employment.
And speaking of names, Adolf Hitler Campbell has a sister with the name — I'm not making this up — JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.
Yeah, get over it, people. "Aryan Nation" is just a name. Doesn't mean anything.
Caroline Or Change?
Several A-list liberal bloggers are quite unhappy with the prospect of Caroline Kennedy taking over Clinton's Senate seat:
- Firedoglake's Hamsher: "It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas. […] It appears Ms. Kennedy thinks that US Senate seats are something to lobbied for amongst political elites when one decides one wants them, and that the public should be happy to simply fall in line. The fact that one has a family political machine currently in the process of steamrolling David Paterson and a famous last name should be enough for the little people. I thought at least she'd get out before the cameras and start making her case to the public before she announced her intentions, because simply lobbying your well-connected buddies just oozes an outrageous sense of entitlement and insufferable pomposity."
- Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Frankly, I consider [Kennedy] to be undeserving of the seat, given that she has never won an election and that basically her only qualification would be her family name. Further, at a time when Democrats are suffering from a major corruption scandal over Senate appointments, appointing a dynasty candidate would only add fuel to that fire. Republicans will run in 2010 on an argument that one-party rule leads to waste and corruption, so nepotism like this would be a bad idea."
- Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste. Needless to say, I've got nothing against Kennedy. But appointing her to the Senate just isn't the right thing to do."
- Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "When you're rich and come from a political family, and are heir to American royalty, you can apparently dispense with dealing with pesky voters by simply ringing up the governor. […] Kennedy might very well be a favorite of Democratic primary voters in a contested race (and current polls suggest that), but that would require her to run, and elections can expose candidate weaknesses not readily apparent before the harsh glare of the spotlight is trained on them. In 2002, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of heavily Democratic Maryland despite entering the race with a 27-point lead in the polls. In 2004, Sen. Jean Carnahan lost the special election to the seat she was appointed to in 2002 after her husband was tragically killed in an airplane accident. But running for office is an icky process. It's hard work. Much harder, of course, than merely picking up the phone and calling the governor."
I respectfully dissent. I think she would be an excellent choice.
Sure, she's a Kennedy, but I don't think that makes her less qualified than otherwise. She's certainly been around politics her whole life; there's no learning curve there. And it's not like she's going to be a Kennedy in the womanizing and getting-drunk sense.
Furthremore, she's a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy. Having a senator cognizant of the Constitution is a good thing. She will also be a champion for education and funding for the arts. She's served on several prominent boards, including Obama's transition team. And her "celebrity" status might bring some light to key progressive bills and legislation that might not otherwise be there.
Yes, it's true that she could have decided to be a politician decades ago. And yes, she chose other paths, never having run for elected office. But again, how does that make her a less able senator than someone who has been a career politician? It's worth noting the seat she is seeking was held by both her Uncle Bobby and Hillary, neither of whom ran for political office before becoming a senator either.
RELATED: In an article at Politico, discussing the "nepotism" of the Democratic Party (e.g., Caroline taking Hillary's seat; Jesse Jackson Jr. taking Obama's seat; Beau Biden taking Biden's seat), we find this quote:
“Democrats seem to lack a common man who can just win a good, old-fashioned election,” said Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “They’ve got seat-warmers, seat-sellers and the making of pillows for the seats of royalty. No wonder the public wonders what’s going on in Washington.”
Excuse me? Who is currently the president, and what was his father's prior occupation???
Questions That I Have For The Secret Service
From 236.com:
1. Shouldn’t you have jumped in front of that shoe?
2. Shouldn’t you have jumped in front of that second shoe?
3. Second shoe = the one thrown after being removed from foot after first shoe was thrown.
4. Let’s say people had three feet. Would you have allowed a third shoe to fly unimpeded?
5. While the shoe was in the air, were you like, “Oh, its just a shoe.”
6. Same question about the second shoe.
7. Do you think this is funny, “Throw a shoe at me once, shame on–you. Throw a shoe–you throw a shoe, you can’t throw a shoe again.”
8. Is there not “protection training” for lunatics launching objects?
9. Let’s say there isn’t training for that–but do they tell you that if someone does throw (or shoot) something to be on the alert in case they want to repeat this behavior?
10. Where were you?BONUS QUESTION: Do you think the Iraqis want us there? (Hint: their journalists are throwing their shoes at Bush)
Hamster On A Piano Eating Popcorn
Yup. Just like the song says…
One Hell Of A Cold Front
Map says it all. Look, for exampl, at the difference between southwest Illinois (16 degrees), and Nashville (42 degrees) — only a couple hundred miles apart.
Shoe-Throwing Fallout
The world is abuzz at the now-famous shoe-throwing incident, and everyone is looking for the perfect pun. ("The insurgency is in its last throws")
Conservative pundits are quick to point out that the shoe-throwing would have never happened under Saddam. So, therefore, $800 billion in U.S. taxpayer money well-spent, I guess.
Of course, shoe-throwing isn't really a very good sign that democracy and lawfulness have come to Iraq. After all, what would happen if an American, on American soil, threw his shoes at the president, especially in this post-9/11 world? Probably Gitmo… or worse. In any event, it's assault, and not exactly something to be tossed out as a sign of "progress".
Meanwhile, reactions from Iraq to the shoe-throwing incident (shoe-throwing is a sign of contempt in the Muslim world) are coming in.
In Najaf, for example:
In the holy Shiite city of Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, demonstrators chanted: “Bush, Bush, is a cow, your farewell was by a shoe,” and, “The shoe got its goal straightly, but Maliki turned it away.”
I'm assuming those chants sound better in the original tongue….
UPDATE: Background on the shoe-thrower here.
Election ’08 Turnout
The Electoral College meets today to choose our next president.
Yeah, you thought we did that last month, didn't you? But we didn't. We just elected electors to the Electoral College who gather, and — oh, screw it. It's arcane and stupid. But it happens today.
And with that, the New York Times informs us that '08 turnout was the highest in 40 years.
More than 131 million people voted this time around, the most ever for a Presidential election, compared to a little more than the 122 million who voted in 2004. Overall, 61.6% of the nation's eligible voters turned out to cast their ballots. That's the highest turnout rate since 1968, when Republican Richard M. Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and native son George Wallace. Four years ago in the Bush-Kerry race, 60.1% of those eligible voted.
All told, the number of voters increased 7.4% in the United States in the 2008 Presidential election over 2004.
The state which saw the biggest increase in turnout compared to 2004? North Carolina. We had competitive elections for president, governor and Senate, so we jumped from 57.8% in 2004 to 65.8% this year. Obama won North Carolina by 14,177 votes, out of more than 4.3 million cast.
Early voting also hit a new high, with about 41 million people — or more than 31 percent — voting before Election Day, either by mail or at designated sites, according to returns compiled by The Associated Press. Early voting accounted for 22 percent of the votes cast in 2004.
The Missiles Of December
Russian Warships Bound For Cuba says the headline.
Didn't we already do this once?