Virginia is For Lovers, Texas Ain't for Whiners?

In answer to a reader's query at Instapundit:

A READER TAKES ME TO TASK for not paying enough attention to the aftermath of Hurricane Ike in Texas, and she's right. The Houston Chronicle has been doing a good job of covering that, and there's a lot of coverage from John Little. And here's the latest update from Dr. Melissa Clouthier. If you've got more stuff, please send it.

Why do hurricanes that hit Texas get so much less attention than hurricanes that hit New Orleans?

UPDATE: Another reader emails: 'If you want to discuss lack of coverage, wasn't the hurricane that hit New Orleans the same hurricane that nearly wiped the Mississippi gulf coast off the map?" Yes. Why did New Orleans get so much more attention? Is it because the media wanted to paint the Bush Administration as racially insensitive, or is New Orleans just the only place they could find on a map?

Or perhaps it's just because most of the people who live in Texas realize that the price they pay for living in an almost tropical climate is that occasionally they have to deal with some of the perils of the tropics, ie, storms. Apparently many of the residents of the Gulf region were unaware that living in an area frequented by hurricanes and brutal tropical storms means that odds are, you're gonna get your house wrecked at some point by one of these storms, and that whining about it after the fact isn't a great way to deal with it. Sure, you'll get billions in taxpayer aid from the rest of us who didn't decide to live in such an area, free housing, big-screen TV's, etc, but I guess maybe Texans are more interested in actually rebuilding their communities themselves instead of complaining to the media that everyone else around the country hasn't given them enough cash.

Obama's Running More Negative Ads Than McCain

20% more, according to a report from the TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group (TNSMI/CMAG) and the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project.
via Marc Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com

The campaigns are spending about $15m in ads per week; each is spending about $7.8 million. most of McCain's ads are paid for with both McCain campaign money and money from the RNC; 97% of Obama's ads are paid for by the candidate. 77% of the Obama campaigns' ads were deemed "negative," compared to 56% for McCain.

And in a related bit of news, linked to by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, from a column by Karl Rove in the WSJ, he points out a very revealing slip from the Messiah that I've yet to see reported in the MSM:

...in an interview with ABC recently, Mr. Obama said, "If we're going to ask questions about who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily." That he is in fact winning the contest for the most negative campaign could well spell his defeat.

For Foodies

A friend/co-worker of mine (she actually sits right behind me, and therefore literally oversees everything I put up here) has launched her own blog, devoted to her cooking. She's very talented, and makes a lot of Korean dishes. Give it a look, if you're into that kinda thing. I like the name.

Ambitious Delicious(ness)

Food News Round-Up

Food News to Go
Via Instapundit

AP Protecting its Sources in Palin E-Mail Hackery

An addendum to the non-story about idiots breaking into and stealing Sarah Palin's emails and some photos, which were then displayed by moronic enablers at Gawker and the AP, among others. Now, after the Secret Service "asked" the AP for copies of the leaked emails, the AP refused to comply.

I don't really care about people breaking in Sarah Palin's Yahoo account and swiping some emails and whatnot. Yeah, it sucks for her, that's unfortunate, hopefully there was nothing compromising, but it's going to happen, particularly to someone as hated as she has rapidly become. If nothing else, it's a good thing, it shows the depths to which the left is willing to sink in order to dig up anything at all that they can try to use to bring down our Golden Girl.

What I have a major problem with is the asshats at Gawker and the AP and anyone else that willfully splashed the private emails of the Governor of Alaska and candidate for Vice President all over the Internet, and then tries to act like it's no big deal, they're just doing their job as members of the media. It's no wonder that people are quickly becoming fed up with the MSM, the AP in particular, and that Palin/McCain are maintaining at least a tie in the polls. Is there any chance at all in the world, that if this had happened to Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or even a RINO like Arlen Specter that these idiots would be enabling the felons who did this by plastering the stolen emails everywhere? Not a chance.

Disgusting.

VDH Tells It Like It Is

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson injects a much-needed dose of reality and sanity into your day...

I think almost everyone knew that should McCain surge a point or two hysteria would ensue, and the hope and change idealism would morph into the wounded fawn cries out against the "lying" and "lost his bearings" and "can't remember" enfeebled, aged McCain — while in the mind of his galvanized self-righteous and more extreme supporters everything else becomes fair game for the higher cause of defeating McCain.

Read it all here

Democratic-led Congress Responds to the Worst Economic Crisis in Years By...Going Home

Democratic Congress May Adjourn, Leave Crisis to Fed, Treasury from Bloomberg, via The Corner

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic-controlled Congress, acknowledging that it isn't equipped to lead the way to a solution for the financial crisis and can't agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get out of the way.

Not that I mind at all, in fact, this seems like something that Congress should do a lot more often when it comes to the economy (and most other things), but the headline and the implied negligence and lack of any sort of viable solution seems very very emblematic.

Rangel on His Way Out?

PELOSI PUSHES RANGEL TO STEP DOWN FROM COMMITTEE CHAIR from the NYPost, via JammieWearingFool

It can't happen soon enough. Although having said that, the longer this fool hangs around as a symbol of his party, the better for the Republicans. I worked for several months as a Congressional intern in the House back when I was in college, and the office I was in was directly across from Rangel's. Whatever I thought of his politics, the guy was one of the friendliest, most gregarious people I've ever met. It's easy to see how he's stuck around so long, despite his numerous gaffes and scandals and his ridiculously liberal policies. But Charlie Rangel is the best argument for Congressional term limits that I could ever think of, and the sooner he's gone, the better, for everyone involved.

Computer Trouble

Sorry, to all my faithful readers (all one of you), my computer went on the fritz yesterday, and there were some awfully tense moments around my apartment as I tried desperately to resurrect her.

She seems to be working ok now, but if there's anyone out there who knows anything about such things, who also happens to be reading this blog, I'd appreciate any input you can offer. And yes, I realize the odds of that being the case are slim to none, with slim hanging on for dear life to the last train out of town.

Basically I started getting pop-up messages saying that something connected to a USB port was malfunctioning (the options are my wireless router and remote control receiver for my cable box, which I watch on my PC via Windows Media Center), and then the computer began to lock up, eventually necessitating a shutdown via the power button. Trying to restart, the same thing happened. And again. Finally, I figured I was in big trouble, me without a backup external hard drive and therefore about to lose most of my music and all of my pictures, not to mention a PC that had originally cost me about $1300, so I resorted to opening up the tower to see if I could see anything obvious. And I did.

To make a long story even longer, when I first purchased the computer from Dell about four years ago, it died after six months, blue screen of death, everything. Apparently it had been put together with shoddy hardware, something that seems to be no uncommon with Dells. Not having purchased the warranty, I was pretty pissed to have a $1300 paperweight after six months of use, but I was able to get send an email to a higher-up at Dell, and he apparently finagled it so that I could get in touch with a Dell repairman, who (at least partially) fixed it for me at no charge. A bad motherboard, he told me. Not a bad deal, considering, but it shouldn't have ever come to that point to begin with, at least not after just six months. And to top it off, yes, he did get the computer running again, and (up until yesterday) it hasn't given me any trouble since, but when it was returned, the outer casing was slightly cracked, so that it didn't fit snugly and has had to be held in place with tape ever since.

The end result of all of this was that when I opened up the casing yesterday, I discovered that over the course of four years, with a slightly cracked casing, the interior of the computer had accumulated quite a bit of dust. In particular, the grating on the rear of the fan unit was basically covered. I cleaned everything, primarily by blowing really hard, but using a paper towel to clean off the fan housing, and when I had put everything back together, and hooked it all up again, it seems to be working fine.

So I suppose the end result of all this is A) If something you buy without a warranty malfunctions way too early, don't give up until you speak to someone at the top; and B) Periodically dust the interior of your computer, paying special attention to the fan. What a boring, boring post. I really hope no one actually reads this through to the end...

Whoopi Embarrasses Herself; McCain Wimps Out

Dirty Harry has a video clip up of John McCain on The View, apparently trying to answer a serious question in a serious manner, you know, like adults do. Whoopi Goldberg jumps in out of left field with an utterly idiotic comment about being "returned" to slavery, apparently thinking that McCain's stated support of judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders intended was his way of saying that we would revert to the original Constitution, you know, before Republicans ended slavery against the objections of the Democrats.

What a jackass. Either Goldberg is actually a complete and utter moron, and actually believes what she's spouting, that John McCain would like to return her to slavery, whatever the hell that means (I fail to see how being a millionaire entertainer many times over is at all similar to slavery...), or else she is saying stupid things purely to garner applause from the equally juvenile sheep in the studio audience, who do their part and whistle and cheer as the childishly self-satisfied Goldberg soaks it up.

However, as much of an asshat as Goldberg makes of herself, it's expected of her at this point. The Dems have no serious arguments to offer against any of McCain's policies, so they're reduced to "playground insults" and nonsensical rantings in partisan settings. What's almost more frustrating is McCain's complete and utter failure to take her to school.

Granted, he has the whole "temper" reputation to watch out for, the last thing he needs is to have a clip on YouTube of him lashing out at a host on The View, but his response to this idiocy is pathetic. He stutters out a sad little, "That's an excellent point," and smiles, apparently amused by this simple fool. There's a large, large middle ground between lashing out and accepting this lunacy with a smile, and John McCain needs to find it, but quick. It's been working for Sarah Palin, fighting back against the lunatic, infantile attacks of the left, maybe John McCain should give it a try. The American people seem to like it, and it's definitely not politics as usual.

If you can bear to watch the clip through to the end, however, you'll witness the most embarrassing part, as once legitimate journalist Barbara Walters, in an apparent effort to comfort the schvitzing Goldberg, throws out a casual, "Us white folk will take care of you." Oh my.

Best Coen Bros. Characters...

via Television Without Pity (which has been going steadily downhill since it was purchased by Bravo, but still is worth an occasional read, particularly once real TV starts up again and they can write about things other than fake TV, ie, crappy Bravo reality shows)

This is a list that inspires endless debate, and would probably end up leaving no one happy. I think it might fall into the category of politics and religion, under things that you shouldn't bring up in polite company. Most people would probably agree with some of the biggies (Marge Gunderson, El Dudarino), but one thing that the Coens do so so well is craft and give incredible life to so many of their secondary characters that it makes it difficult to choose between them.

For my money, I can never have too much John Goodman, especially in a Coen Bros. role, and he's certainly had a bunch of them. TWoP includes him twice (Charlie Meadows in Barton Fink, and of course Walter, in The Big Lebowski), but I would have been happy to see him substituted for George Clooney for his role as the Cyclops stand-in Big Dan Teague in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, as well as his work in Raising Arizona. He's got to be one of the more underrated comedic actors out there.

Come to think of it, with the incredible wealth of Coen Bros. characters, maybe it would have made a lot more sense to make one list of "main" characters, and another of secondary players. I could go on and on here about the supporting players who have left indelible marks (The Hell Biker from Raising Arizona, Daniel von Bargen's aviator-shaded Sheriff Cooley in O Brother, even despite the blatant rip-off/homage to Cool Hand Luke, anyone played by Steve Buscemi, etc...). It's too much to go into here.

If there's time later, I'll make up a list.

WaPo Makes Up a Palin Lie

I suppose it's time to stop being surprised, and just stop buying the papers...

from Confederate Yankee:

Anne E. Kornblut, just stop.

Unless Kornblut buried the lede, Palin said precisely nothing about Saddam Hussein or his government at all or any roll they may have had in 9/11. Kornblut simply made that up, because she wanted Palin to say that.

When Palin referenced "...the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans," is was an obvious reference to al Qaeda in Iraq, an offshoot of the parent al Qaeda organization that plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, and while still funds and loosely controls the failing Iraqi branch.

Obama: Government Will be Cool Again!

Good grief. Via Ben Smith at Politico -

"Our campaign from the beginning has been about changing government," he said, recalling some great accomplishments of American government: Civil rights legislation, the interstate highway system, and the National Park system.

Obama would, he said, "transform Washington" and "make government cool again."

Government isn't supposed to be "cool," or hip, or rad, or even fun. Government should be an industry that people do not want to go into to make a lot of money or to hang out with beautiful people or to have a great time at the taxpayer's expense. The government's job should be to stay the hell out of our lives as much as physically possible, to take as little of our hard-earned money as possible while still maintaining an overwhelming military presence in the world, and otherwise to just shut the hell up and sit back and let the country run itself on a state or local level.

I'm very very scared what will happen if Obama is elected in November. I'm at an age where I'm realizing how tight the margin can be between earning a living wage and struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Quite often, the difference is how much the government decides to steal in taxes. I'm trying to save to buy a house, so that my family can have a decent place in which to grow up, so that I'm not renting for the rest of my life. The difference between that happening or not happening could quite well be whether or not the government decides to stop bailing out people who live irresponsibly beyond their means, and yet get to own homes anyway. If Obama is elected, the size of government will multiply many times, and there will be no going back. Granted, if McCain wins, it won't be much better, but at least his victory would put Sarah Palin and a new generation of Republicans in a position to take the reins in 2012.

Where I Was

And Glenn has inspired me. I barely knew what blogs were back seven years ago today, as a young pup still in undergrad at good ol' U of Maryland.

September 11, 2001 was a beautiful morning in College Park, MD, I had an early class in the English building all the way across campus, and I wasn't in the habit of catching any news before I went out for the day, so the first thing I heard was as my class ended, the professor mentioned that a plane had crashed in New York. That was my only class until that afternoon, so I began the trek back across the gorgeous UMD campus to my apartment off Route 1. As I reached the quad, there was a large group of students gathered around someone's radio by the narrow pool that stretched from one end of the quad to the other. They were listening to reports from New York, and by this point the second plane had hit. It was still uncertain what had actually happened, but it was becoming apparent that this wasn't an accident. A few students were crying, many were on their cell phones, probably trying to reach friends or relatives in New York. I stood there for about an hour as the crowd got larger and larger, all listening quietly to this one small radio, as rumors began to circulate through the group about terrorists and other planes.

Classes were canceled for the rest of that day, and for the next day, and the one after that. Maryland has a substantial group of students hailing from New York and New Jersey, and many many people's lives at my school were directly affected by the attack. I attended a memorial service in the days following in the same spot on the quad, by that point planes had begun flying again, but each time one appeared overhead, every single person's head in the crowd lifted upwards, looking for anything that would indicate that something might be wrong.

I might post again later this morning on this, if I have time, but if I keep thinking about it right now I'll probably get way too upset/angry.

Eh, Work Can Wait...

Clicked over to Instapundit briefly, saw that Glenn Reynolds had linked to his postings from 9/11/01. It became very tough to do so. If you want to be taken back, go click on over for as long as you can bear it.

9/11

Posting will be light this morning, due to work...

James Lileks, On a Roll (with a side of french fried potatoes)

Brilliant, as always
via Instapundit

Read all of it

Chad Javon Ocho Cinco

Ashamed to be even commenting on this, the Chad Ocho Cinco nee Johnson fiasco, but he's on my fantasy team (2 points last week, way to go #2 draft choice), so I happened to notice it. According to Bengals.com (I'm not going to bother linking, just take my word for it) apparently Chad hasn't been allowed to wear "Ocho Cinco" as his last name on his jersey to this point due to an outstanding obligation to Reebok, which manufactures the jerseys sold to fans. Making the change would cost approximately $500,000.

Does Reebok believe that an "Ocho Cinco" jersey wouldn't immediately become one of the top-selling jerseys in the NFL? Provided he performs a bit better than last week, every Bengals fan in Cinci, not to mention half the rappers out there would be sporting orange and black Ocho Cinco duds the next day. On top of that, any "Johnson" jerseys that have already been produced would instantly become retro/collector's items.

Aside from massaging the already massive ego of one of the most obnoxious/overrated athletes on the planet (I'm still kinda mad at myself for drafting him), where's the downside here?

Florida to Require ID Match to Vote

Florida will require I.D. match for all would-be voters
from McClatchy, via Instapundit

What a novel concept, requiring that a person actually prove that they're who they say they are before voting! This must not stand!

Obama/Europe, Part II

On a related note, nice jab from Dave Letterman last night, via the Corner:

David Letterman: "How about that Barack Obama?" They are "saying for the first time he's starting to slip in the polls," but "don't worry. He's got a plan. He's going to go back to campaigning in Europe."

The Only NYC Paper's Endorsement McCain's Gonna Get...

I forget to mention yesterday, it wasn't really a surprise, but still nice to see...there's a reason I pick up the Post with my coffee and ham, egg and cheese bagel at Bagel World each Saturday morning, and it's not because of Page Six. (Although the great Mets coverage doesn't hurt)

"THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States."

Hurry, Vote for Obama, or the World's Gonna Be Mad!

The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for
from Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, via Mark Steyn in the Corner

"The world's verdict"? Is this a joke? What the hell does "the world's verdict" mean? And more importantly, as Steyn so ably lampoons, what is "the world" going to do about it? (His suggestions: "You mean economic sanctions? Expulsion from the Olympics? Moving the Oscars to Belgium?" and I'll add, "Pulling the UN from our shores?" God forbid.)

The whole piece is worth a read, as long as your blood pressure is relatively low, if only to get an idea of the dread that is apparently gripping not only domestic liberals, but those abroad as well. Yay, dread!

I guess the problem is that Freedland, along with the majority of domestic liberal politicians, seem to think that most voters in the US actually give a damn what he and the rest of the world think. We don't.

There's a reason that America hosts the UN, that America is the cultural touchstone for the rest of the world, that America is capable of fighting two wars and still feasibly threaten Russia. It's because we've followed a different path than the rest of the world, we haven't yet given in to European-style fecklessness and political correctness and socialism. Freedland seems to want to drag us down with him and the rest of once glorious Europe, into the near-third world that envelops much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America.

Freedland even manages to quote, not once, but twice, the ridiculously flawed column at Slate by Jacob Weisberg from a couple weeks ago, in which Weisberg accused anyone voting against Barack Obama of racism.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Freedland wraps up with the following bit of champion asshattery (all emphasis mine):

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American.

Sooo, Freedland finds it hard to believe that Obama voluntarily positioning himself as the "candidate of Europe" (or the world) would hurt him in America? Seriously? He finds that "incredible"? Where has he been for the past eight years or so? Believe it or not, most Americans don't want to be like Europeans! I know, incredible! Who wouldn't want a malfunctioning healthcare system, a socialistic nanny-state government, massive race/immigration riots, a completely ineffectual military, and an overwhelming sense of inferiority and decline?! Ooooh, sign me up!

But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

Huh, funny, apparently you haven't been listening for the past decade or so...but also - Hee! Europe's so cute when it gets all mad!

So Frustrating

Risk for thee but not for me
from David Harsanyi in the Denver Post via Instapundit

A good column re the Mac/Mae (Bear Stearns, airline industry, et al) mess. It's stuff like this that makes me reconsider voting at all, for anyone. Massive corporate bailouts and nationalization are a problem that pretty much everyone in Washington has a part in, save for a few brave souls, and sometimes it seems as if the only way to fix the problem (if it is still fixable) is to allow the GOP to lose so badly that they'll be forced as a whole to opt for a new generation of lawmakers, people who understand that the country doesn't benefit, and doesn't want or need these taxpayer bailouts, that in the long run they will destroy our economy and our way of life.

Maybe someone like Sarah Palin understands this, maybe she's the beginning of a conservative economic revolution, maybe people like her, and Bobby Jindal, and Jeff Flake, maybe they will be the forefathers of an economic revolution. But somehow I doubt it.

Drop in Oil Prices a Bad Thing?

Oil nears $100 a barrel ahead of Opec meeting
from TimesOnline, via Instapundit

Glenn Reynolds comments, "I suspect we'll see production cuts. I'm not sure it's a good thing if oil drops much below $100/barrel anyway, as it will kill off alt-energy and conservation efforts that we're very likely to need anyway."

I don't know that I agree with Glenn's assessment. At this point, it seems as if our flirtation with $4 gas has scared consumers enough to create a semi-permanent lifestyle change, at least among the more common folk. It obviously hasn't stopped Hollywood and environmental advocates and touring pop acts from hopping on private jets, but amongst regular people, I think we have realized that dropping a ton of money on a gas-guzzling SUV isn't the wisest choice, whether gas is $4 or $2. The automobile industry has swerved away from the late-90s, early-00s (read as "aughts") mode of thinking, and has already invested so much money in developing alternative modes of transportation that it would be counter-productive to pull the plug now. There has proven to be a market for high-mileage vehicles, be they hybrids, or electric, or simply standard-fueled cars that get better gas mileage, and I don't think that will change. Like recycling, fuel conservation has quickly become pretty firmly entrenched in our national psyche - it's something that doesn't hurt to do and it saves a few extra dollars, something that most people would be happy to do in this era.

Palin vs. Biden

What I fail to understand is how liberals can cry foul over the Sarah Palin pick, screeching about how it's purely political, how she's only on the ticket to woo Hillary voters, or women, or moose-hunters, or Eskimo-descended champion snowmobile racers or some other group, that it's impossible that she's on the ticket because she apparently appeals to pretty much everyone and because she's done a hell of a job as governor, and would make a damn good chief executive. Meanwhile, they completely ignore the fact that their own VP pick, Joe Biden, is about as pandering a pick as you'll see.

The pick makes absolutely no sense in terms of Obama's whole "Change" message, in less it is viewed as utterly admitting that Obama has virtually zero in the way of foreign policy credentials, and even less in terms of actual executive experience (not that Biden really helps him there), and therefore Biden was brought on to appeal to older white folks, and/or those people who don't feel comfortable with a President whose only experience is running for president. The Biden choice is as pandering a choice as the Palin pick, but at least Sarah Palin has demonstrated, albeit in a short time, that she can handle any real responsibility, something that neither Joe Biden nor Barack Obama can claim.

Good Stuff

via the Corner, t-shirts and assorted other emblazoned materials available from CafePress

Team McCain Favors the Yankees?

Oh dear. It's really really a good thing that McCain brought Palin in when he did, or else this, combined with his stance on immigration, could have been the final nail in his coffin in terms of my vote...

from BusinessWeek, via the Corner

The Palin Effect

One of the more fascinating aspects of the Sarah Palin extravaganza is the inability of even those who seem to detest everything thing about her to stop talking about her. My office (and my city) is filled with people who are die-hard Democrats, people who voted against Hillary in the primaries because she was too conservative. However, these same people seem incapable of getting Sarah Palin off their minds, or out of their conversation. Ever since she was announced as the GOP VP pick, she has been the constant topic of conversation, even when the conversation is overwhelmingly negative. Even if people are simply repeating the same, already-tired jokes about moose hunting and the "failure of abstinence-only education" and whatnot, they can't help but talk about Palin.

Obama seems to have been completely eclipsed on the nation's cultural landscape, something that would have sounded inconceivable as recently as a month ago, and in a race that may simply come down to which candidate has more momentum heading into November, Palin has put the McCain team in the frontrunner's position.

Atomic Wings Coming to the Slope

As a lover of wings, I couldn't be more excited about this news - I don't think I've ever actually had Atomic Wings, but frankly, I can't really imagine they'll be bad.

Unlike cheeseburgers, chicken wings are a junk food about which no one can accuse me of being a snob. The only ways to ruin a chicken wing, for my money, is to overcook them. Beyond that, I really couldn't care less if they have too much or too little batter, or if they're a little small, or any of the other complaints that can be found on foodie message boards. Some people in New York will complain about anything, particularly food-related, but chicken wings should not be one of them. These are not a gourmet food by any stretch of the imagination, and they should not be treated as such.

You can keep your Bonnie's wings, I've had them, and they're no different than the vast majority of other wings out there. Buffalo Wild Wings? Same thing, they're fine, but I ain't traveling to Atlantic Avenue for chicken wings and shoddy service. Atomic Wings will be closer to me than both of the options currently available to me for wings, and it will undoubtedly be quicker. So welcome!

Charge Your Motorola Phone via USB

Out of necessity, I learned on Friday that you can charge your Motorola phone with nothing more than a USB cord and a computer. This certainly isn't news to a lot of people out there, but it is a big help when you're about to go out of town for a weekend wedding, and you realize you've left your charger at the office.

I simply used the USB cord that came with my Canon SD1000 camera, plugged it into the usual charging port at the base of my Motorola v325i, and it began charging. However, make sure your phone is turned on before connecting it, or else the charge doesn't seem to take.

A few caveats, it seemed to charge somewhat slower than with the standard AC adapter, but in a pinch, who cares. Also, there were a few hiccups locating the appropriate driver, but with some quick research, I was able to solve the problems. This seems to work for most Motorola phones, including the RAZR, and I guess it probably will also work for any other phone that has a USB-style plug.

The Palin Bounce

Palin/McCain lead, 50-46% among likely voters, according to Gallup

It's hard not to feel excited about this, the first substantial lead for McCain, although there's certainly a long long way to go. The campaign needs to keep Palin out there and visible, let her shoulder a lot of the load for McCain, keep pressing the experience angle, and start hammering the Dems on economic and energy issues. At this point, it would seem that the race is McCain's to lose, although with the electoral college shaped the way it is, it's still a very, very tight race.

Learn to Do Anything

School of Everything

I haven't really tried it yet, but if it works, this could be one of the cooler, more useful applications of the Internet that's come along in a long time - a website that connects teachers of just about anything, to people who want to learn...

via Jonah Goldberg's Cool Link Gal in the Corner

HA!

Time to pull out of Chicago...
via Instapundit

WITH VIOLENCE, AND AN IRRETRIEVABLY CORRUPT POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, I think we should just pull out of Chicago: "Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer. Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq."

Nick Clooney Shows Some Class

Apparently the apple has fallen very far from the tree...

Nick Clooney (George’s Pop) Defends Bristol Palin

The veteran journalist and former anchorman had this to say in defense of Bristol Palin:

“I did not get into this racket half a century ago so we could go out trashing 17 year old girls.”

We are in a very nasty period right now - with no gatekeepers. Nobody seems to care.

from Fox News, via Velvet Hammer by way of Dirty Harry

Asshat of the Week

Watch here as Fox News' Megyn Kelly wipes the smug smile off of the face of Us Weekly's Bradley Jacobs in about 2 seconds. It's replaced quickly by a look that conveys something more along the lines of nausea. What a tool.

Oh, and just FYI, "Bradley" has officially entered the "Top 5 Boy's Names That I Will Never Consider For My Sons" list, right up there with Trevor. Love the way Megyn keeps repeating it, Bradley, Bradley, Bradley. What a ponce.

Reason #4,596,008,890 for a Media Boycott

This morning's AMNY, which I shall no longer be picking up outside of the subway station each morning, has outdone itself. On the morning after a truly historic event, the first ever acceptance speech by a female member of a major party's presidential ticket, you'd think perhaps they would lead with that event, or, given that the speech didn't end until later than the paper went to press, perhaps with an article detailing the snippets that were given to the press ahead of time, for exactly this reason?

Instead, the front page blared "Levi's Comin'," with the subheader "Is Bristol Palin's skater stud ready for prime time?"

Good god.

Inside, the front page tease didn't even actually reference an article, instead, there was a page 3 column from someone named Ellis Henican, typical of the snarky, ironic, cynical drivel that so typifies journalism today. The column pokes fun at the 18 year old for the profanity on his MySpace page, and sniffs "Wondering if Levi actually graduated high school. As if that matters."

The idiocy continues with this disgusting "joke" - "How'd that abstinence-only education work out?" "Asking if Levi and Bristol did it at her momma's house. Asking if they could have done it at her momma's house if her momma'd been home with her children instead of constantly rushing off to some government job."

For the record, Ellis Henican is an asshole.

Oh, and yesterday, when I apologized for using profanity? That apology is going to have to stand for a while now, at least through November.

The Media is Disgusting

Not that this is any sort of revelation, but in the past few days, pretty much ever since the Palin announcement, the media has reached a new low. The unwarranted, unsubstantiated attacks on Palin and her family, are unlike anything I have ever witnessed.

It is time for the Right to stop treating the liberal mainstream media as anything but an enemy. No longer should the Olbermans, the Courics, and the Reuters of the world be treated as just a silly nuisance, "Oh, there goes that liberal media again, *wink wink*!" These people are actively involved in deciding one of the most important elections of my lifetime, one that will decide the direction of this country probably for the next eight years, at the very least, and in doing so they have abandoned all pretense of impartiality, decency, and honesty that the journalistic profession was once supposed to embody.

It has already been shown what a tremendous affect the rise of the Internet combined with a skyrocketing lack of trust in the MSM can have on circulation numbers, imagine what could be accomplished with an organized, systematic boycott. And not a boycott that is called off when newspapers agree to hire a certain number of supposed "conservative" columnists, or when a few advertisers agree to stop buying space. For the vast majority of people, there is absolutely no reason to buy an actual newspaper anymore, so why do we still do it?

Stop buying newspapers, stop supporting those who support our enemies, stop putting money in the hands of those who would destroy our way of life, would take away our freedom in the sacred name of the greater good, and would ruin everything that makes this country great.

Palin is Not Supposed to be Hillary Clinton!!!

Another day, another self-centered female, liberal columnist writing about how she's no fool, she's not going to be taken in by this "Palin" character masquerading as Hillary Clinton. This time it's Meg Boyle, featured in this morning's AMNY, writing from the Politirazzi blog.

Boyle spouts,

McCain did not pick Palin because she is the right person for the job. Sarah Palin is a gimmick...The Palin pick is directed at independent women like me who come from working class backgrounds. (Italics mine)

No, it's not, Meg. It's actually directed at people like me, conservatives fed up with John McCain's pandering to the left, tired of holding our noses when we vote, overjoyed to finally have at least half a ticket that seems to believe many of the same things we do. And I happen to be male.

It's directed at people like my mother, a woman who believes that abortion is murder, a woman who has preached abstinence-until-marraige to her children, a woman who happily has five guns in her house, who believes in limited government and self-determination.

Sure, Palin's selection is political, but to look at her and see only her gender is to do yourself, and more importantly, her, a huge disservice. It's no wonder women have had such a hard time getting ahead, any time one breaks away from the pack, those who disagree with her start complaining that she only got where she is because of her gender. It couldn't possibly be her qualifications, her truly conservative beliefs, her likability, or her demonstrated ability to get things done.

She then concludes by paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen,

Nice try. You, Gov. Palin, are no Hillary Clinton.

Well (excuse the profanity, I will almost never employ it here or in life, but...) no shit Meg. If Gov. Palin was Hillary Clinton, she would have been dismissed by the Democrats in the primaries in favor of Barack Obama. If Gov. Palin was Hillary Clinton, she would never have stood a chance of being selected to be John McCain's running mate. Sarah Palin is everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Sarah Palin is trustworthy, sincere, dedicated to her family, pro-life, anti-government waste, and basically the anti-politician. She is nothing like Hillary Clinton, aside from her gender, and that is exactly the reason that she is so beloved among Republicans.

The Dems had their shot to vote for a woman whose policies they support. You chose to nominate Barack Obama instead. That's not the fault of the Republicans.

Like I said yesterday - Meg? Get over yourself.

Sarah Palin Facts

Sarah Palin Facts

Basically a rip-off of the "Chuck Norris Facts" thing, but still earns a hearty "Heh!"

Some of my favorites:

- Ben Linus does Sarah Palin’s bidding
- N. Alaska is sunny half the year and dark half the year because Sarah Palin needed the reading light, then wanted a nap
- Sarah Palin uses French Canadians as bait to catch giant king salmon
- Sarah Palin got Tom Brady pregnant, and then left him
- Sarah Palin will give birth to the man who will lead humanity’s war against the machines

"Trailer King" Don LaFontaine Dead at 68

Trailer Voiceover King Don LaFontaine Dies at 68

The owner of one of the most recognizable voices in the world is dead.













R.I.P.

Palin, cont.

A woman, but why this woman?
via Drudge, from the Baltimore Sun

Susan Reimer, a female columnist, echoes many of the sentiments that I've heard ad nauseum since the Palin pick, from female liberal friends, in the papers, around my office, etc., that they're "insulted" by McCain's selection for VP, as if he made the choice solely to appeal to them.

John McCain picked Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and mother of five, to be his running mate to woo women like me. He seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president.

Reimer then goes on to complain:

Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution?

Here's a thought, Susan. Maybe McCain actually couldn't care less who you and your girlfriends vote for. Maybe, because you only seem to consider a female candidate truly representative of your gender if she completely agrees with your positions, maybe McCain realizes that you wouldn't vote for him unless he had picked Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Maybe he's written you off months ago, and he actually chose Sarah Palin as his running mate because she's smart, charismatic, knows energy policy backwards and forwards, because she's pro-life, because she's been a lifelong NRA member, and because she'll appeal to all those millions of women out there who think exactly the opposite of you.

I find it incredibly self-centered and egotistical (which shouldn't really come as a surprise, considering I live and work in New York City, and am therefore surrounded constantly by some of the most self-centered, liberal females in existence) that liberal women can claim to feel insulted that McCain had the nerve to select a woman as his running mate who wasn't a pro-abortion liberal, as if it was the Republicans who chose not to nominate the first pro-abortion woman with an actual shot at winning the presidency. Susan, the Democrats had their shot to nominate a liberal woman. You chose not to. No one is forcing you to vote for McCain/Palin, but to act as if Palin's selection is somehow a personal insult directed at you is moronic. It is a great thing for women everywhere, and to try to cheapen her historic achievement by declaring it illegitimate due to your differences in policy does a much greater disservice to women than John McCain ever could.

Get over yourself.

Mee Thai

Tried Mee Thai, (180 5th Ave., btw Berkeley and Lincoln) last week with a group, and if you're looking for a relatively inexpensive dinner or a Thai alternative to Song, this is a good bet. We shared a few appetizers between the eight of us, I had chicken dumplings, which were excellent, others I tried included a duck and a beef "salad," which was sort of the Thai equivalent of a taco salad, in that it's a salad in name only. They were both basically a small bed of greens piled high with savory chunks of the respective meats. Highly recommended, and very satisfying.

For my entree, I had my standby, Beef Pad See Ew (I have a nut allergy, so my options are extremely limited when ordering Thai), and it was very nice. I've had the same dish from Song a number of times, and Mee Thai's offering was just as good, even perhaps a bit lighter tasting. The service was gracious and quick, the decor is slightly elegant without being overbearing, and the overall vibe was very comfortable.

However, biggest selling point, and for those who know me, this is a big selling point, is that Mee Thai is BYOB. Yay! With appetizers and entrees, the bill worked out to $21 a person, so very affordable, and being able to provide your own wine is huge, in that regard. With the relatively recent demise of Jpan's BYOB status, Mee Thai will fill that niche quite nicely.

Sarah Palin: This is the Change I've Been Waiting For!

Here's my two cents:

I love the choice of Sarah Palin for McCain's VP, if for no other reason than it forces the media to divert their attention, at least temporarily, from Obama. However, she also seems to be a tremendous pick in terms of reassuring conservatives that McCain is aware we still exist. Sure, her lack of experience is a potential liability, particularly in the foreign policy vein, but if Obama wants to try to make it an issue, he can't help but come out looking ridiculous, given that he basically has the same lack of experience.

Palin is also tremendously strong on energy policy, and seems to have her head in the right place there, which is obviously going to be one of the most important issues as the weather gets colder. She seems quite charming, very smart, a good communicator, and she makes up a huge portion of the charisma gap that Obama had on McCain.

I love that she hasn't been afraid to take on those members of the Republican Party who give us a bad name, I only pray that her rapid ascension won't dissuade her from continuing to do the same in the future. And I love this.

The choice of Palin injects a huge amount of energy and enthusiasm (not to mention, cash) into the race on the side of conservatives. Finally, we've got someone on the ticket that we can truly be excited about, for whom I can feel proud and confident voting for. This is the change I've been waiting for!

And there will be nothing on this blog with regards to her daughter.

Cute Little Revolutionaries

Party Crashers
The peace-loving, road-blocking, window-smashing protesters at the RNC. by Christopher Beam, at Slate

Hard to pin down piece following a group of "protesters" (read: vandals/anarchists/idiots) as they act like the over-privileged, under-educated morons they are, "demonstrating at and around the RNC in St. Paul.

Beam seems to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the young jackasses, but he can't help be take a hilariously mocking tone towards their often destructive idiocy.

The delegation reaches Seventh Street and Wabasha and stops. A crowd has gathered, including major media. ("Are you NPR?" asks one protester excitedly.) Goodner takes the bullhorn and recites a list of grievances. Civilians are dying in Iraq. The federal government botched the relief effort in New Orleans. There's no "free tuition" for college or "free health care." "Mother Earth is crying in pain, from, uh …" he trails off. The crowd laughs. He mumbles something about alternative energy. "It's windy here!" offers another protester. An onlooker comes up to me. "Shouldn't they be in college?"

Another vanful of riot police pulls up. Meanwhile, a counterprotest is forming. As an Iraq chant begins, one of the anti-rioters yells, "You could have volunteered!" "Or take a bath!" shouts another. A protester raises two middle fingers skyward: "Fuck you, white America!" The two hecklers seem baffled. "You're white," says one.

But the fun soon turns destructive, as a Macy's window is smashed (The idiot responsible apparently slashed his wrist in the process. Good.) and police cars are vandalized.

I finally spot four members of my group—that's how I think of them—sitting against a wall, lying low. I ask them if it's over. "It's not over," one says. But they look tired. They don't know where everyone went. Plus, classes start tomorrow. I ask if they saw the people breaking windows. They say that's not what they came to do. They just wanted to block a few intersections. "No matter what I do now," a girl says, "I'll be associated with that."

Hopefully. What a bunch of utter morons. I don't know how cops can stand by and witness this kind of thing and not give in to what must be a very strong temptation to crack a few keffiyeh-draped skulls. They're stronger people than I.

Orson Scott Card and the Decline of the West

Great essay from Orson Scott Card on the damage that Western "intellectuals" are doing to America, freedom, and as a direct result, the rest of the world. via Michael Ledeen in the Corner

Ender's Game has been one of my favorite books since I first read it about six years ago, and I was very happy to find out that the author is, if not a true conservative, at the very least a blue dog Democrat, and certainly willing to speak out against the cowardice that seems to have infected the left.

I'm torn between wanting to see a movie made of Ender's Game as soon as possible, and wanting to make sure it's done right. In my mind, it would be one of the single most difficult novels to film well, and care would have to be taken that the themes and intensity are not sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Its ideas of self-sacrifice and the regrettable but occasional need for overwhelming force and brutality in order to prevent further battle are extremely relevant today, but done by the wrong director, it could be a debacle, a mockery of itself. (See: Starship Troopers)

Pizza by the Park Replacement?

When I first moved into Park Slope almost three years ago, I quickly became a big fan of Pizza by the Park, on 3rd St. It was convenient, relatively cheap, made good meatball hoagies, tasty chicken fingers, great salads, and had some decent toppings. It was perfect for grabbing a quick couple slices on the way home. Unfortunately, it was closed down by the health department a number of months ago, and the store front has stood vacant since then. I'm guessing that pretty much every restaurant in the city would fail a random health inspection for one reason or another, and as long as there's nothing wrong with my food and I don't actually witness any blatant violations, I'm happy. So the roomies and I have definitely missed Pizza by the Park.

Now, finally, it appears there will be a new restaurant in its place, next to the Stone Park Cafe. The new tenant is called Villa Rustica, and appears to be a slightly more upscale Italian eatery, advertising Brick Oven Pizza, which can't be a bad thing. Still, doesn't look like it's going to be a "grab a slice and go" kinda place, which is disappointing, but hey, it's better than nothing. I'm sure I'll check it out soon after it opens, and there'll be a full report at that time...

The Old Stone House

One of my favorite historical sites in Park Slope, the Old Stone House is a rebuilt Dutch farm house, located on 3rd St., between 4th and 5th Aves, and commemorates the Battle of Brooklyn, in which a colonial regiment from Maryland fought the good fight against British regulars, losing over 200 men, and serving as inspiration for the Colonials to continue fighting. Or something like that. All I know is that some colonial soldiers from Maryland gave a great accounting of themselves, and as a Maryland alum, it makes me proud.

Cher to Play Catwoman in Next Batman Flick?

Oh no no no nonononononono...

Cher 'to play Catwoman' in next Batman film from the London Telegraph via Dirty Harry

Are they serious? Is there any part of this article that is legit? No one is buying it in the comments at Dirty Harry's Place, and I can't imagine how they could make this work, at all. Also mentioned in the article is Johnny Depp as the Riddler. Now, I enjoy Johnny Depp as much as the next person (maybe a little less), he never fails to make things interesting (well, except for The Ninth Gate and The Secret Window), but he doesn't seem to fit what Nolan and Co. have got going on at all. He tends to be a little too over the top, a little too campy (which would fit quite nicely with Cher...) but would seem to be all wrong for this franchise. Now, at Wikipedia, there's apparently a rumor that David Tennant is interested in playing the Riddler. That, I could get behind...

More on Lowering the Drinking Age

Definitely one of the few issues these days that the left and the right should be able to agree upon without too much trouble:

Silliest column of the week award, in vino veritas division by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink by Michele Catalano, also at Pajamas Media

Want to lower the drinking age? Hope you like spam by Andy Guess at Inside Higher Ed

all links via Instapundit

Weisberg, cont.

Just as a quick addendum to the post below, James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal also posted a take down of Jacob Weisberg's ridiculous article at Slate, and naturally, his is a lot better (and shorter) than mine. I can only take pleasure in knowing that I wrote mine first, and I blame it on having a job to worry about while I'm writing my posts :)

Today's Best of the Web Today (w/the Weisberg piece)

Apparently I'm a Racist

If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. from Slate

At Slate, Jacob Weisberg comes up with a truly idiotic article, one of those that sets the blood boiling beginning as early as the title and not letting up throughout its thankfully brief length. Perhaps taking a leisurely stroll through the piece, with frequent breaks for sanity, will help break up the rage a bit...

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Immediately, Weisberg makes a ton of assumptions and generalizations that immediately stack the deck in favor of his argument (that Obama can only lose because voters are racists), offering zero evidence to back them up.

Obama has "every natural and structural advantage"? The man has virtually no experience, while his opponent is a decorated war hero with decades of experience and years of making friends, building contacts, and establishing trust. Obama is a flash in the pan, elevated to his present position largely because of a swooning media, a nice convention speech, and a timely sex scandal featuring a Tom Clancy character and a Sex Trek sexpot. Sure, Obama is charismatic, if you enjoy hearing a man talk about himself and how great he is for hours on end, but I'm guessing many people don't actually find that to be a positive trait. A runaway ego, a pronounced lack of experience, a complete and utter lack of a defined platform, and a history of relationships with bigots, bombers, and criminal real estate developers doesn't really strike me as the definition of "every natural and structural advantage." But hey, I'm a racist.

Weisberg continues:

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

So Weisberg admits that are actually very good reasons for Obama's current failure to run away with the election, at least in the polls - his alienation of supporters of Hillary Clinton and the fact that many of the attacks on him still haven't really been adequately responded to (except by tossing various "friends" and associates under the bus), as well as his presumably sarcastically exaggerated third reason (although somehow I doubt he intended it sarcastically).

Too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected? Has Weisberg never seen Napoleon Dynamite? Or the 2000 election coverage? America doesn't like handsome, brilliant, and cool in its candidates, especially when it comes packaged with a massive ego, an overwhelming sense of entitlement, and a simultaneous effort to play the victim. America much prefers rational, humble, and dependable. But Weisberg ignores his own arguments and plunges right in, busting out the racism charge, blaming "older, white voters" for Obama's failures.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Weisberg initially cites three stats from the poll in question in an attempt to illustrate "white America's curious sense of racial grievance." The first instance cites 26% of whites claiming a specific instance in which they felt that had been racially discriminated against (vs. 68% of black respondents). Presumably, Weisberg's point is that this is impossible. Never mind that the poll offers zero context beyond that contained in the question, and zero information from the respondents for Weisberg to form his judgement. It's simply impossible for a quarter of white people to have been discriminated against.

The second question cited states that a nearly identical percentage (27%) of whites thinks that "too much" has been made of "the problems facing black people" "in recent years." The question is so vague as to be relatively useless, but even so, this doesn't stop Weisberg from taking some undefined issue with the white respondents. I guess we're supposed to assume that thinking Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel and Jesse Jackson are detrimental to black people makes one a racist.

The third citation is possibly the strangest, in which again, about a quarter of the white respondents stated that they thought that America was not ready to elect a black president. Again, the question is so vague as to mean next to nothing. Perhaps 25% of whites think the rest of the country is racist, even if they themselves have no problem with a black president. To infer, as Weisberg seems to be doing, that the answers to these questions make the respondents in question racists who aren't going to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin is ludicrous.

Finally, Weisberg compounds his work here by taking a roundabout way of addressing the poll question which actually most vividly illustrates the point at hand. Question #78 in the poll asks whether the person in question "would personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black." 91% of white respondents answered "Yes," while 88% of blacks answered "No"!

Granted, with a question of this sort, it's only natural to assume that some people, despite the anonymous nature of the poll, will give what they think is the "right" answer. However, when Weisberg is basing his entire column on the information found in the poll, and presumably putting faith in the accuracy of the answers contained therein, you would think he wouldn't fail to overlook the one question that actually speaks quite specifically to the validity of his argument. One would hope, anyway. And yet, Weisberg instead chooses to pounce on the 5% of white respondents who say they wouldn't vote for a black candidate (again, ignoring the 6% of blacks who answer the same way). So far, Weisberg's evidence is not very compelling.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Weisberg then goes on to attempt to back up his central tenant with stats taken from exit polls in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, in which 1 in 6 voters claimed "race was a factor" in their decision. Weisberg assumes this to mean that 12% of white Democrats in Pennsylvania didn't vote for Obama because he's black. Never mind that the question doesn't seem to indicate what factor race played in the voter's decision. Maybe some of those voters cast their ballot for Obama because he is black. Race would certainly be a factor in that decision. (By his reliance on the combination of the NY Times poll and the Pennsylvania exit data, Weisberg also seems to be claiming that there are far more racists voting in the Democratic party than there are in the nation on average...)

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Weisberg continues with a paragraph, that as before, basically lays out a perfectly appropriate counterargument to his racism one, and yet Weisberg dismisses it out of hand, with no reason given. Maybe "some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel" because Obama's actions, from calling for talks with the Israel-hating Iranian regime to breaking bread with Edward Said to long attending a church that has given an award to Louis Farrakhan have done nothing to convince them otherwise. Maybe people view Obama as an elitist because Obama acts like one, making statements like the famous arugula gaffe, and the equally elitist "clinging to their guns and religion" remark. Maybe Obama is charged with playing the race card because he repeatedly does so, as whenever he falsely accuses the McCain campaign of doing exactly that.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Wow, and now he's resorting to referencing Pat Buchanan to bolster his claims of bigotry. You know you're reaching when the most shocking example of a public figure supporting racial solidarity is Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure what point Weisberg is trying to make with the Obama Nation reference, except that perhaps he thinks that it's supposed to be John McCain's job to go around researching and denouncing attacks on his opponent by someone unaffiliated with McCain's campaign?

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Building upon his already flawed, non-sensical, and inconsistent arguments and "evidence," Weisberg begins to wrap it up by stating that Obama's (or, presumably, any black person's election - Condaleeza Rice in 2012, anyone?) would election would somehow heal all the racial divisiveness that has done so much damage to this country over its history. Prejudice would immediately disappear, and most importantly, in my opinion, "the rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America." Oh joy! The absolute last thing I would want would be for Iran, or North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Venezuela, or Syria, or any number of other countries to be fearful of America. God forbid those who have expressly threatened or acted against our safety and freedom actually fear us.

And, if in our infinite racism, we pass up this magical opportunity to instantly end all forms of prejudice, it will signal to our children that equal opportunity is a myth? Huh? Because a white man with extensive experience and relatively popular policies is elected president over a black man with relatively radical, divisive, socialist policies, equal opportunity is a myth? I fear for Mr. Weisberg's children, if that's all it takes to dash their hopes and dreams.

And this just cracks me up: "In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race." Ha! Good stuff. "The world's judgment"? Hee! God forbid people vote out of self-interest.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

All I can say in response to this paragraph is: Good!

Mastery of a personal computer, whether McCain can or not, is not a prerequisite for a president, in my book. Does Weisberg expect McCain to start a blog or something? And I much prefer a Bush (or Kennedy, or Roosevelt)-like belligerence to security challenges from Iran. But Weisberg gets a bit off-message here. Not sure how this supports his whole racism thing...

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

First off, I'm not really sure I (or anyone else) knows what Obama's policy "prescriptions" are these days, beyond withdrawing our troops immediately from Iraq, raising taxes, and magical perfect universal healthcare, but in my book none of these constitute a "serious attempt" to deal with anything.

Weisberg really gets off point at the end here, sort of ditching the "Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist" theme that served as the basis for his column in favor of a vague attempt to argue policy superiority, although doing so sort of tends to ruin his argument, if it wasn't already strained. If the only possible reason for Obama not being elected president is racism, what's the point of debating policy at all?

For my money, it's absurd, fawning, blatantly insulting articles like this from that are driving voters away from Obama, not the color of his skin. I can't believe I took the time to even write this...

Great Timing...

Things We Thought We'd Never See: Democrats Rally Against the Teacher's Union! from Mickey Kaus at Slate

Wow - who woulda thunk - although naturally, this burgeoning movement (and yes, it's definitely a good thing for education in this country and "for the children," shudder) has to come when I'm about a year from becoming a teacher. The only people who really benefit from the immense power of the teacher's union are the teachers (and the Dems).

The party would "have to admit as Democrats we have been wrong on education." Loud applause! Mayor Adrian Fenty of D.C. joined in, describing the AFT's attempt to block the proposed pathbreaking D.C. teacher contract. Booker denounced "insane work rules," and Groff talked about doing the bidding of "those folks who are giving money [for campaigns], and you know who I'm talking about."

There's no denying that teachers in general are pretty well taken care of as a result of their union's work. However, I can only hope that if the union was to lose some influence and power, it would result in more of a merit-based system, in which those teachers who actually cared about their work and did their jobs well would get kept on and paid more, while those teachers who know less than their students and can barely read aren't protected by tenure. Which I guess would be good for me, as a member of that former group. So yay.

The Biden Choice

This is certainly one of the less frightening options, as a McCain supporter. I would have been much much more worried if Obama had opted for Hillary, or Kaine, of Bayh, or if somehow Gore had come out of the wings. All of them have their flaws, but Biden seems to bring nothing to the table besides his longevity and experience, which is obviously one of Obama's biggest problem areas, but by bringing someone like Biden onto the ticket, it would seem that Obama has sorta contradicted the whole "Change" thing on which he's built his entire campaign.

Nothing says "Change!" like an old white guy with over 25 years as a Washington insider!

*&%$*!

UGLY ENDING FOR GIANTS' OSI - OUT FOR SEASON AFTER MRI FINDS TORN KNEE CARTILAGE via NYPOST

That can't be good...

Weekend Activities

One of the primary causes of the below-mentioned lack of posting over the weekend was an all-day trip to the glorious Bohemian Hall & Beer Garden in Astoria, Queens. The hour+ subway ride to this wonderful establishment has been a summer ritual at least once a year since I've lived in Park Slope, and every time it seems to get better.

We usually go with a fairly large group (best to get there early enough to ensure a large enough seating area for your friends, if you're responsible for the trek, one of the roomies and I were there at 2 pm), and this year was no exception. Probably around 15-20 trickled in at various points between our arrival and when I finally departed for the return trip to Brooklyn around 10 that night. One of the major drawbacks of not being well off in the city is the necessity of taking the subway, even when you're fairly drunk, at night, and you're facing over an hour ride. Good times.

Regardless, the visit featured seemingly endless pitchers of tasty (mostly) European beer. I we tended to opt for the sweeter Hoegarden or the heartier Spaten over the more pedestrian, prevalent and bitter Stella, although when the drinking games began, the Stella came in handy due to its lighter feel and easier chugability. And the drinking games did begin. One of the great aspects of the beer garden, aside from the enormous shaded patio and amazing food (more on that later), is the picnic bench communal-style seating, which allows not only for easy fraternization with the group that settles next to you, but also provides for an easy space on which to play cards, dice, etc.

In the past, the beer garden even allowed for more active drinking games such as flip cup and beer pong (aka beirut, I'm not going to get into the widely-argued difference - I know, beer pong is technically the game played with paddles, but that game is dumb and no one ever plays it, for most people, myself included, "beer pong" = beirut, so that's how it's going to be), but, I assume in the face of threatened litigation for over serving, they now crack down on such games.

In addition to the friendly atmosphere and the great beer, the beer garden also serves some great Czech food, including Klobasa and pierogies, as well as some more standard American grill fare. However, my favorite, which I enjoyed (twice) on Saturday, is the bratwurst. For $10, one receives about a foot long bratwurst, grilled to perfection, and a serving a fries. However, what sets the beer garden apart is the condiment table. Along with the usual ketchup and mustard, diners can also help themselves to as much rye bread, dill pickle chips and sauerkraut as they want. These really serve to fill out the meal, particularly when one has been drinking for a couple hours, and it's not unusual to see visitors going back up to restock on kraut.

As far as I know, the patio portion of the establishment remains open as long as the weather stays nice, so make time to pay a visit before it gets too cold.