McCain-Palin '08

I have spent the morning and early afternoon trying to figure out, exactly, what I think about this choice of running mate.

The truth is, I think it is a pretty dramatic choice. If your goal is to try and foment strife within the traditional democratic base then there is some merit to the pick. She has an interesting back story, has blue-collar ties, is a staunch pro-lifer (allows for life of the mother exemption, but none for incest or rape), and definitely helps sure up some of Senator McCain's issues with his more fundamentalist base. So on that level I think it is a very intriguing choice.

On another level, I think is reeks of desperation, and worse yet maybe not overt sexism but a sort of hamfisted sexism. I think the most important quality she possesses, at least as a benefit for McCain, is that she is a woman. It smacks of a cronyism that has permeated Washington over the last 8 years. There were several established republican women who, on paper, would have been perfect for McCain, from Kay Bailey Hutchinson, to Carly Fiorina. These are impressive women who no serious political observer would classify as a lightweight. So why not them?

Also there is another aspect of this that is interesting. If Obama is inexperienced, the what is Mrs. Palin? Her resume is even thinner then our Senator from Illinios. Not that I consider age, years in office, or years in Washington a mark of wisdom, but that has been the bulk of McCain's argument. Senator Obama does not have the experience to lead this country, so Senator McCain has chosen a person who has less experience then Barack to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? It is intellectually discordant. Not that I would credit this campaign with intellectual coherence, but this particularly tone death. For more info you can hit up the guys at TPM, if you are curious about Mrs. Palin.

-Cheers

Last night.....

If you did not watch the speech that Obama gave last night, you need to smack yourself upside the head. This is not the comment of an Obama supporter, but someone who likes and appreciates a good speech, it was a masterstroke.

I do not say that because he attacked McCain or leveled some of the harshest words yet at the Bush administration. I say it because if you look at the text of the speech, or listen to it, it crystallizes the speaker's message perfectly. It says to you, "Do not give up hope. Help is on the way. Do not give in to cynicism, because we all have a stake in this. This is not about me, this is about us. Do not let them keep your country away from you.". That is rare, that you get that sort of synthesis between actions and rhetoric, all the while capturing the mood of the public.

There was one point that spoke to me, Senator Obama took wood to the notion that if you are liberal, you are not as patriotic as a republican. That is a notion that has always bothered me. Love of your country, is not confined to always rooting for it. Sometimes love causes you to criticize it and push it to be better, to be more inclusive. Patriotism is not wrapping yourself in the flag, wearing a pin or full-throated praise of the "State" no matter the situation. It is trying to make the country live up to its promises of Life, Liberty and Justice for all.

But enough of my blovating, just listen to Senator Obama yourself. It is a reminder of what this election should be about. Not Britney, not Paris, not Bill Ayers, not the Keating Five, not whether you were a POW, and not whether you were raised by a single mom on food stamps. It is quite simply about the future, and shall we continue on the path we are on, or shall we instead strive for greatness again.

Okay seriously. I am done.

Convention Round-up....

Not really a lot to say. I thought all the speech were pretty good. But I will single out one speaker in particular. I thought Senator John Kerry did a fantastic job. If he had given this speech 4 years ago...well...maybe things would have been different. If you watched the coverage on most stations you probably didn't see it....C-SPAN FTW!

I know...I know...but it was a good speech. Biden also bought some fire to the evening, and well Bill....was Bill. You don't get much better speechifyin' then that.

Next up tonight: Senator Obama has to give both the best speech of his life and the best speech of anyone else's! (If you listen to the pundits)

I will be doing some phone work for the campaign over the next couple of days, so the posts may be spotty.

-Cheers

Our craven media.....

So a few weeks ago I touched on a subject that just kind of bothered me. Both campaigns, have adopted a strategy, more so by the McCain camp, in which the release their ads as press releases. Basically getting free play from the national press with out paying to roll out the various ads. On the upside a few old print media types have began to notice that the press is being used as patsies, and is at least making mention of it. Aaron Rutkoff over at the Wall Street Journal Online, has a good piece up on it.

To follow up on that Steve Benen over at The Washington Monthly had this to say:

But why would major news outlets repeatedly fall for the same trick, even when they realize the ads are created for the sole purpose of free media attention? There are competing explanations, but my hunch is a lot of outlets are just lazy, and video press releases make their jobs easier.

This seems about right to me. When these ads are played in this fashion, it forces a response, no matter how spurious the claims may be, they will require a some sort of retort. And in todays media parlance, if you are responding then you are losing. Sort of the technological version of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

-Cheers

Convention Coverage.....

I really wish I was an actual reporter at the Democratic convention so I could interview people like this.

I would launch into such a rant that the heavens would tremble, and I would get fired. To all the women I know please don't let you daughters grow up to be like that.

When something like this pops up it would be easy to slip into misogynistic expletives and retorts, it's like the Fatal Attraction stereotype given, living and breathing form. It becomes the example to which some are inclined to peg women as being "irrational" or better yet "hysterical". Furthering the MSM meme of Hillary supporters as "irrational agents".

No substance.

No veracity.

All fury.

It would be witty to add "signifying nothing" (for the perfect Macbeth-Lady Macbeth reference), but that isn't true, it signifies a lot actually. It shows the dangers of identity politics, and why the long primary was a bad thing. I do not like to think that is the case, but much like the toothless, tank top wearing black guy who manages to get interviewed at every crime scene, tornado, fire news story. It becomes the symbol for, even earnest thoughtful Hillary supporters, or just women in general. Which is sad.

And that is why it gets to me. I feel like as groups, minorities and women are getting played. We should be working together, to change the status quo. To make it acceptable for a woman to be in charge or a black man, or a Hispanic midget for that matter. But yet here we are clawing at each other.

Anyway back to the point, we can all agree on.

The mind numbing idiocy of some of these people is jarring.

A Muslim? Really? That again. He is not a Muslim for the bagillionth time. And if he were, there is no prohibition of that in the Constitution. I have looked. It is not there. So basically that is just an Appeal to Ignorance, and an ad Hominem fallacy attack. It is irrelevant to the case for or against his being qualified for the presidency.

To that point I wonder what the Constitution has to say about "qualifications" for the presidency:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Senator Obama is 35+ years old. Check.

Was born in Hawaii. Which is actually a state! Check.

Has lived in Chicago for the last 20 years. Check.

I guess as far as the Constitution is concerned he is "qualified".

Again, I would like to reiterate. You do not have to agree with me, or support Obama, but for God's sake, do not be an idiot and at least know what it is you are talking about and what it is you are supporting.

Any Hillary supporter who is now considering supporting McCain, wasn't interested in Hillary's platform (which was actually a pretty good progressive platform), they just wanted a vagina in the White House. They should be called on that.

Also I would like to point out that Matthews is positively livid. Good. I am glad someone is.

-Cheers

Dick move of the day....

I have to salute Debra Bartoshevich and Mark Halperin on their amazing levels of dickery.

Debra, if you are truly a supporter of Senator Clinton and her values, why would you support a man who is counter to everything she stands for? More importantly how come during a press conference you stated, with out a bit of irony, that McCain will not seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and not to even mention his votes against SCHIP or his lack of votes on any alternative energy bills this year. If you do not know the platform of your candidate, you do not deserve to vote.


Oh Mark, you are just an idiot. When freakin' Cokie Roberts doesn't agree with your GOP frame, you know you are in trouble. You sir are just an idiot. Your mendacity shall live on to show future generations how journalism is not done! Perfidy of this level is surely a work of art. The obfuscation and utter wrong headedness are startling behold.

It is now obvious I have been watching a different campaign then you have sir. Since Senator McCain has been respectful of Senator Obama, and hasn't impugned his patriotism, or tried to paint him as the other...and above all, has talked about the policy differences as opposed to just lying about his opponents record....

Oh wait.....

See what they did...made me write two really long run on sentences.....damn you both and your dickish hackery!

Weekend Redux.....

So I made it over to Springfield for the Obama-Biden campaign event. It was pretty cool I was actually impressed with what the city had done to make the whole thing a less horrible experience. The line moved at a fairly brisk pace, and this is even considering that it was over 4 blocks long when we got there. There were plenty of merchants selling water, and the like, I am sure the local businesses were absolutely loving the influx of cash. I bought some buttons, and wished I had bought a shirt considering the sheer amount of sweat that I was generating. I did feel sorry for the elderly and the young children out though, it was brutal out there.

The speech was good on both ends. Biden is not the orator that Obama is, but what he lacks in eloquence he more then makes up for in sheer force of delivery. Obama spoke on Biden's statesmen like qualities and Biden gave Obama the sort of tethered blue-collar backing some think he needs. If you haven't had a chance to hear the speeches here is the text. Or if you would like to hear it:

and

I think both of them hit the right note. Biden was on point in his attacks on McCain, Obama came off as level-headed and pragmatic. Even with all the heat, the crowd was definitely into it. Hopefully I will have some pictures for you all later in the week. So you all can get a feeling for the sheer size of the mob.

-cheers

Awesome!!!!

Awesome is all I have to say. Feather boa shirt. Seriously!?!??

re: Lying Liars.....

Okay so I had some dudgeon left over! Leave it to Glenn Greenwald over at Salon to hit the nail on the head again. Hypocrisy, identity, and personality politics are the coin of the the modern day republican party. There should be no doubt that they will do whatever is necessary to secure power. Everything but talk about actual issues.

In his post today Mr. Greenwald, points out the hypocrisy of the right-wing noise machine. The viscous attacks that were leveled against John Kerry during his run for president are just a viable versus McCain, yet that point is never raised. If Kerry was a gigolo, then what is McCain? Considering that their marriage arcs are fairly similar, (both married younger rich women after leaving their first wives) there really is no difference between Kerry and McCain. On this issue they are the same, both are "kept" men. Yet that is not how it is perceived or even reported.

In closing Greenwald hits on a point that I very much struggle with, expanding on some themes that he chronicles in his book Great American Hypocrites, he sums up the problem nicely:

Somehow, the deep stupidity of our political discourse actually manages to escalate during presidential campaigns, becoming even more vapid and idiotic than normal. But, as I argued continuously when I did my book tour in April and May for Great American Hypocrites, this is the kind of campaign the GOP runs every election and in which they specialize, and there are only two options for Democrats in response: (1) purport to "rise above it" and thus ensure that they get slaughtered in a one-sided, one-way War of Personality Demonization which renders issues irrelevant (hence: the all-American Everyman War Hero versus the rich, out-of-touch, effete elitist), or (2) attack the GOP candidate using the same lowly character themes in order to neutralize the attacks and prevent the election from being decided on these grounds. It's good to see the Obama campaign, finally, engaging these issues aggressively.

I am always of mixed feeling on this. I desperately want the American people to be able to distinguish the difference between legitimate policy debates and the sort of personality driven culture war bullshit we have been getting over the last several years. I have just become increasingly convinced of the absolute stupidity of the average person. That these tactics still work, even though those who perpetuate them have shown their cravenness and general mendacity, is just further confirmation of how far we truly need to go.

In my better moments I like to believe that reason and facts, should be enough to sway any argument, but in politics that just isn't the case. Facts are stubborn things and the masses tend to distrust things that don't conform to their beliefs. So if you try to have a solid reasonable debate with your opponent and they return with the tripe we have been subjected to election cycle....well I say have at it then.

That all being said, at this point I am just happy to see the Obama camp fighting back, he is a Chicagoan now, so this seems appropriate.

-Cheers

@weekend

Do not really have it in me to churn out a post today. Got a bit of the ennui going on right now.

So instead I will just point out that one of my favorite blogs is folding up shop, but the writer is moving on over to The Washington Monthly, as the new Political Animal, to continue with his insightful and much needed commentary on the political world (links will be updated).

Also probably going to try to head over to Springfield, to see if I can catch a glimpse of our local Senator and his running mate.

-cheers

Before the rant begins....

Thought I would had a new link to the link section. It's an old favorite of mine. Also I feel it is appropriate since the campaign silly season has begun, but I am sure it will have no effect on the discourse because logic and facts have no place in the arguments being pushed before the American people. Mainly because people are dumb, and facts are stubborn things. They don't like conform to our petty conceived notions. So have at it. It is actually a pretty informative site, and who doesn't enjoy whipping out the old, "I find your thesis laughable because you have fallen prey to the time honored 'Appeal to Ignorance' fallacy. I however, am not ignorant, so your gambit has failed."

The Fallacy Files

It would be swell if people actually knew what a logical argument sounded like. But in todays world the fact that you got a $400 haircut renders you incapable of speaking on the evils of poverty, or perhaps rantings of a preacher you know should be a reflection on your personal beliefs. These are not logical arguments at best they are just trivia or distractions.

To all the teachers.....

Over the course of the day I had written a pretty massive polemic screed....categorically characterizing and chronicling the mind-numbing stupidity of the American people and how they fall prey every 4 years to the calumny of the Republican message machine. Since it is still in its nascent state, I have decided to be positive.

I was counseled by a friend to take step back and relax. So instead of me ranting; instead you get a link that I dedicate to all the teachers heading back to school this week, especially my sis. Hope this knowledge helps you out....

How to win a fight against twenty children

-cheers

Golden stripper roller-skanks!

Today we talk about shoes! Now I know what you are thinking.

"Roman, such a strapping manly man like yourself should be doing more manly things then talking about shoes! Like crushing beer cans on your head or making cat calls at passing women!?"

Well, those are all valuable uses of time, but alas, after a tragic Zima bottle incident, no more beer crushing for me. So that leaves us with shoes.

Also a close friend has asked me to go shoe shopping with her. So, as always, I will be happy to oblige, however I have a rule. If I see any of you ladies in these....I will come for you in the night.

I mean on the whole, I can dig the whole Secret of Isis thing she has going on, not a big fan of the whole one shoulder thing, but I can live with that. But what I can not abide is gold stripper gogo boots!

I mean maybe if she were a Bond villainess, with a cool shtick, like killing men with her evil spinney death wheel enhanced boots! Now that would show some potential! But this....well, it just looks like some desperate attempt to get attention.

Well Miss Spinney-death-wheel-woman, you have gained my attention.

-cheers

A racial, racial post...

If you haven't checked out the The Atlantic recently I highly recommend it. They have a group of solid bloggers and journalists over there, that seem to be more of an independent bent. But Ta-Nehisi Coates is a new addition and pretty good ( I won't admit to liking him because he is a D and D fan though...)

Anyway he has a post up that I found pretty humorous for a variety of reasons.

Who will speak for white people?

I would personally totally vote for Galactus. How can you not support the "Devourer of Worlds", and I could get some snazzy super powers out of selling you people out.

-cheers

Word of the week...

Yes it is that time again! More fabulous ways to increase your vocabulary and astound your friends with feats of linguistic legerdemain (people won't know what you are talking about!).

In light of the recent conflict in Georgia, I figured it was time to dust of an oldie but a goody.

Manichean

The Manichean demagoguery that arises during any international incident seems to be reaching a fever pitch during the presidential race.

Also it is a fun word, cause it references Zoroastrianism, which is just fun to say.

Instructional videos....

Sorry for the burst of posts....but this had to be posted!


Not even sure what this is, but here is the follow up for the more advanced, the Candy Kiss!

-cheers

Credit where credit is due....

I have very often been highly critical of Joe Klein in some of my ramblings, but when he says something I agree with or feel needed to be said, I also am capable of a good pat on the back.

He had a recent post up on Time's blog Swampland that speaks to the spectacle the McCain campaign has become and more importantly the water that the national media has been carrying for it. This is the part which most caught my eye:

I know that people like me are supposed to try to be fair...and balanced. (The Fox mockery of our sappy professional standards seems more brutally appropriate with each passing year.) In the past, I would achieve a semblance--or an illusion--of balance by criticizing Democrats for not responding effectively when right-wing sludge merchants poisoned our national elections with their filth and lies.

It is a good take on what we have been witnessing, and the cravenness of some of the tactics used by republicans during the past few election cycles. It's a good read so I would recommend checking it out.

-Cheers

Word of the week and a mental health break......

This weeks word is a reader submission. Not sure if I should be insulted or not.....

Didactic

No offense Roman, but that post you did on the attorney general seemed a bit didactic.

Also I am on the verge of slipping into a apoplectic fit over the last week. Whether it is the release of the Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi (The New York Times does an interesting write-up on this "non-fiction" book), or Joe Lieberman trying desperately to dethrone Rush Limbaugh as wanker of the century and failing. The conflict in Georgia. The maneuvering by the campaigns and Senator McCain not know what the hell he is talking about or maybe situational irony is lost upon him. I am sure a massive post of some sort is coming.....

That combined with a bunch of friends going through some stressful times, Mike's computer is on the fritz, Ed, Kelly, Leigh, and Monika are planning weddings, X-tina is getting her doctorate groove on and Mariah is studying like a maniac for the LSAT's. We could use a little pick-me-up. So it is good if we all take a moment out of the day during our hectic lives to just relax, unwind and let go.

When I am having it rough...this song always comes to mind....


....and it makes me giggle....

Illegal is as illegal does....

Like the script of an old Batman episode the Riddler queries:

Riddle me this: When is breaking the law not a crime?

The answer? Evidently whenever the current administration breaks the law.

The number of illegal actions this administration has taken is becoming legion. From the amendments to Fisa (retro-actively inoculating officials from civil prosecution) to the indefinite detainment of individuals at Guantanamo bay Cuba, to the firing/hiring of DoJ officials due to insufficient fealty to the President, it has become increasingly hard to even work up sufficient umbrage when their lawlessness is brought to light.

For example we have this breaking story that DoJ officials won't be prosecuted for illegal hiring practices, with perhaps the best money quote ever from the current Attorney Micheal Mukasey:

"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

Now part of this statement is completely true. Not every wrong is crime. Telling your girlfriend she should put the tub of double mocha fudge destruction delight down, because you fear that the earth might spin off its axis because of the gravitational attraction between her gigantic ass and the moon, thereby killing all life on the planet; while intemperate and shallow is not criminal. Definitely wrong, but not a prosecutable offense. However, politicizing the man organ for law enforcement in the republic, so that serves your whim as opposed to the Constitution for the people of that republic, well that is just belies some "systemic" issues that can be handled by management changes. It isn't a crime, it's just unfortunate. But rest assured, "that steps have and will be taken so that it does not happen again".

I disagree with that sentiment. It is wrong, it is a violation of the law, and it is a crime. These individuals should be prosecuted, they should be stripped by the Bar Association and personally I wouldn't mind a nice "perp walk" or two.

The above statement in and of itself encapsulates the mentality of the Bush administration. It is nothing less then the complete disregard for any sort of accountability on their parts. There are established laws that prohibit federal entities from using political or ideological litmus tests, yet we are told that no one will be held accountable for that. It seems the "civil service laws" are merely guidelines. In their minds, nothing they do is wrong, because they only have righteous goals. We should have seen this years ago.

But this is the country we live in now. Where time and time again, our current administration, says, "Trust us. We have your best interests in mind!". Yet at every turn the only interests that seem to be served are those of the administration.

I will say this and I will say it only once, if McCain wins, then we have completely validated all the commentary about the general stupidity of the American public. I don't know if Obama will be a good president or not. But how can anyone justify letting these individuals continue on the path they have been on the last 8 years? That is what a vote for McCain means. More wars, more impotent posturing, more empty rhetoric on our "greatness" and more precious blood lost. Not in the defense of our republic or its people but to satiate the ideology of neo-conservatives. Where is the justice in that?

Crackmonkeys = "The Ultimate"

Queen is so overused for these things. So I thought the Roots might be more appropriate considering that the Monkeys definitely were "rockin' it" this season.


Congratulations on a stellar season monkeys and finishing number one!

This one goes out to all the Monkeys past and present, this one is for you.

-Cheers

Nerd Pr0n.....

Physics, super colliders, and girls in hard hats rapping about nuclear physics and quantum phenomenon.......My nerd sense is tingling.....


Also with a touch of danger as well.....when that thing is turned on some theorize that a strangelet may be formed that destroys all the bonds of the atoms on the planet. HAWT!!!

Enjoy your cheerios they could be your last!

Easy-E deserves the catch on this one!

-cheers

Do you use a spatula to get that off?

I post this without comment because I honestly have none. This is like the perfect example of what not to do.


So many questions......

Hoisted upon the Colonel.....

I was trying to resist posting this news item....but with the sheer number of jokes I have made about such things (not the killing part!), I would simply be remiss if I did not.

Part of the plea bargain securing the confession involved, the soon to be convict, receiving Popeye's instead of the standard issue jail food. I am not kidding.

The assailants name is Tremayne.

Yes I am disappointed in humanity.

The Express is in....

Got to see Pineapple Express last night. I enjoyed it and thought it was a good send up of the mid to late 80's action movie. Filled to the brim with improbable explosions, nigh-indestructible protagonists, and infinitely reloading guns, it definitely hit on all the major "isms" of action-adventure movies. That being said, I also thought the dialogue was well thought out and surprisingly subtle. Like with most of Apatow's ventures, it is what the characters say when they aren't the focus of attention, that at times, happens to be the funniest. There are quite a few lines that I am certain will enter the pop-culture lexicon. All in all a good fun movie. I recommend it. You will however, leave with a severe case of the munchies.

In honor of the the opening of Pineapple Express, I thought I would provide a couple of links to get the ole' esoteric juices going:

5 Scientific Theories that will make your head explode

And this is just....well I don't have a word for it....it is just crazy...

Evidently in Soviet Russia sexual harassment does you!

Money quote for the ladies thinking of moving to Russia: "If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children," the judge ruled.

Isn't that just priceless?

-puff, puff, pass

Dear Roman......

Okay it seems we have received a few questions/comments on a previous post so I thought I would single a couple of those out for additional comment:

Brad said,

Ok, I don't mind the formal short and heels look for women. I agree that a nice summer dress or skirt looks great however, when it comes to most women and their wardrobe, items that have multidimensionality, like formal shorts, a classic t-shirt or tank-top, or a pair of jeans, are a major plus.

"Multidimensionality", seriously? Good God man! We aren't talking Einstein-Rosen bridges here! But to your point, you are actually conflating what guys think are good clothing choices and what a girl thinks. Don't think so? Get dressed and then ask your wife what she thinks about what you are wearing. Let me know how that goes for you. Write this down, guys tend to dress for function. Gals tend to dress for cuteness. That is why heels exist; to extract every ounce of cuteness there is there is to be had. Have you ever worn a corset? Let me tell you that thing serves not one purpose but to simulate "perkiness" or as an improvised neck warming device. Other then that completely useless!

Kim said,

Along those same lines, dudes in capri pants. WTF?

Indeed, "WTF", is appropriate. Back in my day they were called "Jams"and they weren't appropriate then, nor are they now. However, some nice cross colors would be sweet!

and finally

Teach said,

1.) You suggest that "there is a skirt out there for every body type and shape!", so what are your recommendations?

2.) Your opinion of the "dressy" shorts is clear, what about the longer knee length shorts (ie. the ones I wore to the Crack Monkey game Sunday?)

1) Well my first rule is simple, it should be something you feel comfortable in. If you are constantly pulling it down or fidgeting with it you are not comfortable. There is just a certain confidence you get from looking good and feeling like you look good. Worrying about whether your bum is showing gets in the way of that. The second main rule, is it should be something you can run in. You never know when you might need to flee a pack of rabid goats so keep that in mind.

Outside of that, it is pretty standard, pick a color that is complimentary to your skin tone. Pair it with a cowl neck shirt or possibly a buttoned down shirt and a nice vest (since it is still summer time), a nice pair of cute shoes and you are off. Remember show as much leg as you are comfortable with, shorter is most definitely, not always better. If you are going for a "slinky-sexy" effect, generally a longer more fitted skirt is the way to go. Recently I have been won over by the high-waisted skirt. It gives a very sophisticated look, fine for business events, but also works for a night out on the town. Express seems to carry a nice selection of them.

2) This question is a dangerous one. I know many ladies think these are just snazzy. I could take them or leave them, though. If we are talking about the longer formal shorts then I say have at them if you wish. The problem is they don't look good on everyone, yet everyone wants to wear them. So your mileage will vary.

But in reference to your specific question, I thought your shorts looked just fine. If you had showed up in heels though....there would have been a reckoning....


Well that's all for this installment, keep those questions coming. And Mike, assless chaps are always a "No".


*One small political note. Paris Hilton finally responds to the celebrity add. And sadly she sounds more reasonable then Senator McCain:

edit-I just couldn't resist pointing out the money quote of the ad, "I'll see you at the debates....bitches.!"

Odds and ends....

Just a quick round up of recent events.

• Was down in St. Louis this weekend celebrating the pending nuptials of my pal Ed and his soon to be blushing bride Kelly. I always get a bit melancholy going to bachelor parties. It is one of those life changing events (marriage), which makes you reflect on those heady days of ill-spent youth. Drinking and carousing around town, from the High Dive to the Red Rock! Those days are soon to be at their end. Soon to be replaced by discussions of nurseries and daycare! It is amazing and ironic that we commemorate this transition to adulthood by making prostrate and besotted sacrifices to bronzed and be-thonged goddesses. Avatars of our lost promiscuity and half-remembered virility, as if, to apologize for trading the potential for the concrete. Choosing stability and emotional fulfillment over the genetic imperative to copulate with anything that moves. A trade, I might add, that Ed seems more then happy to make. But I digress, it was a grand ole time, the new Busch stadium is pretty swanky, and the rest of the evening held plenty of booze, Lucite and silicon to make any male proud. As good a sport as Ed was, I do have to give a special shout out to Helmut (forgive the spelling). His perseverance in finding the quintessential stripper experience was awe inspiring. Also the sheer number of amateur interlopers was amazing....Nick, Jerrod, and Steve....I have high expectations of you all at the wedding....Next time in St. Louis...we are doing the circuit....
  


• Also the Crackmonkeys managed to pull yet another one out of the fire on Sunday. Though by seasons end half the team may well need to up their health care coverage. Once again, it was the fabulous gals of the monkeys that powered the win. Their commitment and solid play have been the real story of the season. So if there is ever a book written about this storied season most of it would be about them, all I ask is that in the movie version I be played by Lawrence Fishburne, and that Sonic be the main sponsor. To make Holly happy of course.

-Cheers

Explanations.....

It seems I have been spending a fair amount of time on politics of late. My apologies! I will not be going cold turkey this week, but interestingly enough last week provided me with an interesting nexus between the world of politics and fashion! So here we go!

From time to time....I get asked, "Hey Roman what are these "Formal shorts" and why do you hate them so?" Well dear reader here is pictorial evidence of that which I speak!


That's right. I hate them because Paris Hilton wears them.

Ok, that is not the only reason. My real problem is one of elegance. Heels, when they are worn make women look more elegant. Check that, women who can actually walk and move in heels look more elegant! They give the legs a certain symmetry and almost force good posture. Shorts with them cheapens that. What exactly is wrong with pairing those heels with a nice skirt? Or perhaps a nice summer dress? I mean, there is a certain logic to Paris and Brit-Brit wearing formal shorts, because they......uhhh...have a...uhhh..problem with misplacing their undergarments. So there is that. Now most of the girls I know happen to have at least a modicum of modesty, the undergarment omission isn't really an issue for them. Added to that, most of them even have very nice legs, so I could see the temptation of the evil formal shorts! "I can wear my cute heels and not have some skeezy guy looking up my skirt at my Hello Kitty knickers! Awesome!" It's not that I don't have sympathy for my ovarian enhanced sisters out there, but lets face it even if you were wearing a burlap sack with just arm and leg holes some skeezy guy would still be trying to sneak a peak at your lady parts!

Anyway, my fear is that, much like the how baseball caps, have destroyed hats for men, I suspect that formal shorts will be the end of skirts. I like skirts, they are snazzy and far more customizable then shorts are. There is a skirt out there for every body type and shape! Formal shorts are for those who wish to show as much skin as humanly possible and still have pockets.

And lets face it do you really want to wear something that Paris Hilton has championed?

On a general note, we are going try something new for this post and this week. To foster some discussion and to fuel my postings I am going to solicit questions in the comment section and via e-mail. For the next couple of days the topic du jour is fashion, so please pass along your sartorial conundrums and we shall see if we can get you some answers. If I get enough questions I will probably roll that into a post on the subject.

-cheers

Early word of the week....

Dammit...this week has me damn near apoplectic! So y'all get another new word to add to your lexicon!

Dudgeon

Much like seeing people who wear leggings as pants, the use of the term "race card", has worked Roman in to a state of high dudgeon.

Lying liars, and the lies they lie about.....

Where is the media push back on this?

McCain: Our Campaign Isn't "Negative In The Slightest"

So a candidate whose last 5 television ads have either contained completely false, or seriously misleading statements about his opponent's actions or character are not negative?

Negative ads work, mainly because the push back against them isn't as ferocious as the initial coverage that brings them to light. Notice how Senator McCain used a very limited ad buy for 2 of his most recent campaign ads; counting on the ensuing controversy to get it on every news show. Which it did flawlessly, and very often without any commentary as to the veracity of the claims that lay therein. Obviously the Britney-Paris ad is in heavy rotation, because of its effect and to head off those claims of playing the press as rubes. I actually read an article that stated flatly, if the press figured out that McCain was using them in that fashion they would stop falling for it. I respectfully disagree and as my evidence I cite the the last eight years and the uncritical reporting of White House, and republican talking points on the subject of Iraq, Iran, the attorney scandal, the DoJ hirings fiasco, HUD, etc.

Also people are dumb. It is simply easier to get people to vote against something then to vote for it. So no matter how specious a claim (Gore's invention of the Internet, or Kerry's frenchness) it is, once it enters into the echo chamber there is no stopping it. I would be pleasantly surprised if the press actually made as much of an effort to debunk the blatant prevarication in most of these ads. Hell if they did as much as Factcheck.org that would be swell.

But they will not. Not every side of a debate deserves equal weight and that needs to be called out.

-Cheers

From the "Lou".....

For the record Fat Tire beer is not your friend.

Ed and Kelly are quite gracious hosts....

And a new one for me...while discussing politics it was determined that some of our group are "pro-internet" and at least one is "pro-gravity"!

For the record, I am staunchly "anti-gravity"!

@Weekend

Heading down to Mizzou to visit with Ed and Kel....let me know what I missed on the political front.

Go Monkeys!!!!

Offshore drilling B.S

I know that polls are starting to show public movement towards the notion of increases offshore drilling, and how it will supposedly help lower gas prices. I hope we can all see that for the gimmick that it is, but perhaps that it too much to hope for. So to help out, with why it is being pushed so hard I thought I would pass along this little graph to help illustrate what is really going on:


That point would correspond to when Senator McCain reversed his opposition to increased offshore drilling. I won't even point out that oil companies are not currently drilling on all the land they currently have leased or that there is a 2-3 year lag time on getting the equipment to scout, drill or even place a new oil rig in operation.

PDF copy of the study, information taken from FEC records. Yes I randomly read studies on campaigns finances. Anyone shocked by that? Didn't think so. And it wasn't that random...it was on Think Progress...so I didn't just google search it!

*edited-Christina guilted me into adding a citation for the graph!