Sarah Palin's daughter holds her baby brother very comfortably.
In case you didn't get the hint--How often does mono last so long? For most people, it's no more than a month, maybe three, but only a few weeks of rest are usually necessary. Sarah Palin's daughter's, though, was a most worrying case, one that necessitated her being taken out of school far longer than that, from 5 to 8 months, depending which official you ask. Good heavens, if it was that bad, didn't she need a hospital? We might be talking Epstein-Barr!
This, of course, would render her morality cred with the Christian Right for not terminating little Trig(which she did consider, and made the choice--a choice she'd bar to all other women--not to, so it's claimed) completely comedic, moot and meaningless.
Oh, and her a liar, and McCain a complete laughingstock going into the convention. It's claimed she was vetted, though you'd never know it--it seems McCain might as well have picked the first good-looking woman over 35 he saw on the street. Who the hell was this blind, deaf idiot that checked her out, and what did they ask? "Are you a Christian?" Did they stop there?
And ask yourself: knowing full well this could be exposed and not only wreck McCain's presidential bid and her political career but her family's--particularly her daughter's--lives, why did she so blithely agree to be McCain's running mate, and even worse, to make the child with Down's Syndrome a front-and-center part of the narrative?(which is already disgusting, to use your disabled baby as campaign prop) Does this speak well of her judgment or intelligence, or her regard for her family? Should you call such attention to such a glaring lie when you're obviously a very bad liar?
And what does this say about McCain's wits? Assuming this isn't just revenge on the GOP: What the hell was he thinking? Is he thinking at all?
At least we know this isn't a focus group decision. No, this is the flavor of decision McCain makes on his own, and would make if president. How's that sample taste, folks? Much like dust and ashes in the mouth?
And I truly believe it's the fact that she looks damn fine that made the old man's decision. That's if he has any idea of winning, and I don't think he has any intent to do so.
Turns out McCain wanted Lieberman anyway, which is the only choice he could've made that would delight me more. But the conservatives don't like him, so they decided that just giving away the election right now would be easier.
Sarah Palin's daughter was stricken with mononucleosis. The Governor, who had just announced her own pregnancy, took her daughter out of school so she could care for her at home. For the next seven months, mother and child nurtured each other--mother easing the pain of daughter's mono; daughter helping mother through her pregnancy, until finally, the Governor gave birth. Three days later, Governor Palin left her new-born special needs child in the care of that daughter (who was feeling much better, thank you), to resume her duties as Governor.
It's Not Like the GOP Hasn't Made Such A Cynical Pick Before
They've got a habit of throwing up "identity" candidates thinking that people only vote for what they perceive as their "own." Which is more a clue to their patronizing and out-of-touch view of the American people than anything else. Not to mention a true description of their own base, which will vote for anything that calls itself pro-life and Christian, even if it has cloven hooves and horns and promises to eat their young barbecued.
Did the Rovian type advisors to McCain just cynically think that throwing a young attractive inexperienced woman into the mix would satisfy women who long to see a woman president? Women, and Republican women, are not so stupid as to fall for that! It is reminiscent of the Republicans putting up Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate just because he was black. Voters saw through that pretty quickly.
Obama tore this place-holder candidate into tiny little pieces in debate, without raising a finger. History will repeat itself.
Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall.
The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health. If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor. Mr. McCain's supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden's experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?
And as for how this might help McCain, if at all?
The elder Bush picked Dan Quayle in 1988 in hopes of wooing younger voters, much as Walter Mondale had chosen Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, in an effort to mobilize women, and George McGovern had hoped that Sargent Shriver would stanch his losses among Catholics in 1972. None of these gambits worked. Ms. Ferraro did not deliver women, Mr. Quayle did not deliver youth, and Catholics defected to Nixon in 1972.
His choosing a beauty queen(this is also how he chose his wife) that he only met once before, in February of this year, also underscores the fact that he didn't pick any of the many competent and prominent women in his party, and that she's, as one commentator has put it, a "trophy candidate." Bush 41 thought that Quayle's looks would get the wimmens. McCain thinks this one will do the same. Oh, ha.
And there's a whole long weekend till next week and quite some time till the convention, given they're scared to hold their convention while a hurricane might again hit New Orleans. It's only taken one news cycle for all of Palin's liabilities to hit the news, and more keep coming.
Not least of which her complete opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, her attempt to get a brother-in-law fired during a custody battle, her appontment of a known sexual harasser, her opposition to evolution...man, it just doesn't stop. Oh, and then there's her Down's Syndrome kid whom she's going to be neglecting in order to run(the social conservatives who love that she didn't abort said child will have fun juggling that one), and her eldest son shipping off to fight in a war she says she hasn't really thought much about.
Don't get me wrong--she seems like a very nice lady. I feel sorry for the humiliation she'll be facing soon.
And by the way, all of these qualities only make her attractive to the rapidly shrinking GOP base--no swing voters, except the stupidest and least informed. But they probably wouldn't remember to vote, or that it was November.
Since when does that make a difference? When the candidate is a Democrat and black?
I have a cartoonist friend(who will remain nameless; if you're in the industry you know the story and whom I mean) who merely pranked someone, making it seem they'd threatened the then-president, and said prankee was, shall we say, investigated very thoroughly. But these guys, no?
Meanwhile, people who had the wrong ethnicity of name are in Gitmo for far less. In most cases, nothing. Why does our government always look the other way, till it's too late, if the terrorist/assassin is a white American racist?
We all know the answer. I merely ask for humorous effect.
That was one hell of a speech she gave tonight, and she came through, and made it very clear that anyone claiming to support her who'll vote for McCain is betraying nothing less than future generations. Any PUMA that continues to support McCain and attack Obama is betraying Hillary.
I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?
Got that, PUMAs? No? Of course you don't, because not one of you is a Democrat. You're McCain supporters creating noise, and your behavior is a parody, from a Fox News perspective, of the behavior of a feminist, not feminism. A real feminist doesn't whine and throw a tantrum till she gets her way. Only Republicans think they would, because that's all their women know how to do to get their way--pester Daddy.
Which explains bullshit like this:
Interesting that the Republicans like to present themselves as "grownups" when the only way they ever win anymore is by playing childish(and if you lived in Ohio or Florida, not-so-childish) pranks. Does that look like maturity to you?
One would think that Keats's life would have fostered bitterness in him, but he remained generous in the face of his difficulties. He didn't flee to the usual 19th-century escapes: Christianity or opium, drink or dreaming. Though he unsurprisingly underwent pangs of serious melancholia (who wouldn't, faced with his disasters?), he nonetheless never fell into self-pity or self-indulgent sorrow. In fact, he consistently transformed his gloom, grown primarily from his experiences with death, into a vital source of beauty. Things are gorgeous, he often claimed, because they die. The porcelain rose is not as pretty as the one that decays. Melancholia over time's passing is the proper stance for beholding beauty.
...Alienated from home and happiness, we sense what is most essential: not comfort or contentment but authentic participation in life's grim interplay between stinking corpses and singing lemurs. This "fit" shivers our souls. In this tense mood, we are in a position to understand the relationship between beauty and death.... He then says that if our "mistress" shows "rich anger," we should take her hand and let her "rave" and "feed deep, deep upon her peerless eyes."
...These associations make for several conclusions. The "wakeful anguish" of sharp melancholia can lead to a shuddering experience, a "fit." This vital moment grows from an insight into the nature of things: Life grows from death; death gives rise to life. This insight animates melancholy, makes it vibrant. But it also intensifies the pain, for it emphasizes this: Everything, no matter how beautiful, must die. Rather than flee from this difficult position, the melancholic appreciates things all the more because they die...
Melancholia, far from a mere disease or weakness of will, is an almost miraculous invitation to transcend the banal status quo and imagine the untapped possibilities for existence. Without melancholia, the earth would likely freeze over into a fixed state, as predictable as metal. Only with the help of constant sorrow can this dying world be changed, enlivened, pushed to the new...
When we, with apparent happiness, grab hard onto one ideology or another, this world suddenly seems to take on a static coherence, a rigid division between right and wrong. The world in this way becomes uninteresting, dead. But when we allow our melancholy mood to bloom in our hearts, this universe, formerly inanimate, comes suddenly to life. Finite rules dissolve before infinite possibilities. Happiness to us is no longer viable. We want something more: joy. Melancholia galvanizes us, shocks us to life.
I personally think that the brain meds are prescribed far too readily now, and have since the 80s when my peers were the first ones to learn to get addicted to them.
But regarding the above quote: We're not all Keats. What about those unable to articulate what misery makes them feel, who aren't artists? What do they do about it?
Two interesting nuggets in there that might give us a clue as to Bush's next step(if he has one), which on this pretext will be to declare Russia part of the "axis":
"It's logical," explains General Vyachislav Borisov, as we stand in the stench and the night waiting for Lomaia to return. "We are here because the Georgians are incompetent, because their administration collapsed and the town was being looted. Look at this," showing me on his cell phone photographs of weapons of Israeli origin, which he emphasizesheavily, "Do you think we could leave all this lying around without supervision? And let me tell you," he struts around, striking a match to light a cigarette, startling the little blond tank gunner who had fallen asleep in his turret, "We summoned the Israeli Foreign Minister to Moscow. And he was told that if he continues to supply arms to the Georgians we would continue to supply Hezbollah and Hamas." We would continue? What an admission!
..."The real problem," he says, sidestepping, "is the stakes involved in this war. Putin and Medvedev were looking for a pretext to invade. Why?" He begins counting on his fingers, "Number one, we are a democracy and incarnate an alternative to Putinism as an exit from communism. Two, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan [oil] pipeline goes through our country, such that if we fall, if Moscow replaces me with an employee of Gazprom, you, the Europeans, would be 100% dependent on the Russians for your energy supply. "And number three," as he takes a peach from the fruit basket which is brought to him by his assistant--"She's Ossetian, mind you!"--and then resumes, "Number three, look at the map. Russia is an ally of Iran. Our Armenian neighbors are also not far from Iran. Now imagine a pro-Russian government installed in Tbilisi. You would have a geostrategic continuum stretching from Moscow to Tehran which I seriously doubt would be doing business with the free world. I hope NATO understands this."
I do not want to dwell long on the specifics of this modern-day no-love story. But even though some facts remain in dispute, at every moment when judgment was called for, Edwards made the wrong choice: 1) the entanglement itself; 2) putting Hunter on his political payroll; 3) believing that he could run for president without being exposed; 4) continuing his campaign after Elizabeth was diagnosed with terminal cancer; 5) lying to the press when the National Enquirer ran its initial story last fall; 6) being recently lured, by his own account, to a meeting with Hunter in her hotel room; and 7) attempting to salvage things by appearing on "Nightline" rather than issuing a truthful and rueful press release.
Add to that his very cynical choice(subverted by ABC, who promoted the story all day) to have the interview on a Friday, so as to try to bury it in the news cycle.
And to appear on such a piece of spent trash as Nightline, which, in the midst of a war in Georgia, is spending tonight's episode promoting Ben Stiller's new movie. (what the hell has happened to that show?)
"Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours."
Egging people on to fight and then not providing backup, between this and, of course, his father and the Kurds, seems to be a Bush family trait.
Or is it something even stupider and more destructive? What about this?
The United States and Russia are holding military exercises on either side of the Caucasus mountains amid increasing tensions over the fate of two separatist regions in ex-Soviet Georgia.
Almost 8,000 Russian servicemen began anti-terrorism exercises on Tuesday across Russia's north Caucasus region, which borders Georgia, a spokesman for the Russian army said.
Which was probably Putin's plan all along(and isn't it interesting how quickly Russia's supposed president's name fell out of the news and Putin--the PM--'s rose? Are they even trying to pretend he ever changed jobs?). Because Saakashvili, as it turns out, is a damn fool. He chose to antagonize the Russians, and give them an excuse to invade, when he lacked the forces to defend Georgia or South Ossetia.
Vaso Chlukhadze, 25, is one of hundreds of war refugees gathered outside the mayor's office in Tbilisi, Georgia. Chlukhadze has been waiting two days for a place to sleep. He fled South Ossetia after being forced from his home by Russian air raids. War has quickly escalated in this region since late last week, with Georgia agitating for greater control of disputed territory in the Caucasus, and Russia going aggressively on the attack with war planes, tanks and troops. Like many here directly in the middle of it and suffering the consequences, Chlukhadze blames Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for the violence that left his family homeless.
"The [Georgian] government wasn't right. If they don't have enough force they shouldn't behave like this," he said.If Vladimir Putin's aim is regime change in Georgia, as American officials claim, it may already be working. Many of the weary-eyed refugees were too angry to speak to journalists. But they are bitterly angry with their government. "Kill Saakashvili," a few hissed.
You. Don't. Bring. A Knife. To a gun fight.
Which all played into Putin's hands. And why? Because Saakashvili expected the West to back him up.
How? Why? Does he know any history? Does he believe we're going to invade Russia's sphere of influence over an act Saakashvili helped provoke just because he sent troops to Iraq? Does Putin seem like the type to fuck around?
Two grown children are having a fight and a whole bunch of innocent people between them are suffering because of it.
"One reason I like writing by hand is it slows me down a little, but it also forces me to keep going: I'm never going to spend half a day noodling with a sentence to try and get it just right, if I'm using a pen. I'll do all that when I start typing.
"I'm not very good on the archival side of things. I throw away my manuscripts. You've got to understand, I can't take all that stuff. I hate that instant memorializing - your used beer mats and used typewriter ribbons and tax returns - little shrines erected in some university library around the handkerchief in which Graham Greene blew his nose in 1957. ... I don't keep bibliographical information about me around - frankly it's of no interest to me whatever. [Kingsley] Amis told me that he'd kept not just the manuscript of the preliminary notes for Lucky Jim, but the pencils and pens that he'd written it with. I thought, Christ - this is the author, one of the original "Angry Young Men" who refused to join the system! That's life. Keeping the pens - that's going a bitnfar, isn't it?"
As most of you know, I have been a vocal John Edwards supporter since 2004. I even contributed a small amount of money to his 2004 primary campaign. I liked the guy. Partly that he was a liberal from where I grew up(a rarity), and partly because of his emphasis on those who ain't doing so well in this country. I flinched a little as he used his son's death and his wife's cancer, both subtly and not-so-subtly, to help win support, but those were not reasons I supported him. But I believed that his concerns therefore might be more genuine, as he had known deep personal tragedy. What, he's supposed to pretend he didn't?
And I still think so, despite a certain air of unctuousness that he carries, like a skilled used car salesman. But then, he's a politician. But the news of his affair--I can't help but find myself, at least for a little bit, to be angry and disappointed. I am appalled that he cheated on his immensely supportive wifewho is terminally ill. But that's purely an emotional response, both in that I take marriage very seriously and that my mother recently died of cancer. Now, Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was in remission at the time of the affair, but I mean, my god; she cheated death, and your sign that you're grateful that fate let her live is to cheat on her? It takes a certain kind of king shit to do that. Newt Gingrich did it too, even divorcing his terminally-ill wife. While trying to impeach Clinton.
I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.
Huh! He may have a point!
But these are incidental to his capacity for leadership. And his wife has forgiven the affair. That's between them, as far as it goes.
But think of this: Edwards is quite aware of how crucial this election is for his party and for the nation. Almost certainly, this story would have broken one way or another. And if the Enquirer knew about it, don't you think the Republicans had that information ready to be sprung after the convention? Only the most naive of assholes would be unaware of this possibility. Suppose Edwards had been either the top or VP on the ticket?
But he knew this and selfishly, thoughtlessly sailed forward, despite what damage he might cause. All these things together say that this man--by his own admission, really--is a preening narcissist only concerned with the care and feeding of his own ego and hair.
But more so is that Edwards was willing to risk the future of this country for his own ambition, which makes him either a borderline sociopath or a fool. His family, this country, all can go under the bus for John. And then there's those he claimed he wanted the power to help. All well and good. But: How can he help his beloved poor if he's knocked out of the game at a point it would matter?
I would compare Gary Hart. What made the Donna Rice affair proof that he shouldn't be president wasn't that he fucked her. Look, the only two presidents we know for a fact didn't fuck around on their wives were Nixon and Carter. Come on. But that he dared the press to follow him and was shocked that they actually did--uh-uh. No Button for you, Gary, ever.
"If Melinda had any information, Nancy Grace stopped the investigation in its track."
As you might recall, repulsive CNN deathsucker Nancy Grace drove the mother of a missing child to suicide not that long back by pressing her with accusations that somehow she caused her child's disappearance. Not to mention that, later, Grace didn't show the slightest bit of remorse, even at the abstract fact of this woman's suicide, taking the opportunity to once again insinuate the mother was responsible. For which there was never any evidence, but Nancy Grace smelled a narrative and she built it, and now a mother is dead and her child will never be found.
And Nancy Grace enjoyed it all. Her ratings did well with the publicity. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed. Grace tried to get it dismissed.