nancynall.com » Crib notes.

Crib notes.

If you send me an e-mail on the week­end and I don’t respond imme­di­ately, please to for­give. I’ve started try­ing to make at least 36 hours of the week­end internet-free. It’s an inten­tion that doesn’t always work out, but when it does, I’m able to go almost a day with­out know­ing the biggest polit­i­cal story of the day was that Sarah Palin wrote some­thing on her hand.

Peo­ple, please. Obvi­ously, it’s funny. Obvi­ously, it’s what she might call kinda ironical-like, given that it came in a speech with yet another crack about Obama and his TelePromTer. But as they say: Con­sider the source. This is she-who try­ing to recap­ture what turned out to be the high point of her career — her speech in St. Paul at the GOP con­ven­tion. And based on what I saw and read (and cousin, you couldn’t pay me enough to watch the whole thing) it wasn’t even that good — your basic goulash of god-bless-America and thank-you-soldiers-for-our-freedom, and the oblig­a­tory back­hand to the “pro­fes­sor of law” cur­rently occu­py­ing the Oval Office. Your basic red meat for the knuckle-draggers, all deliv­ered com­pletely off the top of her head, because of course she doesn’t use a ‘prompter. Nei­ther did George W. Bush.

If you want to get upset, read…well, you bet­ter read this first, the Cliff’s Notes ver­sion of yet another I-think-I’ve-got-Obama’s-pedigree-doped-out think piece, and then, only if you dare to swim in slime on a crisp win­ter morn­ing, should you read the com­ments on the orig­i­nal piece, because cousin, noth­ing any­one ever said about Sarah Palin’s baby even comes close.

That’s the sec­ond time I’ve used “cousin” as an inter­jec­tion today. Can you tell I saw “Inglou­ri­ous Bas­terds” this week­end? A hoot. We ain’t in the pris’ner-takin’ bid­ness, we in the Nazi-killin’ bid­ness, and cousin? Bid­ness is a-boomin’. Finally, a use for Brad Pitt’s lazy tongue. But he’s not the star of that movie; Christoph Waltz is, and look­ing at the other Oscar nom­i­nees for Best Sup­port­ing, all I can say is, if he doesn’t take it home, we live in a cruel world where jus­tice is an illusion.

Which means he could very eas­ily lose, because: See above.

So, how was y’all’s week­end? I spent part of it in the dusty stacks of the Detroit Pub­lic Library, and part of it writ­ing (with the inter­net turned off!), so I saw lit­tle of note. Oh, except for the Super Bowl, which I watched with one-third of my atten­tion (I was work­ing at the same time, but it was a slow night for non-football and non-advertising news). As I believe I stated, I was root­ing for New Orleans, on the usual irra­tional grounds: New Orleans is more fun than Indi­anapo­lis, Pey­ton Man­ning needs that smug smile wiped off his face, it’s always fun when the under­dog wins. Usu­ally my back­ing is the kiss of death, so it was nice to see some­times it isn’t. I see we’ve already had the red-state chime-in in the pre­vi­ous thread, about how now all Katrina-related wounds are healed and we must hear no more about it. I was unaware of this atti­tude; is it preva­lent? If so, some news: Ain’t gonna hap­pen, cousin.

Also, it would seem we finally, finally have a major snow­storm headed our way. If it comes, it will be only the sec­ond shovel-able snow we’ve had this sea­son, which must amuse you east coast folks. Nev­er­the­less, I’ll take it. Droughts are droughts no mat­ter the season.

Blog­gage? Not much, but there’s this: Nate Sil­ver on she-who. I’m going to do some rounds and study Russian.

Almost for­got! My favorite com­mer­cial.

75 responses to
“Crib notes.”

  1. crinoidgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Non sequitur time again. Yes­ter­day, our pit bull attacked one of our cats, and broke the cat’s leg. We put both of them down. Ani­mal lovers will know how awful my day was yes­ter­day. Lulu the dog was a huge part of our life, as was Sam the cat. Today feels really weird.

  2. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:17 am

    While the Rich Lowrys, Bill Kris­tols, Rush Lim­baughs and the whole crazy crew at Fox News are bask­ing in the warm glow of She-Who’s per­for­mance at Rube Rage 2010, and while She-Who flirts like a sopho­more cheer­leader with the idea of run­ning for pres­i­dent in 2012, I will step up again to con­tend that there is no way, no how She-Who will run.

    There’s clearly a streak of mes­sianic cer­tainty within her. Any­one who promises they will “live and die” for Amer­ica has a highly exalted sense of self. And god knows She-Who loves that cam­era the way a Mis­souri speed freak loves his crys­tal meth.

    But lots of lit­tle details con­tinue to bub­ble up about her half-term as gov­er­nor. It’s not just the thou­sands of pages of e-mails that show First Dude Todd was clearly the co-governor. More than 200 have not been released because they are said to be “per­sonal” cor­re­spon­dences cov­ered by exec­u­tive priv­i­lege. If they become pub­lic, it’s likely to be explo­sive. Now, it looks like the Palins have been stiff­ing Alaska on taxes for the cab­ins they are build­ing on their land.

    She-Who is car­ry­ing more bag­gage than a Pull­man porter. And 70-plus per­cent of Amer­i­cans hate her like poi­son. Why would this woman, who hit the lot­tery when the dod­der­ing old Mav­er­ick chose her, want to jeop­ar­dize the cushy life of a mil­lion­aire celebrity she has built for a polit­i­cal run that would open her and her fam­ily up for the kind of vet­ting she has yet to endure?

    She won’t run, but she will wield influ­ence. Her fan base is a crit­i­cal part of the GOP.

    BTW, if I hear She-Who refer to elec­tive office as “a title” one more time, I’m going to scream loud enough to be heard in Detroit.

  3. Dorothy said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Oh crinoid­girl my sin­cere sym­pa­thies! As some­one who adopted her first cat just 2.5 months ago (and already has two dogs), I worry about this sit­u­a­tion some­times. I hope you’ll have some peace of mind soon, and will be able to open your home to another pet soon.

  4. judybusy said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Crinoid­girl,
    I am so sorry to hear about your poor pets. athough we cmplain rather reg­u­larly about how the cats get under­foot and other annoy­ing behav­ior, I want them to live for­ever. I can’t imag­ine los­ing two at once.…

    I am work­ing on reduc­ing my dis­like of win­ter: impor­tant to do in Min­nesota, where it’s a very long sea­son. My newly-found pas­sion for XC ski­ing has helped a lot with that. This week­end, I saw deer, a coy­ote, a red squir­rel, many robins (!)car­di­nals and nuthatches in a state park near my home. Very, very fun. Can’t wait to get out tonight to a nearby golf course, where I hope to spot previously-reported foxes.

  5. Bob (not Greene) said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Slow night for news?! Not in Chicago, where our illus­tri­ous Demo­c­ra­tic lieu­tenant gov­er­nor can­di­date had a press con­fer­ence at half­time to announce he was drop­ping out of the race. What a week for Scott Lee Cohen and the Illi­nois Dems. It was a train wreck you couldn’t help but watch.

  6. jcburns said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Nancy: Please toss out that 1977 AP Style­book. It’s just ‘teleprompter’, lower case, another one of those ancient terms that has drifted into generic non-trademark sta­tus. Thank god..I hated that old spelling.

    I’m still gener­i­cally pissed off this morn­ing that we live in a coun­try where peo­ple think Sarah Palin has any­thing to offer the United States other than hate, slo­gans, seces­sion­ism, and snark. Go ahead, give me some­one to go off on.

  7. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    BNG,

    Carol Marin hit the nail on the head yes­ter­day in the Sun-Times, lay­ing the blame for Cohen directly at the feet of our sawed-off lit­tle emperor, Michael Madi­gan, who is the tit­u­lar head of the party. He did zero, zilch, nada, noth­ing to head off the Cohen candidacy.

    It is hard to believe there is a sen­tient human being who would not under­stand how the admis­sion of domes­tic vio­lence, a rela­tion­ship with a pros­ti­tute, rage and steroid abuse issues would, you know, kind of poi­son the view vot­ers might have of you, but Cohen seemed gen­er­ally hurt and surprised.

  8. Peter said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Crinoid­girl, I am very sorry to hear about your pets.

    In hand­i­cap­ping the Illi­nois Sen­ate race, I think Nate Sil­ver is on drugs — espe­cially after the Scott Lee Cohen episode, Alexi is going to be exposed as being a light­weight who blew big chunks of cash at his dad’s bank and with the Illi­nois Col­lege Fund, and it ain’t going to be pretty. Even if Alexi was a fine, upstand­ing young man, hav­ing Gov. Vac­uum Skull at the head of the ticket isn’t going to help. Illi­nois may be a blue state, but part of it is because the GOP would foist can­di­dates who were dip­pier than Palin.

    That being said, I lis­tened to some of Our Lady’s com­ments, and my head hurts. I’m grate­ful she wrote the notes on her palm — if she wrote them in her under­wear, today we’d be hear­ing about her faith in Jockey and Medium Values.

  9. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I liked the “crib notes” at the end of the Google ad, but we’ve already estab­lished I’m a rank sentimentalist.

    Happy 100th birth­day of the Boy Scouts of Amer­ica, y’all; off to the Ohio State­house to hear the gov­er­nor say nice things neu­trally about every­one, but espe­cially those of us in the room, who­ever we are.

  10. MarkH said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Jeff B., how long will it take for you to really believe that “she-who” isn’t really going any­where, so you can stop talk­ing about her? She’s not run­ning for any­thing other than to be the right-wing Oprah. As time goes on, con­ser­v­a­tives at large are begin­nig to get it: there’s no “there” there. They are the ones fig­ur­ing out that, for her to take $100,000 speak­ing fee from them, she’s no more than a mer­ce­nary. Only the fringi­est of fringes will be left in her camp. It may take the rest of this year, but she’ll con­tinue to unravel in the pub­lic arena. I said it before and I’ll say it again: her attachemt to Fox will be bad for both of them. But as long as the Roger Ailes’ of the world know where your goat is tied, she’s not ging away soon. Trans­la­tion: I’m on your side, Jeff, but I just don’t pay atten­tion to her anymore.

    Speak­ing of internet-free, did you all see this over the weekend?

    http://​video​.pbs​.org/​v​i​d​e​o​/​1​4​0​2​9​87791/

    MIT stu­dents dig­i­tally multi-tasking to such a mil­i­tant extent that their grades are seri­ously slid­ing? Many other dis­trub­ing obser­va­tions; required view­ing on where our cul­ture is heading.

    EDIT — Crinoid­girl, my sym­pa­thies as well.

  11. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Peter,

    You speak the truth. My wife and I were big David Hoff­man sup­port­ers, not only because he is a bet­ter can­di­date but because the Broad­way Bank issue will be deadly for Alexi G. Ordi­nar­ily, I would not sweat this because the old Mark Kirk was that rarest of crea­tures, a mod­er­ate, sub­ur­ban Repub­li­can. But Kirk has been run­ning hard to the right and even sought the endorse­ment of She-Who in his quest for the GOP nod.

    So, Kirk has some­thing of a dilemma. He can talk tough and mean and scary and fire up his base, but at the cost of the mod­er­ates and swing vot­ers he des­per­ately needs to win. It will be an inter­est­ing race, for sure, and I think there is at bet­ter than 50 – 50 chance the seat will go R.

    Mean­while, right on, JC.

    I was struck by the dis­so­nance of Tom Tancredo’s open­ing day speech, in which he declared Pres­i­dent Obama’s elec­tion is the result of “peo­ple who could not even spell the word vote or say it in Eng­lish,” yet the real dis­con­nect comes from his side of the aisle, where siz­able num­bers of self-proclaimed con­ser­v­a­tives and Repub­li­cans still by into the birther non­sense. You can’t blame a dumb elec­torate for Obama’s rise when you are speak­ing to a group of peo­ple who lion­ize a half-term gov­er­nor for whom Eng­lish appears to be a sec­ond lan­guage. And not one seri­ous pro­posal emerged from all the silly blather at the mighty gath­er­ing of teabaggers.

  12. crinoidgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Thank you, all.

    Judy — robins in MN? Seriously?

  13. ROgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:05 am

    I’d love to see her run. It would be an enor­mous train­wreck, and fun to watch too.

  14. moe99 said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Crinoid girl: my sym­pa­thies as well.

    And yes, robins do win­ter over if there’s enough food for them. They change their diets in the win­ter to more seeds and berries as it helps them stay warm.

    And I heard from another Illi­nois res­i­dent that the R con­tender for lt gov. is no great shakes either and may be replaced now that Cohen is gone. Cohen made his announce­ment dur­ing the Super Bowl, in a tav­ern, that he was drop­ping out. Nice.

  15. Julie Robinson said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Oh, Crinoid­girl, my heart aches for you. Here’s a totally inad­e­quate vir­tual hug, and hopes for heart-healing.

    And I’m in total agree­ment with Dorothy at the end of the last thread about ignor­ing She-Who. I’m so much hap­pier since I stopped obsess­ing over the news. Dorothy, have you also seen the BBC Lit­tle Doritt? Won­der­ful! Most of the BBC pro­duc­tions I’ve seen have been great. The Way We Live Now is another one that could have been ripped from today’s head­lines, even though it was writ­ten in 1875. Bernie Mad­off didn’t do any­thing new.

  16. Dorothy said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    I missed Lit­tle Doritt, Julie, but thanks to my expo­sure to Bleak House, I might have to buy Lit­tle Doritt! Or check around among rel­a­tives to see if any­one has it and I can bor­row it.

    BTW my fave com­mer­cial was the Dori­tos one with the dog putting the shock col­lar on the guy sit­ting on the bench, then bark­ing to acti­vate the col­lar. We died laugh­ing, and rewound the DVR a cou­ple of times to see it again and again. Hands down it was the fun­ni­est one in my opinion.

  17. judybusy said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Yes, robins have been stay­ing around the past few win­ters. I find it a lit­tle sad, as see­ing the first one in spring was always such a huge deal.

    Dorothy, I also highly rec­om­mend Lit­tle Dor­rit! We didn’t miss a minute. It led to my get­ting the book on CD. The lan­guage is great to lis­ten to. I only got through 19 of 27 discs before I had to return it to the library. Nice that oth­ers wanted to lis­ten to it as well.

  18. del said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    She-Who flirts like a sopho­more cheer­leader? Rich.

  19. brian stouder said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Dorothy — our young folks thought that one was fun­ni­est also.

    On the other end of the spec­trum, I was put off by the one (sell­ing some sort of pda?) show­ing images of the attempt on Reagan’s life and race riots and so on.

    The beer com­mer­cials were smirky, and the Coke com­mer­cials were more than a lit­tle arty (but good!); and how does Go Daddy make any money at all? Those folks pay a pre­mium price to run flat, dated messages?

  20. beb said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:54 am

    My sym­pa­thies, too, Crinoid­girl. We’ve had to put down pets who were dying, and even then the pain of los­ing is to terrible.

    Steve Clem­mons writes to agree that Obama is drown­ing from bad advi­sors.
    http://​tpm​cafe​.talk​ing​pointsmemo​.com/​2​0​1​0​/​0​2​/​0​7​/​c​o​r​e​_​c​h​i​c​a​g​o​_​t​e​a​m​_​s​i​n​k​i​n​g​_​o​b​a​m​a​_​p​r​e​s​i​dency/

    I think this is big­ger news than that She-Who wrote crib notes on her palm. What, 3x5 note­cards are too good for her?

    I, too, am look­ing for­ward to the incom­ing snow storm. What’s the fun of hav­ing a snow blower with noth­ing to blow, eh?

    Super­bowl™. I think any orga­ni­za­tion that trade­marks “super­bowl party” and pros­e­cutes peo­ple for using the term with­out approval, or planed to has­sle bar if they had a flat screen TV above a cer­tain size wor­thy of my scorn.

    Echidne of the snakes notes that sev­eral of the Super­bowl ads were exag­gsiously anti-women. She dis­cusses at:
    http://​www​.echid​ne​ofthes​nakes​.blogspot​.com/
    She has a point that the one nar­ra­tive by the actor his plays “Dex­ter” the ser­ial killer in the TV, is creepy.

    Per­son­ally I per­fered Puppy Bowl VI, with the kit­ten half-time show and the ham­ster blimp cam.

  21. Sue said on February 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am

    My favorite Super Bowl com­mer­cial was the “you play like Betty White” one, espe­cially with Betty’s say­ing “You’re girl­friend doesn’t say [think?] that”. Over­all the com­mer­cials were stu­pid and obvi­ous — you could see what was com­ing in every beer com­mer­cial. Nancy’s fave com­mer­cial irri­tated me; not sure if it was more insult­ing to men or women. The men, I guess. What a bunch of wimps!
    I com­pletely agree with brian stouder — a Super Bowl com­mer­cial show­ing the Rea­gan assas­si­na­tion attempt, 9/11 and Lee Har­vey Oswald’s killing? Really? To show us we were part of … what?
    And what was with the much-anticipated Tim Tebow com­mer­cial? Did Focus on the Fam­ily man­age a bril­liant move by get­ting all their pub­lic­ity on this before this sup­posed anti-abortion spot aired? Or did I miss some­thing?
    I thought the Who were going to die up there, lit­er­ally. They were work­ing really hard, singing about teenage waste­lands.
    Let’s give Sarah a rest. She’s going to finally show her stuff on Fox, and the giant clash of the egos should be fun to watch even if it’s just a bunch of leaked stuff; O’Reilly already put her in her place, pub­licly, by cor­rect­ing her on some­thing dur­ing his sup­posed wel­com­ing inter­view. She is not going to take well to being the lit­tle lady at Fox, treated maybe one step above the Var­i­ous Inter­change­able Blondes.

  22. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    The com­mer­cial the pro­pri­etress enjoyed the most is attract­ing a lot of slings and arrows from fem­i­nist blog­gers, who thought the entire theme of the com­mer­cials was misog­y­nis­tic and anti-woman. They are pin­point­ing the Flo​.tv and Dodge Charger ads, specif­i­cally. As an unre­con­structed lover of big, fat, honk­ing pow­er­ful cars (not to be con­fused with SUVs), I truly enjoyed it, but I can see their point.

    Over­all, I thought the Dori­tos adver­tise­ments were lame, but I also cack­led over the dog col­lar bit. I’ll bet it went over huge with younger people.

    On “CBS Sun­day Morn­ing,” they did a seg­ment with four col­lege kids — two boys and two girls– from NYU ask­ing for reac­tions to some clas­sic Super Bowl adver­tise­ments. Shown the famous “Mean Joe” Greene Coca-Cola ad –where the fear­some Steeler accepts a big bot­tle of Coke from a lit­tle boy and then tosses him a game jer­sey– not only left them cold, but mock­ing. But they loved another Coke com­mer­cial that is a par­ody, where a cur­rent NFLer tack­les a Coke mar­ket­ing exec­u­tive, rips off his white shirt and tosses it to a kid. They clearly love sar­casm and snark.

    And the Pam and Tim Tebow ad? This had so many of my fel­low lib­er­als quak­ing with rage? Sheeesh. It was low-key to a fault and utterly inof­fen­sive to my sen­si­bil­i­ties, at least.

    I enjoyed the game more than the com­mer­cials, which to me means it was an excel­lent Super Bowl. Kudos to the Saints and espe­cially Drew Brees. He and his wife chose to buy a home in the Gar­den Dis­trict of New Orleans and they have been plow­ing their own money into poorly-funded N.O. schools that suf­fered griev­ous dam­age from Kat­rina. I hugely admire Pey­ton Man­ning and hope the loss yes­ter­day does not tar­nish the rep­u­tatin of a superb ath­lete and one of the great­est quar­ter­backs to play the game, but I really, really, really like Drew Brees.

  23. nancy said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    The Dodge ad was lame until the line, “I will watch your vam­pire tele­vi­sion shows with you,” at which point it tipped into genius. The things we expect our hus­bands to do.

    The Tebow ads were utterly baf­fling. I guess there’s a fac­tion of every move­ment that is highly sus­cep­ti­ble to bait, but you always wish your side could chill a lit­tle. And for the record, I still have no idea what the prob­lem was with Mrs. Tebow’s preg­nancy. “We almost lost him,” she said. What does that even mean?

  24. Sue said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Nancy, this is from Jezebel​.com, ref­er­enc­ing the web­site that appeared on the commercial:

    ‘Tim’s dad explains how he came up with the idea of hav­ing another child (at the point Tim was born, the cou­ple had four healthy children):

    “I was weep­ing over the loss of mil­lions of babies in Amer­ica who were never given a chance. And I prayed and said, ‘God, if you want another preacher in this world, you give me a son.’ […] So the next day I went home and shared with my fam­ily my prayer that I’d begun and every­body joined in. We started pray­ing, by name, for God to give us Timmy.”

    Pam Tebow also delves into the real­i­ties of a high risk preg­nancy. She was 37 at the time she con­ceived Tim, and the ini­tial diag­no­sis from doc­tors was that the child she car­ried looked like a block of fetal tis­sue, not a baby. Tebow explains she was will­ing to ignore the doctor’s advice and live by God’s plan — even if it resulted in her death. Pam Tebow relates how her physi­cians gave her med­i­cine to help with the symp­toms of the preg­nancy, but felt “com­pelled” while read­ing the Book of Tim­o­thy to go and dou­ble check its side-effects. Since the med­i­cine was known to cause birth defects in chil­dren, she threw away the rest of the med­ica­tion and sol­diered on through the rest of the term. When Timmy was born, both Tebows explain, there was a “great big clump of blood”, due to the exces­sive preg­nancy com­pli­ca­tions.‘
    ***
    You know what? I don’t like it when dad­dies decide on their child’s pro­fes­sion before it’s born, be it an ath­lete (Pete Mar­avich or Andre Agassi) or a preacher. And thank good­ness he had a will­ing recep­ta­cle in a woman who thought it was ok to pos­si­bly leave her other chil­dren moth­er­less in her quest to live up to her husband’s and/or God’s plans. Now, I’m off to read about how the Dug­gars can’t wait to get preg­nant again; hope­fully they’ll wait until #19 is out of neona­tal inten­sive care before the morn­ing sick­ness hits.

  25. crinoidgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    The edi­tor (and researcher) swoops in again. Try­ing to keep my mind off of recent events.

    Here’s the story about the Tebow thing:

    http://​www​.slate​.com/​i​d​/​2​2​4​3​2​1​8​/​p​a​g​enum/2

  26. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Pam Tebow was preg­nant while work­ing as a mis­sion­ary in the Phillip­ines and con­tracted amoe­bic dysen­tery. She was given doses of very pow­er­ful drugs and, at one point, was in a coma. Doc­tors diag­nosed her with “pla­cen­tal abrup­tion” and feared she would deliver a still­born baby. She chose not to have the pro­ce­dure and was lucky enough to beat the odds and give birth to a healthy child.

    I sure as hell am not going to judge the Tebows, who are com­mit­ted Chris­tians who truly put their faith into action, but they did roll the dice. It could just as eas­ily have turned hor­ri­bly bad –some 6% of mater­nal deaths are attrib­ut­able to pla­cen­tal abrup­tion– and left Mr. Tebow with four healthy chil­dren but no wife and no Tim.

    It is a great story of faith and love. The Tebows have every right to tell this tale. But the actions they took should not be seen as some sort of guide for other women in sim­i­lar straits.

  27. nancy said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Or she could have ended up like Gianna Beretta Molla, con­tin­u­ing a risky preg­nancy, dying as a direct result, and end­ing up a saint. The church obvi­ously prefers dead moth­ers to dead fetuses.

  28. crinoidgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Amen, Nance

  29. Rana said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I wish I could pre­tend that the likes of Palin, Beck, Lim­baugh, et al weren’t out there, spread­ing their hate­ful ideas. I don’t watch them, I don’t lis­ten to them, I don’t pay $$$ to attend their per­for­mances or buy their books.

    And yet!

    Not only do I know who they are and the kinds of things they say, I know that they have a lot of peo­ple who are fans of what they say, fans of lan­guage and ideas that are pro­foundly hos­tile to me and my loved ones. I don’t know if Beck et al believe what they say, but it doesn’t really mat­ter, because they encour­age those who would do harm to my fam­ily and friends if they could. These spokes­peo­ple are sup­ported by the media, and they make a lot of money doing these things. That’s an awful lot to ignore. I’m not going to go out of my way to engage with them, but I’m not going to pre­tend that they — or the peo­ple who like their ideas — don’t exist either.

  30. Dorothy said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Twenty-seven years ago this Thurs­day I had a pla­cen­tal abrup­tion. Thank­fully it hap­pened 17 days before my due date so my first born was deliv­ered safely, thank good­ness. But both of us could have died if they hadn’t acted so quickly. An abrup­tion can be com­plete, or a per­cent­age of the pla­centa could still be attached. In my case it was 25% of the way torn (which they didn’t know until I was opened up). The Slate arti­cle said it all — Mrs. Tebow was lucky to have the preg­nancy result in a healthy baby.

  31. moe99 said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    I too suf­fered a par­tial pla­cen­tal abrup­tion when I deliv­ered my third child. Luck­ily it was dur­ing labor and luck­ily labor was far enough along that my son was born with­out ill effect other than a low apgar score.

    The Tebows were in the Phillip­ines where abor­tion has been ille­gal since 1870. How is it that doc­tors there were rec­om­mend­ing a banned procedure?

  32. Sue said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Jeff Bor­den, you may not be will­ing to judge the Tebows, who are com­mit­ted Chris­tians who put their faith into action. How­ever, part of the action their faith requires is to work very hard to put poli­cies into place that do not give other women the oppor­tu­nity to ter­mi­nate, on a doctor’s rec­om­men­da­tion, a dan­ger­ous preg­nancy.
    You may not be will­ing to judge, but it appears the Tebows don’t have that problem.

  33. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Here, from Slate, is what hap­pened w/ Mrs. Tebow’s pregnancy.

    The story, appar­ently, is about Tim’s birth in 1987, when his par­ents were mis­sion­ar­ies in the Philip­pines. Accord­ing to Pam’s account in the Gainesville Sun, she con­tracted amoe­bic dysen­tery and went in a coma shortly before the preg­nancy. To facil­i­tate her recov­ery, she was given heavy-duty drugs. After­ward, doc­tors told her the fetus was dam­aged. They diag­nosed her with pla­cen­tal abrup­tion, a pre­ma­ture sep­a­ra­tion of the pla­centa from the uter­ine wall. They pre­dicted a still­birth and rec­om­mended abortion.

    It seems, though, that there’s an error in this para­graph. I think “before the preg­nancy” should be “before the deliv­ery”. Many descrip­tions of the con­di­tion online.

  34. nancy said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    See, this is where I have prob­lems with these lit­tle inspi­ra­tional sto­ries. The details are always sketchy. From the Gainesville Sun story that is evi­dently the source of all this:

    Just before her preg­nancy, Pam fell into a coma after con­tract­ing amoe­bic dysen­tery, a bac­te­ria trans­mit­ted through con­t­a­m­i­nated drink­ing water. Dur­ing her recov­ery, she received a series of strong med­ica­tions. And even though she dis­con­tin­ued the reg­i­men when she dis­cov­ered the preg­nancy, doc­tors told Pam the fetus had been damaged.

    So she was in recov­ery from amoe­bic dysen­tery, a case bad enough to put her in a coma, but she and Mr. Tebow were full-steam ahead on their baby-making plan. OK, I’ll take her word for it. She was on a mis­sion from God, after all. Stan­dard treat­ment for a.d. are two pow­er­ful antibi­otics, flagyl and fasigyn, both of which are not strictly con­traindi­cated dur­ing preg­nancy, but are def­i­nitely tell-your-doctor drugs. So she goes off either these two or another one — the story says “a series of strong drugs” — and then she’s told the fetus is “dam­aged.” Dam­aged how? One account says “it looks like a clump of fetal cells” on ultra­sound? This was 20 years ago, OK, ultra­sound isn’t as good, but then what? Once the preg­nancy con­tin­ues into the sec­ond trimester, it’s pretty plain it’s not a tumor in there.

    Then there’s pla­cen­tal abrup­tion, and all the time she’s being “encour­aged” to ter­mi­nate, in this Catholic coun­try where abor­tion is ille­gal? I don’t know. It just stinks to me. I’m not call­ing her a liar, but I’m always sus­pi­cious when peo­ple are quoted on hearsay say­ing things doc­tors don’t typ­i­cally say. Maybe the doc­tor said, “This could put you at risk. It’s one con­di­tion where abor­tion is indi­cated, and med­ically accepted in the Philip­pines.” Or whatever.

    I’ve known peo­ple who’ve had dif­fi­cult preg­nan­cies all over the coun­try, and the sto­ries they tell are of doc­tors who lay out options and leave the patient to choose. I’ve only known a sin­gle case where a doc­tor said you must abort, and that was a woman with malig­nant melanoma who was about to undergo chemother­apy. And even then it was her choice. If she didn’t want chemo, she could have been like Saint Gianna and died try­ing to carry her fetus to term. If any­thing, the doc­tors I’ve known have been almost too non-commital. They don’t want to be seen as favor­ing one choice over another, doubt­less because they fear get­ting sued.

    I wasn’t there for Mrs. T’s preg­nancy. Maybe doc­tors in the P’pines are pushier. I’m glad she had a happy end­ing. But I bet her doc­tor, if you could find him today, might tell a dif­fer­ent ver­sion of this story.

  35. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Sue@32,

    You have caught me on the horns of a dilemma. I give too much credit, I guess, for those who actu­ally com­mit them­selves to their beliefs, whether it is the Tebow fam­ily and its com­mit­ment to mis­sion­ary out­reach, or the won­der­ful fam­ily we learned about on “CBS Sun­day Morn­ing,” who sold their $2-million home in Atlanta, moved to a far smaller house, and donated $800,000 to The Hunger Project to build a corn-processing oper­a­tion in Ghana.

    But my admi­ra­tion should not blind me to what you have noted, that if the Tebows and those like them had their way, women would be denied con­trol over their own bodies.

  36. paddyo' said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    What Rana and Sue said … to infinity.

  37. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Oliver Wen­dell Holmes, Jr. — “Hard cases make bad law.” Most of what I hear here I’d be will­ing to work with to find rea­son­able, good faith excep­tions, but “denied con­trol over their own bod­ies” is a sweep­ing asser­tion that has to be com­pared to 52 mil­lion abor­tions since 1973.

    52,000,000. And I’ve had plenty of good, decent, well-intentioned fel­low reli­gious lead­ers around me try to con­vince me that if there was more birth con­trol and “com­pre­hen­sive” sex ed we’d have fewer in the next 37 years. I’m not try­ing to get to zero, but 52 million?

  38. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Amen, Nancy. The story is def­i­nitely sus­pect. When I read the Slate descrip­tion, I thought there must be an error, as the idea of a drug taken pre-pregnancy affect­ing the fetus seemed so improb­a­ble. The only pre-pregnancy treat­ment affect­ing fetal out­comes that I’ve ever heard of is radi­a­tion. After con­cep­tion, of course, things are dif­fer­ent, but some­thing here doesn’t add up.

  39. Rana said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    “denied con­trol over their own bod­ies” is a sweep­ing asser­tion that has to be com­pared to 52 mil­lion abor­tions since 1973.

    Why, exactly? One could cite num­bers of peo­ple who have died from lack of donated organs, but we don’t see laws on the books forc­ing every­one to reg­is­ter for blood and mar­row typ­ing, and to donate a kid­ney if they match some­one who needs one. There’s this lit­tle thing called “con­sent,” you know? In our soci­ety, a donor can back out right up to the time of the oper­a­tion, because we value the right of peo­ple to con­trol what they do or don’t do with their bod­ies, espe­cially if there is a health risk involved. This applies even if the per­son on the other table would die with­out that dona­tion. Heck, we’re not even allowed to use the organs from a dead per­son, if that per­son, while alive, refused to become a donor.

    And yet insist­ing that women, with­out their con­sent and against their stated wishes, are required, by law, to grant use of their organs to a fetus, risk­ing their health and lives in the process, is per­fectly fine?

    If you’re going to fling “52 mil­lion” at me, I’ll fling this back at you: under cur­rent law, women have fewer rights than a corpse when it comes to gov­ern­ment con­trol of their bod­ies. That’s not an exag­ger­a­tion for rhetor­i­cal effect. When it comes to preg­nancy, it is a sim­ple legal fact.

    Don’t want so many abor­tions? Give women the means to pre­vent preg­nancy, and ensure that the women who do decide to risk them­selves for the sake of a fetus don’t suf­fer for it after the birth. Writ­ing laws that force women to choose between death or injury, becom­ing a crim­i­nal, and sur­ren­der­ing their right to con­sent to the gov­ern­ment sets a ter­ri­ble prece­dent. What, you think the gov­ern­ment would stop with women, given that power?

  40. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Jeff (tmmo):

    Ross Douthat had an inter­est­ing col­umn fol­low­ing the recent news of an effec­tive absti­nence pro­gram. The most impor­tant obser­va­tion, it seemed to me, was that the most effec­tive pro­grams of any kind were not those that dealt only w/ absti­nence or w/ the facts of pro­cre­ation and con­tra­cep­tion but those that focused on build­ing “social cap­i­tal”, i.e., work­ing to con­vince the par­tic­i­pants that they had bet­ter things to do w/ their lives and help­ing them develop their tal­ents and skills. Sounds right to me.

  41. coozledad said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Jonah Gold­berg shoots that many lit­tle semi-zygotes into a Kleenex every week.
    Per­haps instead of health care reform, we should be con­sid­er­ing sperm and egg con­ser­va­tion efforts. If we return to post WWII tax lev­els we ought to be able to turn Alaska into a giant spunk refrig­er­a­tor. I hear they just loves ‘em some wig­glers up that way.
    And speak­ing of that “52,000,000″, they never went with­out food, took it up the ass in a cor­po­rate jail, served in an infan­tile war of oppor­tu­nity, worked at a shitty job that didn’t pro­vide health care cov­er­age or had their reli­giously incor­rect bod­ies peeled apart so folks like Jonah Gold­berg could glee­fully pop off into a towel.

  42. jcburns said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Writ­ing laws that force women to choose between death or injury, becom­ing a crim­i­nal, and sur­ren­der­ing their right to con­sent to the gov­ern­ment sets a ter­ri­ble precedent.

    I’ll chisel that into mar­ble on any cour­t­house you’d like. It’s amaz­ing that those who scream (lit­er­ally) that they want to take their coun­try back from gov­ern­ment, want to then have that gov­ern­ment enforce their beliefs on oth­ers with absolute force of law. Their laws.

  43. moe99 said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Gee, noth­ing like hav­ing two parts of the story in two of my pregnancies.

    When I was preg­nant with no. 2 child, I devel­oped gia­r­dia­sis, which is a pro­to­zoan infec­tion, found in streams around here if you go hik­ing and do not purify the water before drinking.

    https://​health​.google​.com/​h​e​a​l​t​h​/​r​e​f​/​G​i​a​r​diasis

    Despite the rec­om­men­da­tion that treat­ment wait until the end of preg­nancy, I was suc­cess­fuly treated with a low and quick dose of flagyl. My sec­ond born, my first son was a-ok. And unlike his slacker par­ents was a great athelete, and had a fan­tas­tic career as a swim­mer in high school and col­lege. Hmm…wonder if I should give Ms. Tebow a call?

  44. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on February 8th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Jolene, [hand­shake]. Agreed. That’s what I like about Scout­ing, both BSA & Girl Scouts.

  45. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Cooz,

    Your cruel obser­va­tions about Lucianne Golberg’s prog­eny were hilar­i­ous enough to cause me to do a spit take. Great stuff. And yet this sad lit­tle creep, whose laugh­able effort to link fas­cism with lib­er­al­ism has been evis­cer­ated by real schol­ars with actual knowl­edge, has received a $1-million advance for his next book.

  46. Dexter said on February 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Gen­der ben­ders, accord­ing to Dodge:
    1) I held the exit door for a young woman at a restau­rant, and she scam­pered into one of those Dodge Charg­ers and went rip­ping out of the lot, as I was still climb­ing into my minivan.

    2) I am the one here at home who watches Sookie and Bill Comp­ton and Jason and all the excite­ment in Bon Temps. My wife has no inter­est in vam­pires.
    At least Dodge could have used “…vam­pire movies…” . No red-blooded man would see “Twilight”.

  47. Dorothy said on February 8th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Yikes moe — my son had gia­r­dia­sis in the first grade. They are pretty sure it came from drink­ing at an out­door foun­tain on a school field trip. That is NOT a fun thing to have.

    OT — Jack Murtha died this afternoon.

    Dex­ter — re True Blood. Same thing at our house. My hus­band is the big fan, and I only got dragged into watch­ing it over Christ­mas when we had so much time off of work. I ignored it the first year or two, but now I want to know what hap­pens next. But I’m still ignor­ing Twi­light and any­thing asso­ci­ated with it.

  48. Julie Robinson. said on February 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Jeff tmmo, there will always be women seek­ing abor­tions, legal or not. I would like to keep that num­ber very low through edu­ca­tion and con­tra­cep­tive avail­abil­ity, but I would also like for those who need it to have a safe option. It’s unre­al­is­tic to think any other way, or you are con­demn­ing women to butchery.

  49. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Can you believe that the National Weather Ser­vice is pre­dict­ing another 5 – 10″ of snow for the DC area again tomor­row? Sheeesh! Enough already.

  50. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    I’ll repeat my mantra: If you are seri­ous about reduc­ing abor­tions, you must be seri­ous about reduc­ing unwanted preg­nan­cies. This is tough to pull off when so many who lament abor­tion are so strongly opposed to con­tra­cep­tive devices, com­pre­hen­sive sex edu­ca­tion, etc.

    I believe it was Bill Clin­ton who once said abor­tions should be safe, legal and rare. We might get to that point if we started act­ing like grownups about sex and its con­se­quences and made infor­ma­tion and con­tra­cep­tives more read­ily available.

  51. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Jeff, your last two sen­tences say very much what I’d say, but … We could both say them, but I’m not sure how we get to com­mu­ni­cat­ing with them, since we mean such dif­fer­ent things by the same state­ments. I’ll try to reframe later. (And I’m not going for even a smidge of sar­casm, although a cheap laugh at both our expenses over the mean­ing of “is” would not entirely be out of line.)

  52. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Jeff B., you might want to check out the R. Douthat edi­to­r­ial I linked to above. He’s not my favorite writer, but his argu­ment (and the evi­dence he points to) is that it’s not so much avail­abil­ity of con­tra­cep­tives that makes a dif­fer­ence as avail­abil­ity of the idea that there is some­thing for bored 15-year-olds to do w/ their lives than have unpro­tected sex. In our sex-saturated soci­ety, is it really pos­si­ble that there are teen-agers who don’t know how preg­nancy hap­pens or how to pre­vent it?

    A rel­e­vant fam­ily story: My nephew, now 20, has fallen in love w/ a young woman who his par­ents like very much. When I saw them late in the sum­mer, my brother expressed some con­cern about the idea that both my nephew and his girl­friend, who attend the same col­lege, would now have their own apart­ments, which would give them even more oppor­tu­ni­ties than they’d had pre­vi­ously to do things they might come to regret. When I asked him if he’d had a seri­ous talk w/ his son about the impor­tance of avoid­ing such a fate, he said that they had, indeed, had that con­ver­sa­tion and that his son had reas­sured him that, although they knew per­fectly well what oppor­tu­ni­ties they’d have, they didn’t plan to do any­thing that would min­i­mize their other choices in life. He seemed to have more faith, though, in the fact that his son’s girl­friend is a track star and that there are no events for preg­nant ladies than he did in his parental cau­tions, the idea being that she had her own rea­sons to pre­vent preg­nancy, quite apart from what my nephew or any of the four par­ents involved might think.

    Of course, these kids are light years beyond the scari­est phases of life. They’re out of their teens and in col­lege. But, still, I think the les­son applies. Kids who have bet­ter things to do are less likely to get in trou­ble – not just sex­u­ally, but in any way.

  53. LAMary said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:42 pm

  54. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    Jeff TMMO,

    I will look for­ward to it.

    I’ve been read­ing a grow­ing num­ber of arti­cles about the dif­fer­ent view­points toward sex and preg­nan­cies that are held by those on right and left, north and south, upper and lower income, etc. (And I was raised in the One True, so I cer­tainly heard plenty about the evils of the flesh, par­tic­u­larly the “sin of self-abuse,” or what I pre­fer to think of as the Full Port­noy.) I under­stand how the way oth­ers view sex and preg­nancy will vary on reli­gious beliefs, upbring­ing, social view, geog­ra­phy, etc.

    What seems to me like a fairly straight­for­ward approach at reduc­ing unwanted preg­nan­cies is hugely com­pli­cated for oth­ers. For every per­son who believes straight­for­ward, com­pre­hen­sive sex edu­ca­tion includ­ing dis­cus­sions of ways to pre­vent preg­nancy and dis­ease are nec­es­sary, there is some­one else who fer­vently believes even rais­ing these issues may lead young peo­ple to experimentation.

    It seems like the Mount Ever­est of wish­ful think­ing to believe that healthy young men and women, intox­i­cated by that dev­il­ish cock­tail of rag­ing hor­mones and youth­ful curios­ity, are not going to be mak­ing the two-backed beast if the oppor­tu­nity arises. Hasn’t it always been thus?

  55. Joe Kobiela said on February 8th, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Rana @29,
    Sub­si­tute, Madow,O’Berlin,and Math­ews in your rant and you know how us con­servi­tives feel.
    I won­der how wel­come Ol Al Gore is in D.C. round about now.
    Pilot Joe

  56. jcburns said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    As usual, Pilot Joe, I have to run a bit of a secret decoder ring on your com­ment. Why wouldn’t Nobel Peace Prize Win­ner Al Gore be wel­come? (I think he is.)

  57. Sue said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    jcburns —  I believe Joe is refer­ring to the 1000 inches of snow that they are deal­ing with right now. Joe, it’s referred to as “cli­mate change” these days, because too many peo­ple were con­fused by the “global warm­ing” tag.
    I’d say a cou­ple of feet of snow in that region qual­i­fies as cli­mate change.

  58. LAMary said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Years ago a friend of mine in DC said that things came to a halt with six inches of snow. I can’t imag­ine what all this snow is doing.

  59. coozledad said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

  60. jcburns said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    What does Al Gore have to do with 1000 inches of snow, Pilot Joe? C’mon, you believe in weather, and, like, y’know, facts that keep planes up in the air. READ ‘An Incon­ve­nient Truth’ and ‘Earth in the Bal­ance’ (don’t just have Glenn Beck inter­pret it for you.) A big, big chunk of cli­mate change is caused by humans. Deal with that as a fact, whether it’s warmer OR colder than usual out­side. Then run the weight and bal­ance num­bers and fig­ure out how we can make less of an impact on the planet.

  61. crinoidgirl said on February 8th, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Jolene, they’re fore­cast­ing 6 – 10″ here. This is the most bare ground I’ve seen in Michi­gan since I moved here in 1974.

  62. paddyo' said on February 8th, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    When I lived in DC in the ‘80s, LA Mary, just the fore­cast or the hint of snow — 1, 2, 6 inches, didn’t mat­ter — was enough to throw the cap­i­tal into a milk-bread-and-toilet-paper-buying frenzy. The city’s inabil­ity to han­dle the idea of a snow­storm, let alone the snow­storm itself, has always been a great puz­zle­ment. I mean, numer­ous gen­er­a­tions of out-of-towners and out-of-staters — and not all of them from the ain’t-never-seen-snow-before parts of our land — have trekked to and from Wash­ing­ton every 2 – 4 years, set­tled in, made lives, become part of the city’s fab­ric. So why does the cap­i­tal behave like it’s Armaged­don? (In fact, that’s what they’ve been call­ing it this win­ter in DC: “Snow­maged­don”).
    In other words: WTF?

  63. Jolene said on February 8th, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    It’s true that DC types are weather wimps, but, trust me, nobody is exag­ger­at­ing now.

    WaPo Photo Gallery

    Pho­tos sub­mit­ted by WaPo readers

    Among other prob­lems, all the munic­i­pal­i­ties here have exceeded their snow removal bud­gets by mil­lions of dol­lars. And there’s lots of snow still here and, appar­ently, more on its way.

  64. alex said on February 8th, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    In our sex-saturated soci­ety, is it really pos­si­ble that there are teen-agers who don’t know how preg­nancy hap­pens or how to pre­vent it?

    As She Who might say, You­betcha. Remem­ber Joyce­lyn Elders, Bill Clinton’s Sur­geon Gen­eral who got shit­canned for dar­ing to speak truth? As a health offi­cial in the state of Arkansas, she was fea­tured on 60 Min­utes even before any­one ever heard of Bill Clin­ton for her efforts to pro­mote edu­ca­tion in the state with one of the high­est teen preg­nancy rates. I remem­ber the seg­ment well. Yes, there were teen-agers who didn’t know that screw­ing led to preg­nancy. A preg­nant girl actu­ally said, “Well, my mama told me I couldn’t get preg­nant until I got mar­ried. I wasn’t mar­ried so I didn’t think it would happen.”

    Dr. Elders felt com­pre­hen­sive sex edu­ca­tion should include frank talk about mas­tur­ba­tion as an alter­na­tive to cop­u­la­tion. That led to a bar­rage of right-wing out­rage that resulted in her fir­ing by Slick Willie, who in his youth prob­a­bly never met a naive girl he didn’t bone.

  65. Jeff Borden said on February 8th, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    There’s an inter­est­ing take on the Tea Bag­gers Ball by Meghan McCain. Ordi­nar­ily, I pay lit­tle or no atten­tion to her writ­ings on The Daily Beast, but she makes an awfully inter­est­ing point about the Nashville con­fab. After call­ing out the creeps like Tom Tan­credo for their barely dis­guised racism, she notes that rev­o­lu­tions are for the young, but that she saw few faces in the crowd that were not topped with white or gray hair.

    Is this always the case? Are rev­o­lu­tions only for the young? Any­how, for some­one who gen­er­ally traf­fics in dri­vel and trivia, I thought it was a rather com­pelling premise by Ms. McCain.

  66. Dexter said on February 8th, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    The day’s over. I wore Detroit Lions gear around today just to see if any­one would say any­thing, like “We’re next” or “now it’s our turn”, but no, no one said any­thing, no one noticed, and of course they wouldn’t.
    The Boston Red Sox won, the Chicago White Sox won, the Tampa Bay Bucs won, now the Saints, but even though the Detroit Tigers made it to the World Series four years ago, and the Pis­tons were great twenty years ago, and not all that bad since, Detroit Lions fans are mired, and have only other bad teams like Cleve­land to com­mis­er­ate with.
    That’s why I went a lit­tle crazy wit joy root­ing for the Saints last night. I gave them no chance, and they did it. I’ll take my “feelin’ goods” wher­ever I can, because the Lions and Browns just can’t do it.

  67. brian stouder said on February 8th, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Are rev­o­lu­tions only for the young? Any­how, for some­one who gen­er­ally traf­fics in dri­vel and trivia, I thought it was a rather com­pelling premise by Ms. McCain.

    Chris Matthews had a fairly dire take on the rough talk com­ing from Nashville, which (para­phras­ing both him and Ms McCain) amounts to: Revoutions may be for young folks, but older folks pre­fer coup d’états.

    Think about it: these stu­pid sons of bitches have made it a talk­ing point that we can­not defend our Con­sti­tu­tional gov­ern­ment by Con­sti­tu­tional means; and we can­not trust a pres­i­dent who cares more about the Con­sti­tu­tion than in exer­cis­ing unchecked war pow­ers as Com­man­der in Chief.

    With talk about rev­o­lu­tion and seces­sion com­ing from “main stream” national polit­i­cal fig­ures, one can­not help but think that the Crazy Train is begin­ning to get up a head of steam (if it hasn’t already left the station)

    The times we live in are becom­ing increas­ingly strange, and the dys­func­tional sour­ness of our polit­i­cal dis­course is slowly reduc­ing into some­thing else; some­thing more acidic.

  68. basset said on February 8th, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    jcburns, I’m with you on the “teleprompter” spelling… that and “klieg lights” just bug the hell out of me.

    didn’t watch the Super Bowl, had our thir­tysome­thing neigh­bors over for an anti-Super Bowl party and tried to watch “A Hard Day’s Night,” they did not get it at ALL though.

    we did turn the tv on to see the Who, with Ringo’s son Zak on drums… who has said that Ringo didn’t want him to be a drum­mer and Keith Moon gave him his first kit. seems to me, though, the best thing Dal­trey and Town­shend could have done after half­time was to imme­di­ately announce their retire­ment from live per­for­mance. “Look, we’re too old for this, we will never play in front of a larger audi­ence or put on a more extrav­a­gant pro­duc­tion, that’s it, we quit.”

  69. Rana said on February 8th, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Are rev­o­lu­tions only for the young?

    When the teabag­gers first got going, I remem­ber some­one (alas, I for­get who) mak­ing what I thought was a really inter­est­ing obser­va­tion about how the media was react­ing to the sight of these grey-haired folks rant­ing in town­halls. Basi­cally, the pop­u­lar image of the elderly (how­ever you want to define that) has been shaped by the older mem­bers of pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions, who came from a cul­ture of not mak­ing waves unless the sit­u­a­tion was really dire. So you see the teabag­gers, see the grey hair, see the froth­ing, and assume that the sit­u­a­tion must be hor­ri­bly bad, to make dig­ni­fied lit­tle old ladies and polite older gen­tle­men so wroth. The thing is, the com­menter went on to say, many of the peo­ple who are today con­sid­ered “older Amer­i­cans” came of age in the six­ties and sev­en­ties, out of a cul­ture that encour­aged that kind of high-emotion protest.

    So are they wound up because the con­di­tions that are pro­vok­ing their out­rage are objec­tively wor­thy of such high dud­geon, or because they get worked up over all kinds of things, just because that’s the style they’re used to? The media likes to assume the for­mer… but is that nec­es­sar­ily the case?

  70. Linda said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    The Dodge ad was lame until the line, “I will watch your vam­pire tele­vi­sion shows with you,” at which point it tipped into genius. The things we expect our hus­bands to do.

    My take was that the Dodge ad was lame, period. There is a strain of self-pity in sev­eral of the ads, not just that one, that said, “Oh my Lord, the THINGS women want us to do (big eye­roll). Aren’t we put upon? And won’t buy­ing some­thing make it all bet­ter?” Damn. You ain’t that put-upon and nobody wants your mar­tyred ass in a bou­tique when you could be watch­ing the big game (FloTV).

    Of course, the whole point of many com­mer­cials is to tell you that the uni­verse is screw­ing you, and that buy­ing crap will make it all bet­ter. Even if it makes you broke.

  71. Linda said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    So are they wound up because the con­di­tions that are pro­vok­ing their out­rage are objec­tively wor­thy of such high dud­geon, or because they get worked up over all kinds of things, just because that’s the style they’re used to? The media likes to assume the for­mer… but is that nec­es­sar­ily the case?

    It’s because politi­cians, like adver­tis­ers, like to tell Amer­i­cans to feel sorry for them­selves. And we like to feel sorry for ourselves.

  72. brian stouder said on February 8th, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    What the hell about the eco-totalitarian Audi ad? The one where every­one gets arrested by some gov­ern­ment green-enforcement agency? “Incan­desent bulbs — you’re under arrest!” , or “Plas­tic bags! Come with us” — etc etc

    For­get the Focus on the Fam­ily thing; Audi ran a flatly bizarre ad that was essen­tially inco­her­ent — espe­cially com­ing from a damned Ger­man car company!

  73. alex said on February 9th, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Awak­ened by gimpy arm tonight. Get­ting occu­pa­tional ther­apy pre­scrip­tion so they can help me fig­ure out a work sta­tion arrange­ment that won’t ruin my pos­ture any more than it already has.

    Any­hoo, just had to weigh in on the ads. I thought the Dodge ad was sex­ist, sure, but weren’t most of them? At least the Dodge ad plunged a lit­tle deeper into the oth­er­wise shal­low male psy­che and didn’t sim­ply announce, “Hey, boys, here’s some weak beer and fake blondes with fake boobs. Don’t jizz all over your­selves, now.”

    Brian, regard­ing the Audi ad, I’ve read in mar­ket­ing news that Audi own­ers are by far mostly Repub­li­can, but with bour­geois bohemian pre­ten­sions. So, weird as it was, I think the ad served its mis­sion. Make your­self look hip, crunchy and cool while being the unapolo­getic self-serving pig that you are.

    I find adver­tis­ing gen­er­ally insult­ing, and the Super Bowl is the annual show­case of the worst, IMHO.

    EDIT: Just read the RIP for Casa D’Angelo on Fair­field. Was just there on Sat­ur­day and prais­ing it to the staff as my favorite loca­tion. (The acoustics and atmos­phere really do beat the hell out of the other loca­tions, which are steel pole barns with fancied-up facades.) The staff were report­edly given notice that very day. What a shame. It was also one of the few places in town with al fresco din­ing in a court­yard under trees, not fac­ing a strip mall park­ing lot.

  74. brian stouder said on February 9th, 2010 at 8:17 am

    They say the demise of the hos­pi­tal down the street (10 years ago) finally caught up with them.

    But hey — there’s prob­a­bly an Appleby’s near the new hos­pi­tal up north!

  75. Peter said on February 9th, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Bas­sett, I had heard that the only rea­son The Who have been per­form­ing is that Dal­trey (and, until the end, Ent­whis­tle) needed the money — Townsend appar­ently didn’t blow all of his share and is doing quite well for himself.

Leave a Reply