Overheard at the Dog Park...

yesterday:

A woman explaining, more than complaining, about an upcoming vote at her husband's workplace, a nursing home, where the employees were deciding whether they wanted to remain in the union or not.

Her husband is management; the union apparently put up posters with his face next to a can of beans, "This is what Rich (?) will give you."

That didn't bother her so much, she said.
He'll keep his job either way.

She wished they'd just vote -- if they want to stay in the union, fine; if they don't, fine too. Just this is getting childish is all...

Why, some people are even leaving muffins on the windshields of non-union supporting employee vehicles in the parking lot to draw the seagulls, which poop all over the place...

People, it's getting ugly out there, I tell ya.
(Kidding. I couldn't help myself: I cracked a smile. What will they think of next?)

Enjoy your Sunday.

The Letter B.

Big Bird.
Binders.
Bayonets.
Now ... Bullshitter.



Let's move on to C?

Coarse.
Competency.
Consumer Confidence.
Cleverness.
Class...

Whenever you're ready, Mr. President.
Yes, you can evolve a bit faster than this.

So much for being an example for the schoolkids, eh?
B is for Bully.
Bullshitter? Bully.
Babyish.
Beyonce.
Bounce, bounce.
Beginnings.
Beyond.
Bohemian.
Boastful.
Bemused.
Barack.

Now, can we call that thread done, and move on to the substance?

Swiping.

Trouble with habitually borrowing other people's thoughts,
you tend not to form your own original work. Eventually, it catches up with you...

I bet the president's people, like the new media journolists, are up and online early, scanning blogs, reading papers, picking up on what is being said out there.

Here's my post, from early morning Oct. 9, 2009:
Friday, October 9

Hail to the Chief Peacemaker + Prize Winner
I'm going to speculate that the international community is trying to bulk up the President's credentials prior to his engaging -- hopefully with bit of backbone -- in the Israel/Palestine negotiations that have dragged on much too long.

It's not our enemies, but our allies, that we most need to call to action now.

So George Mitchell's on that job, the Prez has the prize pocketed, and maybe it's time we realize he who the writes the checks has plenty of power to call some shots. (What's in your wallet?) You don't like our suggestions? Fine, no support of you. Feel free to go it alone, and face the consequences.

Here's a good editorial on that subject, and why it's essential to support our Palestinian peace partner now. If you can't score a victory or two with the Nobel in your pocket...

Later that morning,
the President stood in the Rose Garden and said this:

Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in. In remarks given at the White House Rose Garden on the day of the announcement, Obama stated, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. " And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." He said those common challenges included the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons (which he said might not occur in his lifetime), nuclear proliferation, climate change, tolerance "among people of different faiths and races and religions", peace between and security for Israelis and Palestinians, better social conditions for the world's poor, including "the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future." The United States, he said, is "a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies."

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.
"Call to action" is a phrase formal speechwriters, as well as Northwestern-trained print writers like myself, might think of, originally...

Just like "Romnesia", the latest desperate meme his people are pushing, behind Big Bird, binders and bayonets. Here's Roger Cohen of the NYTimes:

I coin "Romnesia" in Oct 11 col http://t.co/EM8d1NvF -- "Is this acute #Romnesia or what?" #Obama runs with it. No credit. Of course not.

#Obama on my #Romnesia http://t.co/Vni7TYi7 Why is it I'm not surprised this president likes to look clever with ideas of others?

Trouble is, his people swipe and snatch words, seemingly without understanding the thought process behind the catchy phrases. There's no "there" there...

The mask is slipping.
The emperor has been naked these past years.
No one is afraid to point out: the first black president isn't a solid leader, nor a consistent or original leader. Heck, any superb wordsmith can write a good speech, or coin a phrase or two...

It's the action behind the words that we pay the political people for.

My call above fell on deaf ears. Too bad.
The president signed his own ticket this fall.

-------------------------------


The "Tonight Show" appearance was Obama's third as president and fifth overall. He has recently done a slew of entertainment media appearances, including a sit down with Jon Stewart of the "Daily Show." On Friday, he will appear on MTV for a live 30-minute special.

"Well, the president only does these shows once or twice a week now, so it's good" to have him here, Leno joked.

The last time Obama held a news conference to take open questions from the press was August 20th, when he called on four reporters in the White House briefing room.

On the Hunt...

Wednesday morning walk in the woods.
via email by Mal.

Densely Packed.

*posed by the bookcase to give a better indicator of size...

"I'm already there..."

Take a look around...

So Who Will Win Tonight, do you think?

... Bears, or Detroit?

No Cigar.

Max Boot  (b.1969 in Moscow to Soviet Jews), a senior fellow and an advisor to the Romney campaign, comes close to admitting this country had no business getting involved militarily in Libyan affairs, by first summing up the failures:

There has been a crippling and dangerous lack of security in Libya since Moammar Kadafi was overthrown last year with the help of NATO airstrikes. This was an issue that many observers worried about while the war was ongoing: Was there a plan to create security and governance after Kadafi's downfall?

The U.S. could have dispatched an international peacekeeping force for this purpose, on the model of Kosovo and Bosnia, but this option (which I advocated at the time) never seemed to get serious consideration in either Washington or Brussels. Perhaps that's just as well, because there is little doubt that foreign troops on Libyan soil would have been targeted by the same jihadists who killed the U.S. ambassador and previously had attacked the British ambassador.

But there was also no Plan B. If NATO and the Arab League weren't going to send peacekeepers, what were they going to do to ensure a modicum of security? The answer is: not much.

Apparently after Kadafi's fall, the CIA worked with Libyan allies to try to secure the strongman's remaining stockpile of chemical weapons and possibly some of his shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, but the U.S. did almost nothing to help the new government in Tripoli disarm militias and restore law and order. This left Libya's new leaders at the mercy of thousands of armed men on its streets who answered only to local warlords or possibly to no one at all.

In a way, if on a much lesser level, Obama was repeating the mistake that President George W. Bush made in Afghanistan and Iraq, two other countries where the U.S. did little to fill a power vacuum after toppling the existing regimes. Those examples should have taught the U.S. a lesson that has been relearned in Libya (and is now being confirmed in Syria): Any power vacuum in the Middle East inevitably gets filled by jihadists, who have access to weapons and a proclivity to use them, while the "silent majority" of moderate Muslims, who are concerned primarily about a better life for themselves and their families, are too cowed to resist.

To be specific, the most costly failure in Libya — for which four State Department representatives paid with their lives — was the failure to do more to help set up a new security force for the nascent, pro-Western state.

No, the failure was our intervention, dramatic but effective only in sowing chaos:   Their country, their choices.

One can argue until the cows come home, but it's an accepted fact:  we reap what we sow.  This harvesttime, we're surprised the reaper's bringing in a good crop of chaos?  Providing ineffective ... security is -- in the overall scheme of things -- but a footnote on what's proven to be a breathtakingly arrogant operation.

Boot's last line miscalculates and gets it wrong:

It's deadly arrogant to presume possessing  Western minds, with the most advanced strategic weapons in civilization, somehow permits the United States to make other countries' choices for them.

Bigger Picture Please.

Instead of focusing on Benghazi,
isn't it fair to ask: If we knew then, what we're seeing now (and should have known), was the U.S. right to support the Libyan revolution, to the point of supplying air power, ammo and advice to the militants?

We've effectively destabilized another country, repeating the Bush era mistakes but with the caveat that this time it wasn't the U.S. but a NATO mission. Don't you remember how long it took -- even with expanding U.S./NATO help -- for the rebels to overthrow their government?*

We were going to protect civilians, then ended up bombing so many from above, destroying infrastructure and upending what had been a stable country. Stable under a dictator sure, but the man was responding to our money and diplomacy and Western ways.

Libya was no threat to U.S. national security interests, so why'd we get involved again? If I recall correctly, the president's first instincts -- stay out -- were good ones but he listened to Sec. Clinton, Ms. Rice and another woman, who wanted a show of strength.

If we knew then what we see now, would it have been best for the Libyan people do you think to have a functioning authority, rather than the roaming militants grabbing power in the vacuum? Maybe that's why Ms. Rice and Sec. Clinton seemed so determined early on to make the Benghazi focus on a foreigner's film, rather than homegrown troubles that came about after our U.S./NATO "help"?

Won't hurt anyone to at least ask the ?, eh.
-----------------------

*That's my reasoning for not helping support all these dictator overthrows: if the people there can't do it on their own, and need help even pulling down the statue of their leaders, chances are they are not strong enough to replace such leadership, if they can't overthrow him without outside "help".

Right now,
the US is charged with training Libyans, I've read, so there is some semblance of authority to replace what we helped kill. I don't think the civilians "won" either way. Sometimes it's better to live under a dictator than to be subject to whatever violent group seizes power in the absence of leadership.

Weekend Rivalries.

Briefly checking the scores now:

Miami 13, FSU 10 (3rd quarter)
Spurrier 11, Florida 44
Minn. 13, Wisc. 38
Nebraska 29, Northwestern 28
BYU 14, Notre Dame 17

-------------------------------
[H]ere's a transcript  from BYU Coach Bronco Mendenhall's 5-minute Q&A with reporters after the game:

Opening comment:

"Congratulations to Coach Kelly and Notre Dame. Their team played hard and physical and they had a couple more plays than our program today. They continue to do just what they need to do in keeping their undefeated season going, and I think they are a good football team, well-coached and they are to be credited for their effort today.

 

I was proud of our team, one or two plays away from being able to come away with a victory.  Most likely the best game collectively we have played offensively, defense and kicking, but when you put the composite together it was good enough to get us within striking distance and [we] had a great chance, a number of chances to maybe pull off an upset.  But ultimately didn't make a critical play here or there, right down the stretch, to win the game."

On why he punted from ND 34:

"Six minutes to go, thought we would have a great chance to make a stop. It was work and was longer that what I had hoped for, and with six minutes and 35 [yards], really believed we would stop them the get the ball back and get better field position than what we did."

...
On ND's Theo Riddick:

"Really impressed. Just I think Notre Dame is well-coached. Ultimately, they executed at the critical moments. There were four or five plays today that changed the game. And to their credit they made those plays."
  

 Here's some nice pre-game color by Gordon Monson in the Salt Lake Tribune:

Maybe you hate Notre Dame, but I love it — and you would, too, had you ever been there.

I’m not talking about the football team, I’m talking about the football feel on the campus of Our Lady, the Virgin Mary.

 

BYU, which travels to South Bend to play the Irish on Saturday, has the words — Tradition. Honor. Spirit. — written on its football field. Notre Dame has them etched into its pigskin-covered soul.

...

Touchdown Jesus is a depiction of Christ, his arms lifted overhead, signaling a touchdown. OK, not really, but that’s what it looks like. There’s also an on-campus statue of an Old Testament prophet with his index finger pointing forward called … First-down Moses. At another place is an image of Father Corby, an honored past president of Notre Dame, with his hand raised skyward. He’s known as … Fair-catch Corby.

 

It’s all in good fun. Nobody with a brain around there connects competitive success with Deity’s good favor. God, after all, is not a rooting fan. But, alongside Catholicism, the obvious main force at Notre Dame, football is a kind of secondary religion.

 

That’s the backdrop against which BYU, also no stranger to the faith-and-football mix, comes to the school on Saturday, for its fifth visit.  The Cougars shocked Notre Dame in 1994, winning 21-14. Overall, they are 1-3 in South Bend. In order for them to have any shot this time around, they will have to remember the words of former BYU receiver Tim Nowatzke, who characterized the key to victory in ’94 this way:

"We talked about it all week. We’re not playing the Four Horsemen, we’re not playing Joe Montana, we’re not playing ghosts or history. We’re just playing football. That’s what we did. We believed in ourselves and played the game."

High school senior hits a 67-yarder.

"He made that kick."

I especially like the colorful coverage in the London Daily News:

A YouTube captured the record-breaking kick in all of its glory, as the referees raised their hands to signify the kick was good, and the team erupted in celebration.

The 67-yard kick is one of the longest in history, beating the NFL record of 63 yards, which is currently held by four players. Mr. Rehkow is not just a gridiron guru in kicking the ball - he can also catch it –doubling as a wide receiver on the field.

In addition, football’s not his only game, as Mr Rehkow plays for the Central Valley basketball team when football season is over.

But as amazing as the kick is, it’s not even the longest at his level. The high school mark belongs to Dirk Borgognone, who kicked a 68-yarder while a student at Reno High School in 1985.

Four players have reached the 63-yard milestone in the NFL, but none have broken it.

He wants to be known as Hussein now?

Maureen Dowd:

The president joked at the Al Smith dinner about how both candidates had “unusual” middle names — Mitt and Hussein — noting mock-wistfully, or maybe really wistfully, “I wish I could use my middle name.”

The line summed up Obama’s incredible odyssey, how many barriers he had to leap over with no rich daddy, no daddy at all, to rise to the pinnacle. President Cool hates the fact that the uncool scion is making him descend from the lofty heights of governing and engage in crass politics.

Romney can only do offense, not defense.

Trouble is,
if you read Maraniss' book*, or even have read excerpts, you begin to wonder if obstacles were indeed "leaped", or if there was a team running out, deliberately removing the hurdles in his scholastic and career lane.

I'm just glad this go-around, Dowd referred to him as President Cool, without referencing Cool Hand Luke, as is her typical wont in these label-him-aloof character assessments.

Lucas Jackson had followers -- real followers, not movie-star conceit -- based on his acts, not because he courted them. He disdained adulation, lived by instinct. He amused himself perhaps, but never sought to lead the chain-gang. Said he never planned anything a day in his life...

By contrast,
Obama's entire career path was essentially laid out for him pre-law school: the roots in Chicago laying the credentialed foundation so he too could one day himself shine in a network -- a binder, if you will -- of up-and-coming African-American political leaders.

The "cool hand" reference referred to having nothing in hand: "Sometimes nothing's a pretty cool hand."

If Dowd believes Obama fits that mold, she falls victim to racist thinking: Obama led a relatively privileged young life, even before he was groomed for his leadership posts. Nttawwt.* He's not the first politician to come up like that, representing.

Perhaps it explains why the president is not exactly hurdling the obstacles before us now -- the country, not his campaign -- or is not capable of effectively reaching out to lead outside his circle of followers.

(I'd venture she's wrong about Romney not being able to step up and play defensively too when needed, but that's another story for another day.)


-----------------------

*Not all single mother sob stories are created alike:
The security of his veteran grandfather was no doubt an advantage; the grandmother- banker charged with raising him to manhood surely advanced her career in the pre-binder working-women days. 

She was responsible enough to send her grandson to a private prep school, where it sounds like he did not exactly have to work too hard to seize the opportunities that would eventually be offered up to him, as if he was plucked by the hand of chance for the role, from a binder of perfectly qualified non-applicants...

Yesterday's News.

Two big things occurred yesterday that matter way more in the long run than the harping follow-up coverage of the second presidential debate.

1.) We're pushing past playing politics with gay rights:

The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates against same-sex couples, a second federal appeals court has ruled.

In this country, we've seen plenty of past political campaigns avert course to attract and repel Americans with this hot-button political issue of "gay" marriage.  Somehow, we've given people the idea that majority vote matters on whether people get the Constitutional Right of the equal protection of our laws.  It's gotten ugly...

Yesterday, a second federal court pushed through the idea that the illegality of Defense of Marriage Act could be settled simply under the law, without creating the need for people to campaign and lobby and woo fellow citizens to grant them "special" rights in recognising on the federal level the marriages in legal jurisdictions.

Plus, looking ahead to what one day what this might one day lead to:
Instead of allowing the State to present any weak reason for distinguishing between biologically infertile women and men (who are currrently permitted to marry) and not allowing homosexuals that same protection of the law because, if left alone, they could never form a biological offspring family, the court said nope -- legally, the State would have to come up with a better reason than that.

I think if we don't vote state by state on whether or not it's legal for a woman to have the right to choose whether she wants to bear a potentially deformed baby, we don't have the right to deny couples who wish to marry, but simply can't produce biological offspring in their couplings because they have same-sex genitals, the same as others.

It's not special rights.  It's allowing the same opportunity to similarly situated people.
Gays aren't inherent victims.  Just taken advantage of by the law.

Yesterday's ruling set out to even up the playing field.

"Two appeals courts have now found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The issue appears to be headed for the Supreme Court — possibly as soon as the current term."

 

Edith Windsor, whose case led to an appeals court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Shannon Stapleton /Reuters /Landov

 

The Associated Press reminds us that "the law, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages, was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after it appeared in 1993 that Hawaii might legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have banned gay marriage but several have approved it, including Massachusetts and New York."

---------------------------------

2)  Newsweek magazine shuttered its print edition in a foreboding trend.

Like the Midwestern steelmills of yore, the printing press dinosaurs are roaring to fall -- the big ones, but not the smaller presses that serve a local sports and community discussions market.  Here's some rare worthwhile thoughts of Sullivan, one of the first online pundits to exploit the trend and serve himself up online:

You no longer control the gate through which readers have to pass and advertisers get to sponsor. No gateway, no magazine, no revenue - and massive costs in print, paper and mailing. I know a bit about these things, having edited a weekly magazine on paper for five years and running this always-on blogazine for twelve. It's a different universe now.
...
The reason is that these huge corporations, massive newsrooms, and deeply ingrained advertising strategies become interests in themselves. No institution wants to dissolve itself. Getting that old mindset to accept that everything that it has done as a business and editorial model is now over, pffft, gone, is very, very hard.  

But they often cannot adjust because they are too big to move so quickly and because new sources of information and new flows of information keep evolving, and because no one really wants change if it means more job insecurity.  

We're human. It's not pleasant realizing that the entire business and editorial model for your entire career is kaput.
...
 The good news is that the savings from this can be plowed back into [online] journalism if revenues from subsscriptions and advertisements revive.

Here's to hoping ...

Fact check fail.

PolitiFact.com --
a project of the Tampa Bay Times, which in the past has won one of those increasingly meaningless Big Prizes, is corrected by libertarian law professor Jonathan Adler in his post last night When Fact Checkers Have Trouble with Facts on Volokh.com.

The latter is a specialty legal site, and offers up more solid analysis than the Tampa Bay team of "fact-checkers" :

Another example of fact checkers having trouble with facts can be found in Politifact’s commentary on whether it was fair for President Obama to criticize Mitt Romney for failing to say whether he supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In making its assessment Politifact totally bungled its description of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and in the process perpetuated a false claim about the decision oft repeated in political debate (including by Lilly Ledbetter herself).

Politifact wrote:

In 2007, the Supreme Court had ruled in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. that the 180-day statute of limitations started from the day an employer made the decision to discriminate — making it impossible for employees who learned of such discrimination later to get relief, such as back pay.

The problem is the last part of this sentence is false. In Ledbetter the Supreme Court did not hold that employees who learned of alleged discrimination more than 180 days after the alleged offenses were precluded from suing their employers. That question was not before the Court, and the majority opinion expressly noted (in footnote 10) that it was not answering this question. Ledbetter’s claim was not premised on a recent discovery of past discrimination. In fact, during the course of the litigation Ledbetter acknowledged that she first learned of the alleged discrimination more than 180 days before she filed suit. Indeed, as Hans Bader notes, Ledbetter admitted in a deposition that she learned of the pay disparities in 1992, but did not file suit until 1998.

Whether or not this should have precluded her suit, and whether or not the subsequent legislation was wise, it is simply false to say that the Supreme Court’s decision would have precluded individuals from pursuing claims about prior discrimination even if they “learned of such discrimination later.” This “fact” asserted by Politifact is nothing of the sort.

[I e-mailed Politifact about this on Wednesday evening. On Thursday I received an e-mail saying they were "reviewing" the claim. Although it would take no more than ten minutes to read the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision, Politifact has yet to revise the article, or even note that the claim is disputed.]

The bottom line is that if we can’t trust fact checkers to get their own facts right, how can we trust them to judge anyone else’s?

Silly Season in October?

Joe Scarborough: This just shows how desperate Democrats are right now. It’s ridiculous. If this concerns you, I guarantee you, this is your concern, that’s not the concern of a waitress that’s trying to keep her two jobs in Youngstown Ohio, who are actually right now moving to Mitt Romney because they don’t think President Obama has a strong enough record on the economy.

Mika Brzezinski: Well, we can argue Obama’s record on the economy, and we could probably have a very spirited debate about that. And by the way, women have done better under the Obama economy than men.

Joe Scarborough: Then argue that instead of “BinderGate.” ... Keep talking about binders, and Mitt Romney will win in a landslide.

---------------

The MSM is too busy telling us who "won" the last debate to understand their silly theatrical concerns are not the people's priorities...

Working-class journalists are a dying breed as the media/political class morphs and the elites' silly concerns dominate discussion. In the media world, but not the real world they simply don't care to understand.


PLUS: "Charles you're chasing worms. None of this matters.
...
Obama's tried this class warfare. He's trying to fight his way out of his record; it's not working.

What Charles is missing here is what you and I know is going on: a rising tide -- an ascendancy -- of Americans, conservatives, Constitutionalists, tea-party activists, men and women across this nation who are concerned about what Obama will do in a second term. We -- they -- already know what he's done in his first term.

We know. We're living it."

"Well Lupus, if you wiped your nose once in awhile, people wouldn't give you so much crud all the time."


"I mean, 'Don't you want to beat those bastards??'"

"And another thing..."

"Jews, spics, niggers, and now a girl?"

Whose Skirt to Hide Under Now?

Here, everyone was predicting it would be Hillary's.
But Candy stepped up to provide a way for the president to demonstrate his continued ability to lead from behind...

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"


The funny thing is,
once the media gets over the semantics-playing games (terrorist act v. acts of terror), maybe they'll ask:

If the president indeed believed these acts were committed by terrorists and not an unruly crowd moved by a cheap video, why would he care at all if it was indeed terrorists motivated by the movie?

Something still doesn't add up there.

Obama was asked point blank "was this an act of terror?" after September 12. It defies all logic to think he labeled it an act of terror September 12th and then refused to for the next two weeks and put more focus on a bogus video claim.

Hopefully the media still has time -- pre-election -- to ask where the conflicting storiues originated and whether or not Ms. Rice was acting on her own initiative -- if indeed she wields that kind of power within the administration -- to push the narrative she continued to push, even post Rose Garden messaging.

This semantics game is also very familiar, you'll recall...

"Hit 'em"

This is turning into a hockey game.

(Low scoring too...)
-------------------


"The day after the attack, I stood, in the Rose Garden..."

There's something very naively poetic about the country still standing in roses, responding to a terror attack in 2012.

Only in America, eh?

--------------------

Candy, Candy, my sweet: Think substance, not style.

When we're getting into the good stuff, the details, the accusations of this one or that -- "Let Them Play." *

You're not just a clockkeeper. Use some judgment on when it's time to move on, and when the format is working? This is what we come for. Substance, or what little there is here. Don't clear the plates while the meat and potatoes remain?

*(let them play, let them play...) Name that movie? ("We're not finished. The game isn't OVER yet..." Hint: It was the Tanner Boyle character in the end who refused to surrender the field. Bells ringing?)

Of course, the real story is even more touching than the make-believe, as is true in real life if you're living it right.
------------------------

"Before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone..."

Hear, hear.

------------------------

No "trickle down government".

Because the fatcats in DC seem to suck up too much, with precious few results, so we're pretty much in drought conditions out here -- meaning, no significant trickle to the outer districts...

Voted "Biggest Brown-Noser"

... by his high school classmates, who usually are pretty good judges of their peers.

I sure hope he didn't get any callouses "watering" the dishes, or helping his children* on with their aprons.

"It's important ya do this, learn how to help other people" with the cameras clicking and rolling, naturally.  Heaven forbid we teach the boys -- at home -- how to wash their own dirty dishes.

Notice the way he shifted the fast conversation at the end from the man who had a home in town and lived there all his life, to ... himself.

Photo op over:  no time for you.

----------------------

* Did I miss something, or does he now have a son named Guinness? or did he introduce the wife as "the missus"?)

Short on Time?

Here's a fast and dirty summary of my post below:

Remember: the number one thing Sen. Clinton owes her political career to is standing by her man, and "missing" all the signals that he was a chronic cheat early on...

Either she is good at keeping her eyes closed, like Maria Shriver, or else she is not very observant as to what is happening around her. Either way, it's a troubling trait, and despite all the " I take responsibility" words now, not a good omen.

Remember when her husband was running the first time, and her assurances about his character went far toward electing him? Turns out, if we'd listened to those early rumblings, there might never have been a Monica Lewinsky ... or a GWB as political backlash.

Just sayin': she has a background track record of trust issues herself. Let's not let that go so easy, as it might be relevant to this situation too. (?) Stand by your man... despite what you know, or should know, in your position. Not a good policy in the long run.....

Stand .... by.... your Man....

Oh please Kathleen Parker. Gag me with a cookie cutter:

Once again, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated herself to be the classiest person in the room. No wonder she’s one of the most revered public figures in America.

But she is a politician, the context by which all things must be judged — at least on second pass. The first pass goes as follows: She manned up. She took responsibility for the attacks at the Benghazi compound. Good for the secretary of state.
...
Clinton sensibly has recommended stepping back from politics and allowing the FBI investigation to proceed. But this sentiment, appealing as it is, requires a third pass. Who benefits from stepping back? And when, exactly, did faulty intelligence on the ground excuse the commander in chief from responsibility? Not recently that I can recall.
...
Our only conclusion at this point is that we don’t know what happened. But it is also clear that no one in the Obama administration knew what was going on either. We will see. Until then, it is fair and reasonable to entertain the notion that Hillary Clinton simply did the right thing.

The nation benefits from her example.

Oh dear, what silly thinking this is.

Remember back in '92, when Bill ran into some ... difficulties himself, in pursuit of his election to the highest office in the land. Then- Mrs. Clinton sat on the couch during a television interview, seemingly ready to say anything, and strongly verbally defended her husband.

He did NOT have a pattern of habitually enjoying the sexual pleasures of women outside his marriage, the missus told us all, right there on television. He did NOT do what he was accused of, by the numerous women who alleged non-consensual sexual improprieties from the colorful, up-and-coming politician.

Some say Mrs. Clinton's performance in that interview, parroted by Mrs. Maria Shriver so many years later when there were similar allegations against her man running for political office, saved the day. Pulled Bill's bacon from the fire, and helped restore his credibility, thus boosting him to the Oval Office... where, just a few short years later, there came undeniable "proof" of his cheating heart in the president's DNA findings left behind somewhere you wouldn't suspect, unless of course, it turned out the president indeed lying, and that... other woman telling the truth.

We all know the rest of the story.

Mrs. Clinton, and her then-young daughter, became the country's First Family victims. They were betrayed by the man they loved, and both were later rewarded for their sympathies with a fast track to top jobs: she as a New York senator; Chelsea as a broadcast journalist.

You can debate -- it doesn't matter to me one way or the other -- whether Mrs. Clinton knew of her husbands sexual appetites at the time, or if indeed she was so cluelessly unobservant that indeed, she believed all those women were lying way back when.

Way back when, if I might point out, when there was a chance to get help and nip said attitudes in the bud. Instead, the president played through, even bringing those sexual activities into his White House workspace, where some believed his scandal and attempted cover up eventually helped elect George W. Bush over Vice President Gore, so turned off were they by the huge downturn in the moral compass of the Democrats.


I hear you out there:
Why does the sex thing matter? Who cares?

Why?
Character counts. Patterns repeat. If you ... "Stand by your Man" to the point he doesn't have to own up, and make those changes while there's still time, truth be told?

You're not protecting anybody by helping hide the ball.
'Cept maybe yourself...

I don't care that she stayed married. Her choice.
I do think -- in the character department -- she's not to be trusted based on her past failings. So sure now-Sec. Clinton: Be ... "loyal". "Man up." The lesser ladies like Parker will applaud you, even if it means just temporarily obscuring the truth to buy time to get your man elected...

But ultimately, at what cost to the country?
This is not "manning up". This is dumbing down.
Ms. Parker, for one, appears to be falling for it. Again.

Silly ladies who never seem to learn...
Is it something in their DNA, do you suppose?

Or is it simply easier to be a loyal backer rather than an independent thinker, unafraid to go where the telling facts seem to be leading?

[I]t is fair and reasonable to entertain the notion that Hillary Clinton simply did the right thing. The nation benefits from her example.

No Kathleen, you speak solely for yourself, sister.
The nation undeniably deserves better. No matter what fine things might end up in Sec. Clinton's lap for her questionable loyalty policies.

Stand up in a Clear Blue Morning...

until you see, what can be alone in a cold day dawning...

Are you still Free?
Can you Be?

When there's no one left to leave you,
even you don't quite believe you...
That's when nothing can deceive you:

While you see a chance, take it.
...
Because it's all ... on you.*

Make it a great Tuesday out there, everyone.

---------------------------------
* alternate line: 

It casts a toll ... on you.

Ten, Eleven, Twelve...

Still remembering Nine-Eleven-Twelve.

It's not a campaign issue...
It really matters.   Really.

We can handle the truth...
Try it sometime?

“You’re exactly where you need to be.”

What a story this is:

“I saw Ben fall to the ground,” Morgan* said. “I made it there first and he had already regained his composure and was trying to fix his leg. I asked if he needed help and he said, ‘No, I just want to finish the race.’ ”

But a screw had come out of the prosthetic, and Baltz couldn’t fix it himself. So Morgan said he told him to hop on, and gave him a piggyback ride to the finish.
...
Morgan said he was just there to do the right thing. His commanding officer, Capt. Frank Anderson, said he wasn’t at all surprised by Morgan’s reaction. He said his Marine has the mindset of excellence in everything he does.

“We are selfless as an institution in the Marine Corps,” Anderson said. “Putting others before ourselves is second nature. I’m very pleased with the fact that a young man who is younger than my youngest brother gets the big picture.”
...
Baltz’s dad, J.C., a former Air Force pilot turned commercial pilot, said the Marines who were there that morning showed the spirit of the Corps.

“For the Marines to come out there that early in the morning on a Sunday to volunteer their time by helping set up and police the whole area, it just shows how darn caring they are,” he said.

He said his son was a little miffed that he couldn’t finish the race on his own. But Morgan said he knows if his leg hadn’t broken, Baltz would’ve completed the run.

“As far as I’m concerned, he finished that race,” Morgan said. “As long as he knows he could’ve finished it and wanted to finish it, that’s all that matters.”

Anderson said Baltz should know that even America’s toughest warriors get carried from the battlefield sometimes, and Marines don’t leave anyone behind.

J.C. Baltz said Marines reflect the resiliency of the country, just as his son reflects the resiliency of children.

“It’s damn hard to make the decision to amputate your child,” he said. “He was 6 and never really knew any different. We just want him to be a kid and have fun, which is why I encourage him to be an athlete."

* Pfc. Matthew Morgan, 19, a communications signals collection operator/analyst with Marine Detachment Corry Station in Pensacola, Fla.



---------------------
Speaking of stories,
it's officially been confirmed at yesterday's hearings that the CIA is operating in Libya.

Considering the cursory coverage the media initially gave to U.S. involvement under the guise of U.N. intervention into that country's revolution, maybe now is the time for some hungry journalists to fully investigate the U.S. role, apparently ongoing...

Is it wise for our tentacles to have such a reach? Might the Libyan people who sacked the compound presumably for intelligence information gathered be considered "freedom fighters" under other analysis, if it turns out the U.S. is meddling in internal affairs?

Do we assume that because our soldiers are the bravest and the best in their training, that the mission is necessarily justified by our alleged leadership and bureaucrats in the know?

I'd love to see yesterday's revelations spark an in-depth look at this country's role in the Libyan leadership, and what our aims are over there exactly? Nevermind the "classified" excuses. What was it the late NYT leader said about the convenience of "classifying" such material as secret?

How can we judge effective outcomes? Plus, if what is being done over there is being done effectively, and with good reason, why the need to keep the people here in the dark? Shine a little light, and justify or sell us on these actions, the need for intervention in this particular foreign land...

There's a big-picture story there all right:
Dig, dig, get dirty and dig. Who wants the job?
(JournO -lists, naturally, need not apply...)

Plus:
Hell... double-click this one for the close up:

Snarkiness, and pushing one's way to the top in an underhanded manner, ultimately repels;  true camaraderie, and selflessness, wins the day and attracts followers far beyond imagination...

Never too late to learn.

Wise Words ... in Washington.

WaPo's ombudsman hears from a reader:

“Why has the Post let Fox News lead on the issue of the murder of our Libyan ambassador and other Americans? For the Post to survive it needs to swallow its tendency to look the other way when it comes to Obama and not surrender what we rely on it for — expertise in foreign and military journalism. That it took so long to ‘discover’ that the murders were calculated, and that warnings were ignored, is an embarrassment for the Post. Never sacrifice your credibility; it’s all you have.”

The ombudsman explains:

The Post’s coverage of the Libya attack was good early and good late, but there was an unfortunate gap in the middle — partly but not completely explained by personnel issues — that made it look like The Post was shying away from a full-court press to find out what the Obama administration knew and whether it was giving a true portrayal of the attack.
...
[I]n subsequent days it seemed that The Post almost went silent on the background to the Libya attack and concentrated instead on the increasing and widespread protests around the Muslim world triggered by a made-in-America video clip ridiculing the prophet Muhammad.
Now, this was a real story. U.S. diplomats were threatened in more than 20 countries by violent demonstrations for the next two weeks, and frankly these countries are far larger and more important to U.S. interests than is Libya.

But four Americans, including the ambassador, died in Benghazi, and readers were getting angrier by the day that The Post was not delving into why they died. Reporting on the Libya attack was either buried in the overall protest stories or put on pages deep inside the A section. And it was thin.
...
All during this period, CNN, Fox News and other media outlets in Washington were hammering away at whether the Obama administration was being honest about what it knew and whether the murders were a planned terrorist attack. The Post published some of this in its Sept. 13 story but did not develop it further.

Miller finally returned to the story on Sept. 28, 17 days after the attack, with a front-page story based on accounts from intelligence sources and public remarks by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta indicating that it was a planned terrorist attack with possible participation by al-Qaeda affiliates. Since then, The Post has been on it almost every day.
...
The Post needs to keep digging. That gap in the middle enraged many readers and reinforced their false suspicions that The Post is trying to cover for Obama, and it can’t let that happen.

~Patrick B. Pexton

The Truth will Out.

If we can't trust the administration,
how can we afford to reward them with 4 more years of party power?  Why not risk a fresh approach? 

By Dana Hughes and Luis Martinez
ABC News -- October 9

The size and "lethality" of the attack on the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead was "unprecedented," a senior State Department official said today.

Senior State Department officials today gave the most detailed account to-date of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other diplomats. One official said the nature of the assault was unparalleled in recent history.

"The lethality and number of armed people is unprecedented," one of the officials said. "There was no attack anywhere in Libya -- Tripoli or Benghazi -- like this, So it is unprecedented and would be very, very hard to find a precedent like that in recent diplomatic history."
...
Asked about the initial reports of the protests, the official said that while "others" in the administration may have said there were protests, the State Department did not.
"That was not our conclusion," the official said. "I'm not saying that we had a conclusion."

Turns out,
it's quite the story...

This starts a series of events during which Stevens, Information Specialist Sean Smith and the agent locked themselves in a safe area in Building C. The area is set aside from the rest of the building by a metal grille with several locks and contained a small room with water and medical supplies.

From the safe haven room where Stevens, Smith and the agent were hiding they could see the men roaming throughout the house, trying to open grates, looking for them.

When the men didn't find anyone, they poured diesel fuel all over the rooms and furniture, setting the house on fire. As black smoke, diesel fumes and fumes from the burning furniture filled up the safe haven, the three tried to get to the bathroom area where there was a small window to open it for air, which did not help.

At this point, the official said, the security officer, Smith and the ambassador were on the ground gasping for air and suffering from "severe" smoke inhalation and decided to take their chances and get out of the safe haven and building.

The security agent led the way, but when he got outside he realized that neither Smith nor the ambassador had made it after him.
...
A quick reaction security team of six agents from the building roughly a mile away, known as the "annex," arrived at the compound with 16 members of the local Libyan militia, the 17th of February Brigade.

They set up a perimeter around Building C, where Stevens and Smith were still inside, which allowed the two agents to take over the task of looking for Stevens and Smith.

Under heavy, thick black smoke the agents took turns looking for the missing diplomats, feeling their way around on their hands and knees. They finally found Smith dead, and pulled him out, but did not find Stevens.
...
Stevens was not seen by the security team again until his body was delivered to the airport, officials said, and they still do know how he reached the Libyan hospital where attempts were made to treat him.

Officials said that, in fact, they were informed that Stevens was at the hospital only after doctors found his cell phone and began phoning people on his recent call list.

October Sunday.

Oh Why Not? Thursday Evening Jukebox...

Blast from the past...

"I was dreamin' when I wrote this,
forgive me if it goes astray..."

Hire Romney.

Don't balk at hiring the most competent person up for the job.

We tried listening patiently to promises, inspiring certain demographics, and voting emotionally, but the 4-year performance results cannot be denied: all ships sink a little when the tides are out. Some in lower moorings more than others.

I suspect after last night's debate performance,
where even the president's supporters and apologists admitted he seemed ... "unprepared"*, those who might emotionally be inclined to continue the team's course by rewarding the coach with a 4-year performance-extension contract, will have second thoughts.

Sure, play identity politics and help re-adjust the elite ranks when there's nothing much at stake... when the game's results are already decided.

But if you care about getting things turned around? Getting people back to work with the nation co-operating across class lines once again in the national interests, and not simply pointing fingers, you have to elect the best person for the job.

Because America simply can't afford to party like it's 1999 anymore... **

-------------
* WaPo's Alexandra Petri:

Obama had the demeanor of someone who did not realize that the quiz was today. You got the sense that he was hoping someone would leap out from behind the set and announce that this was just an elaborate anniversary prank set up by Michelle. “Wasn’t that awkward!” he would say afterward. “I thought I was actually going to have to debate that absurd person.”

Unfortunately, no such reprieve came. Obama had to take part, and by the time he realized this, it was nearly half over. When he started trying to hammer Romney for a lack of specific plans, too much time had passed, and Romney could smoothly reply that he was only eschewing specifics in order that he might more closely resemble Ronald Reagan.

How to describe the debate? It was like a lecture in which the professor kept nodding off.

WaPo's Colbert I. King:

Obama got his butt kicked in Denver by a contender who was well prepared, unafraid, and willing to take it to his opponent regardless of the rules of engagement. Romney put Obama on the canvas tonight.

WaPo's Carter Eskew:

From the opening question, Romney took command. He deftly managed to make a strong, coherent critique of the president’s economic record in a calm, factual tone. He also repeatedly and effectively disputed Obama’s central critique about his tax plan, denying repeatedly that he will lower taxes on the wealthy or add to the deficit.***
...
At the beginning of the debate, Obama made an odd comment about tonight being his anniversary and promising Michelle that they will spend their next one in very different circumstances. Another performance like this one, and they might be in very different circumstances indeed.

**

I was dreamin' when I wrote this,
so soothe/sue me if it goes astray...

But when I woke up this morning,
coulda sworn it was... judgment day.

The sky was all purple,
there were people running everywhere.

Tried to run from the destruction,
you know? I didn't even care...

*** Next thing they'll tell us there'r no plans to fit women for breeding burkas, and push blacks back to the Jim Crow era. Or for Mitt to pull off the mask, revealing W., or ... Dick Cheney?

Different men. Different characters. Different eras.

Fight your fears? Vote competency.

She was making for the Trades on the Outside.

Tuesday in autumn, a colorful Midwest with colors peaking*, singing Southern Cross...

Waiting for the sun to fully rise to bring in the Brussels sprouts this morning, before work. The potatoes are pretty much in.

Make it a great one out there yourself...

------------------------

* We got down to 29 degrees last week, with sunny afternoons.

Despite the lack of precipitation, there's not much dulling of color; I've never seen this variety of orange, rust and red in the oaks.

Colder Thursday, with possible flurries Saturday in the northwoods. If summer is fleeting, autumn's time is shorter still...

Troubles with Numbers.

Some things that have jumped out at me online:

Madison professor grouses about accommodating students whose classes are cancelled to provide presidential security to the campus. Regarding a suggestion to communicate via computer:

For that, they pay tuition? I could email my notes for the whole semester, but these are students who pay $40,040 tuition per year! ($21,350 if they are Wisconsin residents, a break they get because their parents pay the exorbitant Wisconsin taxes that help keep this stellar university going.)

Um, some students -- we are talking law school students -- pay taxes in Wisconsin. Some students, not their parents, finance law school.

(That was a pet peeve, professors treating students like children. Hello? Plenty of adult students out here; don't condescend, please.)


----------------

Someone born in 1955, if they came to this country at age 18, would arrive in what year of the 1960s? (hint: trick ?)

The Brits are Investigating...

Will the U.S. mainstream media wait another month before they really begin digging into the facts here, perhaps even making the administration uncomfortable with their willingness to fully cover the story?

Tune in and find out:

Now that Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has confirmed there was an explicit link between al-Qaeda and the attack, questions are being asked about the role Dr Rice played in trying to play down the significance of the attack. The Republicans have already called for her to resign from her post for misleading the American people.

But the real smoking gun is whether the Obama administration was warned in advance that al-Qaeda was planning an attack. A number of Israeli newspapers have suggested that Washington was warned as early as September 4 – a week earlier – that the environment in Benghazi was becoming increasingly hostile and anti-American, while in London the Foreign Office took the decision to withdraw all its consular staff from Benghazi two months before the murders. This decision was based on an intelligence assessment made by MI6 that al-Qaeda was openly operating in the area following a failed assassination attempt on Sir Dominic Asquith, Britain's ambassador to Libya, in June.

It is well known that British intelligence works closely with its counterpart in America, and if MI6 knew al-Qaeda was operating in the Benghazi region, then it is highly likely that the CIA did too.

Suddenly the Administration's "it's nothing to do with us, guv," defence is starting to look rather thin, with potentially disastrous consequences for Mr Obama's re-election prospects.

It's My Job...

You like Jimmy Buffett?

He said, "It's my job to be cleaning up this mess
And that's enough reason to go for me.
It's my job to be better than the rest
And that makes a day for me."

One of my favorites...

Don't know much about this man. First amendment rights and all that, but if he worked for me, I wouldn't want him talking about the customers like this.

Had a friend, her father was a big man too, also a trash collector. He seemed happy enough. It was his lot in life, and he accepted it.

Do your job, buddy. You don't like it, work to get another one.** Yep, even in this economy.

Media: Can't you just stick with the racial warfare, or do we have to go exploiting poor* trashmen too now, just to get the president re-elected?

Fwiw: here's the next verse:

I got an uncle who owns a bank;
he's a self-made millionaire.
He never had anyone to love,
never had no one to care.
He always seemed kinda sad to me,
and I asked him why that was?
And he told me it's because,
in my contract there's this clause...

Chorus:
That says, "It's my job to be worried half to death
And that's the thing people respect in me.
It's my job but without it I'd be less
Than what I expect from me."

----------------------
* Not in a financial sense.
Like busdrivers, union trash collectors are pretty well compensated for their work. Relatively speaking.

** Nothing personal, but I'm sure there are plenty of men willing to step up and take your job -- and your paycheck -- if you're so miserable working for others. Comprende?

"It's my job, but without it I'd be less than what I expect of me."



PLUS: From Mitt Romney's book (p. 251):

“During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked sausages at Fenway Park, worked on asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job – it’s child care, by a mile.”

“One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible. Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect. – I wasn’t a particularly good garbage collector: at one point, after filling the trough at the back of the truck, I pulled the wrong hydraulic lever. Instead of pushing the load into the truck, I dumped it onto the street. Maybe the suits didn’t notice me, but the guys at the construction site sure did…”

Can we go back to covering the news, and let the chefs stir the pots? Thank you.