Why we hate her

I sign HJR28 Oppose Restricting Oil/Gas Devlp;we urge President to promote US resource devlp.Pretty simple, Mr.President & Congress:choose safe clean American energy&jobs or force our reliance on foreign countries;what more to ponder,oh wise Washington?Where's DC's common sense?

This is why. Not because she's Republican. Not because we "feel threatened by her." Not because she's smart and talented, obviously, and not -- my favorite -- because she's beautiful. She's not. I find her incredibly unattractive. If she were at all physically attractive, it'd be awfully hard for me to see it through the cloud of ick.

No, we hate her because of this. It's not "I believe this would be best," or even "this would be best." It's "Pretty simple, Mr. President and Congress," and "what more to ponder, oh wise Washington? Where's DC's common sense?"

Where to begin? Not with the fact that it's "O wise Washington," instead of "oh." What about the "pretty simple" -- because, you know, most political issues are supersimple. It's why everyone agrees on everything in this country. No, I guess you begin with the fact that the 'politics of personal destruction' that she said made her resign couldn't be much better typified than braying sarcastically about someone else's intelligence in the course of disagreeing with them over policy. So let's begin there, but please, let's make sure to leave enough time to discuss the idea that this woman is calling ANYONE's intelligence into question. There are bugs smarter than her.

I've learned a lot from following her twitter stream. I've learned a lot about how Alaska is the greatest, and is in a strategic position on the globe, and how it epitomizes everything great about the U.S. And I've learned that every single issue can be broken down to right or wrong based on whether it's good for Alaska. She doesn't even hide it, half the time; she says the president or the U.S. Congress or someone should do whatever it is she wants because it is good for Alaska. I've learned that the ethics complaints (except maybe the one she initiated against herself? No, she seems to be against that one too) are an abuse of the system, which, let's face it, who's a better judge of that? And I've learned that this country is more divided than it has been since the Civil War. If we should laud those who would speak civilly to the other side and try to reunite it as much as possible, we should at least note when someone prominent does the opposite. There have been citizens convicted of treason whose actions caused the U.S. less harm than have Sarah Palin's.

I love this woman

That's right, baby; now that you're quitting, you can REALLY let your freak flag fly!

Great day w/bear management wildlife biologists; much to see in wild territory incl amazing creatures w/mama bears' gutteral raw instinct to protect & provide for her young;She sees danger?She brazenly rises up on strong hind legs, growls Don't Touch My Cubs & the species survives & mama bear doesn't look 2 anyone else 2 hand her anything; biologists say she works harder than males, is provider/protector for the future Yes it was another outstanding day in AK seeing things the rest of America should see;applicable life lessons we're blessed to see firsthand

Remember; smart AND talented. I love the idea of the 'nuts all nodding their heads as if they know exactly what she means.

That's not right. It isn't even wrong.

I also love all these tweets where she selects a quote and acts like it means she's right:

"Criticism is something easily avoided by saying nothing, doing nothing, being nothing."Aristotle Don't fear it;it means u make a difference

Hey, Governor: Aristotle just called. He said that he didn't mean that criticism is never founded. Especially criticism of you. And that you're dense.

Translator! Can we get a translator over here?

Woodward ... Bernstein ... Palin:

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

Yes! You sure showed us! We would rather talk about your personality than policy, but you taught us the error of our ways -- by framing the column in terms of "what is foremost on [your] mind."

Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Oooh! A little rubbing it in! If only we hadn't elected an intellectual lightweight, but rather someone who'd shown that they could understand issues! Someone like ... oh, I don't know ...

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Electricity bills skyrocketing equals raising taxes? If that's how the ardent liberals will understand supply-side economics, count us out.

We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats don't make laws. People do.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

When? Also, you don't have to tell us when the writer is a Republican. The disagreeing with everything Democrats want to do, along with blaming on Democrats the sins of previous Republican administrations, almost always gives it away.

Why we'll never win (them over)

As a prefacetory aside, I'm aware that Sarah Palin's defenders -- especially those who don't actually know her -- think there's something wrong with those of us who can't drop the whole Palin thing and 'leave her alone.' They're missing out on a key truth here: The Palin thing has allowed her supporters to talk freely in a manner that we Palin attackers can understand in a way we never could understand before. Their points are no longer abstract, but rather start with specifics and then allow us to extrapolate in the abstract. In this way, the Palin thing, as it plays out, reveals important new information about this country and one of its biggest rifts. Anyway:

Andrew Sullivan's people lead us over to this ... uh, thing. It seems, on its face, to be breaking new grounds in crazy:

Sarah Palin loves God. God loves Sarah Palin.
And that is why they hate her...and Him.
And why she -- and He -- will be back.

Also, we look down on them because they didn't go to Harvard, and they look down on us because we don't know what God wants, while they, of course do ... blah blah blah. OK, I guess it's chiefly the beginning where new ground is broken. We hate God because He loves Sarah Palin. And we hate her because she loves Him. Or because He loves her. I'm not gonna lie, I didn't read this thing too closely. You mostly want to maintain a distance in instances like this.

No, the part where I really got enlightened was in the comments. I went there expecting to be entertained, but first I was set straight. Turns out I was only half right when I wrote that Palin supporters say the preposterous things they say because they don't want to admit they're wrong. There's way more to it, and 11:36 on Saturday night, someone wrote in under the moniker JaneLovesJesus to explain it to me:

it's weird, but maybe because of her faith in God, and MY faith in God, and my faith in HER, I feel at peace and energized over her decision to resign. Even though it would have never been something I would have expected. I don't have to know Sarah Palin's plans. I know she is not going to back down from the greater fight for America and for freedom.

Honestly; you could spend days thinking about what JaneLovesJesus wrote. The parts where she equates Palin with God are awesome in the most literal sense of the word. They deserve your consideration.

But I can't get over her main message in her first sentence. It's not that JaneLovesJesus and like thinkers have some issue with admitting when they're wrong. It's the conflation of that with faith that's the problem. Such people do not choose McCain and Palin over President Obama and Vice President Biden after thinking the issues through and making a decision. Their candidates stand for what they (their supporters) believe in. Like God. The decision is made for them. It is turned over to God (or, more commonly, I imagine, Jesus). Evidence that McCain/Palin was the wrong decision, of which many of us can't help but observe there is no shortage, would be evidence that God got it wrong. That's why JaneLovesJesus is 'at peace' (you're feeling my massive self-restraint here, right? Please say you are) with Sarah Palin's decision. It's because God is making sure everything Sarah Palin does is the right thing (or, possibly, because Sarah Palin believes in God so much, she can't help but do the right thing every time). I'm not 100 percent clear on why we can't trust God with the actual election outcome as well, and with controlling what the current administration does, but I imagine it has to do with the president being immoral, as the post's author noted.

But Palin's God-fearing. And so is JaneLovesJesus. If you criticize Sarah Palin in any way, you are challenging God's decision-making or his power -- or JaneLovesJesus's faith in Him. It is times like these that I wish this site had a bigger readership, to increase the chances that I could entreat a logician to diagram all of this. But I can tell you this much: When the right appeals to the fundamentalists on the basis of morals, not policy, they're locked up. Republicans can botch the economy, foreign policy, or whatever you want. As long as they're against abortion and gays, they'll have the fundamentalists sewn up, and if you try to free those Christianists up through logic, they're going to view it as an affront to their faith in Jesus. And that's why we'll never win. Move to Amsterdam if you don't like it.

Make it stop

Two-parter! That's right, a thought so deep and worth sharing, 140 characters couldn't quite cover it:

Anxious for Fairbanks radio visit tomorrow re: 2nd Amendment! We have rockin' surprise guest. Candidly, I love radio vs some newspapers bc......"Most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not, by my definition, they can hardly be good newspapermen" W. Cronkite

No, that's not true. You love radio vs 'some' newspapers because you're fucking stupid. Probably too stupid to read. Probably two and a half years of having people read you every document to which you had to affix your signature (via stamp, or possibly 'X') wore out your precious little ears, and that's really why you're resigning. Maybe.

I'm sorry. I hate to be that ugly. I'm just so tired of it. Like she even has the first fucking clue what Cronkite meant. Like she doesn't prefer radio because talk radio is where you can seek out people who agree with you and listen to them rant for three hours without having to exercise your mind the way a good newspaper (or good radio) can make you. More to the point, I guess, she 'loves' radio because she can talk only to preapproved hosts who are known to be sympathetic, and speak about the topics she wants to speak about, unedited and un-fact-checked. No need to get nervous, like when you're facing off against a journalistic behemoth like Katie Couric, or hard-nosed, objective reporters like Charles Gibson. Not that they're in newspapers. But you get my drift. Ah, I gotta go lie down ...

I'LL give you some 'personal destruction' ...

On Time magazine's Web site, for Christ's sake:

You're going to see Obama increase those taxes on small businesses — whether he admits it today or not, he's going to. One thing reporters aren't asking the Administration is — it's such a simple question and people around here in the real world, outside of Washington, D.C., want reporters to ask — President Obama, how are you going to pay for this $1 [trillion] or $2 [trillion] or $3 trillion health-care plan? How are you going to pay off the stimulus package, those borrowed dollars? How are you going to pay for so many things that you are proposing and you are implementing? Americans deserve to know what the plan is to fund these things, health care included.

1. It's President Obama. I believe "Mr. Obama" is also permissible. Give him the respect you don't deserve, the respect he earned merely by keeping you the hell out of the White House. The thought of you in the White House still gives me chills, to the point that I don't even think they should let Alaskans go on the tour.
2. YOU? YOU are going to talk about what reporters aren't asking somebody? In the course of the same "interview," no less, where you are asked whether quitting your job will "catapult" you or, alternatively, is more of a self-sacrifice? Like it's got to be one of the two? YOU are going to tell us what Americans deserve to know, about answering "such simple questions"? You, who refused to even say what you read? The only time you've ever told the truth to the public was by accident.
3. I almost forgot the best part: Sarah Palin, implying she has the intelligence to know what Barack Obama will do -- and that he's lying about it. The arrogance. I can't even ...
4. I really think you should stick to Twitter. I keep going back and forth on this. I want to hear more, I don't want to hear more, I can't look away, I can't bear to look ... maybe if it were only on Twitter, the rantings of the psycho on the street, instead of in the guise of an interview, which suggests discourse. She has at least that much of a point: The same 'reporters' who are interviewing her would be doing a service to this country by trying to pin down the president on how 'he' plans to pay for the health care plan. Then they wouldn't be giving this freak a forum, and my country would be a better place.

New rule no. 1

The twit:

Kotz trip gave Labor Commish & me opp to speak to young AKns re resource develop. jobs we want AKns to have 1st shot bc work ethic is there

Dear Sarah: If there should come a time, perhaps many years in the future, when it becomes OK for you to speak on the topic of work ethic, we will let you know. Yer pal, troy.

We should get us one of those

Palin tells ABC news how much better things would be (for her) if she were V.P. All those ethics complaints she was forced to try to answer, eventually 'driving' her from the governor's office?

I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out.

Yeah, but she's smart and talented, right? I mean, that's what I keep reading on the internet.

This is up there with her interesting, um, interpretation of the First Amendment, chronicled elsewhere in this space. Yes. What we need around here is a 'department of law.' It would look at things we got charged with and automatically throw them out.

I think we have to consider that it's at least possible Palin thinks she's living in, and was running for the vice presidency of, some other country. It would explain at least some of it. But I salute her for her first real contribution to this country. I plan to refer to the Department of Law all the time now. Remember on Seinfeld when Elaine was offended that the restaurant hired only waitresses with large breasts, and informed the owner that she was sure the "department of, you know ... whatever" would be very interested? Who knew Elaine was qualified to run for V.P.?

There's almost no chance I won't be weighing in on this more as it continues to sink in. All those defenders saying she's smart, and all those other defenders who said it didn't matter how smart she was, just because she wasn't 'elitist.' Maybe the group she was trying to reach was 4-year-olds? Because I'm trying to think who else I know besides my kid who doesn't know better. A 'department of law' at the White House that can dismiss charges. Anyone finds the interview where she said we could have won in Iraq by bringing in our crack brigade of magical fairies mounted on unicorns, lemme know.

Just awesome

From deadspin. I'm too dumb to make it display right, so just click through to get the whole image:

I'll shut up if she will

From yesterday's statement:

The response in the main stream [sic] media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the “politics of personal destruction”.

... which you instigated when you started accusing people of 'pallin' around with terrorists.' How might things have been different had you tried out classy, and kept your criticism of now-thank-God-President Obama to legitimate issues?

I shared with you yesterday my heartfelt and candid reasons for this change ...

Yeah, you know, I read the whole statement, but I must have missed the candid reasons.

I’ve never thought I needed a title before one’s name to forge progress in America.

This profile in grammar courage is just for Megan.

She claims to want to know why she's held to a different standard, and she's just dumb enough that the claim might be legitimate. Then again, she also claims to be some kind of Christian, but her bible apparently doesn't include this quote attributed to Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Had she conducted herself with any kind of dignity, she might be seeing some come back her way now. Instead, she launched personal attacks, tried to belittle her opponent (I'm giving her credit probably due her speechwriters here), and really launched the "politics of personal destruction" into a whole new level. A level where, by my observation, abortion-performing doctors and ... well, guys who work security at museums commemorating the Holocaust die. If she doesn't think she helped to incite those murders, she's dumb or deluded.

It's been fun to see her fight back against her 'critics'; less so 'liberal critics' now, because liberals (and we moderates) aren't attacking her, we're just laughing at her. The attacks are coming from the right-wingers who were taken in last year but are determined they won't get fooled again. You know, our girl's parents get reached for statement from time to time, but no one seems to ask them what I'd like to ask them. One of the most important lessons my parents taught me was that it's usually not everyone else who's wrong; if everyone else disagrees, it's usually you who are wrong. Why didn't her parents teach her that?

Crazy to the end

It would be fun to speculate why Sarah Palin announced her resignation as governor of Alaska today. I refrain not out of compassion, but because if I've learned anything, it's to not try to get inside that woman's head. I might never escape. And anyway, this isn't the place to go for substantive discussion of politics. This is the place where we pick apart her words and mock them.

Even that could take all day, so I'll let alone the Alaska history lesson and the complexities behind her preposterous treatment of the ethics charges and say:

Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

What? She's been accused of answering reporters' questions? Bizarro says "Me very confused."

... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out.

Unlike, you know, quitting.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks ... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe) ...

What, like to Indiana for pro-life rallies? Or to Washington, D.C., for pro-life events? Or to New York for ...

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports ... basketball. I use it because you're naïve if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket ... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Yes; victory. I think that's what we all associate Sarah Palin with. Especially after her quitting. And, you know, dragging the Republican ticket down even farther last fall.

It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what's best for Alaska.

Pretty sure that's the first true thing she's said since she came to the public's attention.

Now, despite this, I don't want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL "climate change" that began in August ...

I actually know what this means; she's-- nah, I got nothing.

In the words of General MacArthur said, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

For our part, we promise not to follow.

Can I do her epitaph? I mean, she's dead, right? There's no way even she could think she can run for anything after not finishing out her first term as governor. OK, good. Sarah Palin epitomized what went wrong with the Republican party in so many ways. She was the end-product; even if you lacked the patience or knowledge to say where it went wrong, you could point at her and say "Well, I can't put my finger on it, but certainly we can agree that this isn't what we were aiming for." And she stayed true to that to the end. Her resignation speech was a textbook example of how the GOP has reduced itself to talking points. The talking points don't have to be true; they merely have to be words that supporters can repeat to soothe themselves. I mean, they're not convincing, but they're not for us, whether 'we' are liberals or moderates or even non-partisan. (That 'even' was for you, Sarah!) No, the talking points are purely for the talkers. They can repeat the points to the rest of us and go home convinced we were merely not open-minded enough to hear them.

It seems obvious to me, but enough minds I respect (like Andrew Sullivan's) continue to ask, almost daily, what these Republicans and right-wing media freaks can be thinking when they say the description-defying things they say. They seek an explanation but they premise the whole thing on honest discourse. Which confuses me.

So no, no compassion here, even if any of the Trig accusations were real. Both while and after losing the election, Sarah Palin tried to make it as difficult as possible for the opposition to govern the country. She actually made honest discourse more scarce than Bush did. She might be as hard for the Republican party to recover from as he was.

Bachmann-hysteria overdrive

I mean, I can't swear she's consciously and actively engaged in a contest with Palin, but we can all be forgiven reaching the conclusion.
This on the climate change bill the House passed Saturday:

But what is worse than this is the fact that now because of this underlying bill, the federal government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives for the American people.

Does that include grammar? Because if the government can clean up the way Bachmann speaks, I might be willing to sacrifice my Twinkies or light spanking or whatever it is Bachmann thinks they want to take away from me.

I've also reached a new hypothesis about the representative for the lucky state of Minnesota: Is it possible she just is lazy? If she overreacts like this to passage of a climate change bill, it seems reasonable to assume she would oppose, if more temperately, just about any bill. She clearly thinks the role of the federal government is not to make law or, you know, govern. And yet she's a U.S. representative! Why did she become one? What is it she thinks she should be doing with her time, short of campaigning for re-election? If they come for me in the night, you'll know I was on to something with this.

Me, I smiled on Nov. 4

The twit:

Smile AK! Signed Adult Dental bill (HB 26) over weekend. Now more AKns can get checkups & prevent costly dental problems before they begin.

I don't know. That sounds dangerously like socialism.

The world is full of energy

The twit:

EIA estimates US energy consumption will INCREASE by 44% in next 20 yrs. We MUST utilize our local energy sources.

Oh, totally. Either that, or, you know, maybe rein in our energy consumption a little.

'More and more frightening'

Congrats to Shep Smith for putting this together.

The guy who's not Shep Smith leads Shep Smith over to the blogosphere, and Shep Smith follows him, but he's already connected the dots. Sure, bloggers have said some crazy shit, and I don't restrict that to right-wing crazyblogs. But 'socialist' -- that didn't start on the Net. That started with McCain, and Palin, and Bachmann. Certain politicians acted in concert with the crazyblogs to whip people into a frenzy, and by the time McCain looked startled at his rallies and scolded his supporters that no, Barack Obama was a good man who happened to disagree with him, it was too late. Seemingly normal people were already yelling 'Kill him!' at the rallies of the Republican candidate for President of the United States. And the lunatic fringe was way too far out there to reel back.

I am not blaming any politicians directly for the madness at the Holocaust Museum, or the shooting of Dr. Tiller at church. Neither of those guys was a sane and rational man expressing his views coherently. (Although if you wanted to blame Bachmann, I'd probably hear you out for a while.) And I don't want to politicize this too much, not today. But McCain and Palin, they pandered to people like this. The last president, he spoke in code to people like this. I take no issue with serious criticism of liberal or Democratic politicians, and I don't claim that the right has a monopoly on the unserious criticism. But the unserious criticism of Republicans doesn't get people killed. Al Gore and John Kerry were far from inspirational in their campaigns, but they weren't going for a frenzy of hatred. If Bachmann and the others get what they want, there will be a great, great deal to mourn on that day.

Purple prose of Cairo

Just kidding. I'm a fool for wordplay.

I've read the President's speech, and a lot of synopses of the reaction to it, mostly courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. I thought the speech hit all the right notes. I also think that it's sad that this is such a big deal. As Obama himself said, these were only words. Yet they reveal the clearheaded, honest, and right thinking of which no president has been capable in my 38 years. Some wanted more constructive proposals, and in theory, so do I. But high-level meetings, more than this speech, are probably the place for them. And like so many things about this president, our past shame makes his baby steps bigger than they seem to his detractors.

Most of the criticism I've read -- especially from Israeli hard-liners -- misses the point tragically. It betrays the expectations the speakers had of the speech going in, and they come off like some idiot parent making noises of disgust when his kid strikes out in his first Little League at-bat. More, it betrays a complete lack of nuance. Nuance was the subtext of the speech; it was a call to see things in shades of gray, if not color. Many of the critics you can read today failed to answer, showing a lack of some combination of imagination, integrity, fairness, and intelligence. I now see why Sullivan is spending column inches writing off the Israeli hawks; they sound increasingly like the wingnuts in this country. The wingnuts are draining their party of supporters; fewer identify themselves as Republicans every day. Politicians and commentators in Israel, which I once supported blindly, would do well to pay attention, in the interest of survival, if they can't manage any interest in fairness.

Eyes wide crazy

I love what Dick Cheney's done with September 11. He's come a long way. Lemme see if I've got it right: President Obama will be to blame for a future terrorist attack if he doesn't follow the Cheney playbook religiously. But before anyone even thought to blame the administration that was in power ON September 11, 2001, Cheney's minions found a way to blame that attack on the PREVIOUS president. So Cheney and his li'l buddy deserve credit for every day there wasn't another attack, but no blame for the day there was an attack, and President Obama would deserve blame if there were an attack tomorrow, even though he's been president for fewer days than Cheney was president as of September 11.

I say a second attack would be Cheney's fault, and not for all the logical reasons related to how the previous administration alienated fundamentalists even further. No, I bet somewhere out there, a terrorist is about to go rogue just to shut Cheney up. I'm American, and I can barely stand to hear him speak.

Priorities, people

Twit:

Pleased Congress passed bill permitting loaded firearms in nat’l parks & wildlife refuges, as subject to state law.

Yes, I think we're all pleased that the House and Senate took time out of their day to worry about this issue. My favorite part:

The provision was included in legislation placing new restrictions on the way in which credit card companies deal with consumers.

I love my country.

This probably should have stayed a draft

If you read many sites/blogs with comments, you've probably been exposed to the 'first' phenomenon. There are commenters on your more popular sites (and by more popular, I mean more popular than this one, anyway) who take great joy in leaving a comment that notes that they are the first to comment. Often, that's all the comment says. And often, the comment is not in fact the first comment. There were no comments when the commenter started writing 'First!' but somehow, in what little time it took to click OK or whatever, someone else with something more substantial to say snuck in there.

Some of us readers find this phenomenon infuriating. Over at the Onion A/V Club site, not only is a not-first first (or 'firstie') mocked, there's a meme going on where anyone who succeeds or fails at firsties is wished a combination of cancer and AIDS. One commenter there started his own parodic blog devoted solely to his travails as a firstie. Point being, unlike everything else that makes me crazy beyond all reasonable proportion, I'm not alone on this one. But I was just wondering, after seeing a firstie on Joe Posnanski's awesome-beyond-all-reasonable-expectations blog, why. Why do I hate firsties so much?

Then I figured it out. Firsties are like climbing a mountain (in my case, a small mountain) and reaching the summit and as you prepare to take in the view, you see some jackass has written 'First!' with white spray paint on a rock. It's not clear what benefit the jerkweed got from doing it, but everyone else who utilizes the site (or mountain) is going to be at least a little bit annoyed by it.

Now I can move on to more pressing issues, like why the people in front of me walk so slowly during rush hour. I mean, it's called 'rush hour,' you know?

What does that even mean?

Late on this one, but too good to pass up. The president said last week that he'd like Justice Souter's replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court to be capable of empathy. Michael Steele, the RNC chairman and my first choice to entertain at my kid's birthday party, went on the radio to respond:

Crazy nonsense empathetic! I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness!

Now, lest you accuse me of taking the quote out of context, allow me to assure you that I would LOVE to see the rest of what he said. I am seriously considering quitting my job and following this guy around, because I think he's just getting to the really good stuff now, and I think it's gonna bring all the thrill of a volcanic eruption without any of that pesky ash.

But -- and maybe this is because I'm taking a break from rewatching The Wire and am in the middle of season 1 of The West Wing -- doesn't talking to the public about the president like that make Steele what my dad would call "a total dink"? I don't know, probably there were Democrat politicians and officials who said worse about the last president; I don't want to make it sound like that party's gonna wear white at its wedding. But "Empathize right on [President Obama's] behind"? Is that really necessary? Can we have Leo go talk to him?

The only other excerpt from the linked story: "I don't need some justice up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition and shortchanging me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law."

If that doesn't sum up the Republican party right now ... well, wait five minutes, and someone else will, in even more hysterical fashion.

From the twit

Yet ANOTHER ethics complaint filed & dismissed! Unfair to AKns that state dollars are wasted dealing w/these malicious complaints...

Agreed. Of course, if you'd just admit to all the crap you did, people could stop charging you with stuff you didn't. And chin up: So many of those state dollars come from other states' pockets, it's like free entertainment.

Sourcing

I mean, she's a journalism major, right? At like, five different colleges? That's plenty of exposure to the fundamentals. So why would she use her tweet ...

Outraged Obama's budget includes major cuts to missile defense programs, when N. Korea refuses to abide by UN regs.http://tinyurl.com/c56xyh

... to link to a CNN story that concludes by noting that she wants money for it? Also, when she's all crazed, marking up which parts of the stimulus package she's willing to accept and which parts she isn't and which parts don't, technically, exist but, in her expert opinion, should, do her advisors just glance at each other uncomfortably, like Hitler's in his last days in the bunker, or are they egging her on like Tiny Elvis's coterie?

I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation….

Is that like when Bush supporters point out that we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, all smug as if they just proved something? If someone can point me to evidence as to precisely how Alaska's proven 'invaluable,' that'd be great. I'm not saying we wouldn't retaliate if North Korea sent missiles at Alaska, but if Ol' Crazysides keeps yapping, wouldn't we at least want to think about it?

Also, I'm not saying the 'cuts' are non-existent, like when Obama was panned by the right a month ago for 'cutting' defense when, in fact, he just wasn't increasing the defense budget as much as the 'nuts would have liked. I'm merely saying that when I google 'obama cuts missile defense,' the only links I get are right-wing crazy sites and the CNN piece. Which is ironic, since when it comes to Alaska, Sarah Palin is a socialist.

Oh, wait, I found the press release, and I think the CNN story left out the best part:

Today, the Defense Department said it wants to study the merits of ground based missile defense before it commits to an expansion at Fort Greely. This is absolutely the wrong message to send to our adversaries.

This is art, people. Are you even appreciating it while she's still alive? Maybe we can divert the missile money to the National Endowment for the Arts so she can get the showing she deserves. Although anyone in North Korea doing a Web search for 'obama cuts missile defense' is already getting 'absolutely the wrong message.'

Better use a lifeline

Straight from the twit's mouth:

Due to intense spring floods, I've declared a disaster for Interior AK; this opens doors for govt agencies to better assist AKns in need.

Are you sure? I bet there're all sorts of strings attached. I bet the damn government's gonna want you to use that disaster money to, oh, I don't know, handle the disaster. YOU GONNA LET THEM TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR MONEY?!?!?

Who's got a link to one of those maps that shows how Alaska and other 'red states' get the most federal aid per tax dollar, and the blue states pay for it?

Another Beatles scoop

Our second this week! Man, if people were actually reading this blog, we'd be famous.

Anyway, the internet is bemoaning the news that guitar controllers for the Beatles' Rock Band entry will be sold separately, reportedly at $99 each for John's Rickenbacker and George's Gretsch. They believe the $250 entitles them to more than just the game, Paul's Hofner, Ringo's drums, and a mic stand.

But if you go to the game's home page ... I don't know. That looks like John's Epiphone Casino to me. Wouldn't that mean it's in the bundle as well?

Straight from the twit's mouth

I stand by grave concerns fed pkge prohibits opportunities for AK to develop, eg. require AK to adopt new energy codes to accept more funds.

Dear Sarah

Good to hear from you. I'm really enjoying this new phase of your madness. Before, we were at the mercy of the media to hear more crazy. It was very frustrating, relying on the media! Although hey, who'm I tellin', right?

Yeah, so the rest of the people who aren't crazy asked me to try to explain this to you. I said "Hey! I don't speak Stupid!" But they insisted I was the man for the job. So here we are.

OK. I understand your grave concerns, and your standing by them. I think we should all stand by our grave concerns. If we do not stand by our grave concerns, well, where do we stand? Am I right? I honestly can't tell. Anyway, from what I can make out, you are still having trouble with this whole federal stimulus thing. It's funny, I remember some Southern governor going through this. He wanted to do the same thing you're trying to do now: accept only part of the stimulus allotment for your state. I remember the president saying it wasn't going to work that way. It was in the papers and everything. I guess you no longer read "Oh, all of them." Because now you're pulling the same stunt, saying you don't want the funds for the state energy office.

Oh, sorry about linking to the Times there. Don't worry, looks like they won't be around much longer anyway. The media, huh? Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em:



Yeah, so anyway, you're saying you want the stimulus money you want, but not the stimulus money you don't want. Or something. No, wait, I know. You're saying you don't want the energy money because you don't want to strengthen your building code, because ... uh, because it's not in Alaskans' common or individual interests of ... um ...

You know what? Fuck it. I got no idea what your problem is. You make no sense. I've been trying to treat you with kid gloves here, like a mentally disturbed person who somehow got hold of a gun (get it?), but I gotta come clean here, you're all over the road. You're a freak, and most of what you do is geared to framing yourself as some sort of right-wing hero. I mean, the Democrat president wants to give you money, for fuck's sake, and you're turning it down. Face it: You're a contrarian wack job.

But lemme try to explain this to you: You can take the money. You can turn down the money. You cannot take some of the money. You should not take the money and bitch about it. That'd just be bad form. But what you absolutely cannot do without looking like a complete idiot is take the money and bitch about the giver of the money mandating that you adopt a new building code if you want even MORE money!!!! I mean, you might've heard, there's a recession or something going on. People are hurting. Remember how mad they were about their money going toward banker bonuses? It was kind of a big deal, here in America. They don't really want to hear about your not liking what few conditions are attached to your taking their money.

Also, they want to know if you've returned the clothes yet.

And I don't think it's meant as a euphemism for 'condom,' either

On twitter, our girl announces an initiative that she supports "... to protect (Alaska's) daughters ... ." The link she offers is to an Anchorage Daily News story about the initiative, which "make[s] it illegal for teenagers to get an abortion without telling their parents."

I've long come to terms with the fact that Sarah Palin and I speak very different breeds of English, and so I ask the following question completely devoid of snark: From who or what would this initiative 'protect' Alaskan teen girls?

Beatles, for sale (again)

Haven't seen this anywhere. Just noticed that the remasters are up on amazon.com. I had been wondering where they'd be priced.

Prices:

Please Please Me: $13.99
With the Beatles: $14.99
A Hard Day's Night: $13.99
For Sale: $13.99
Help!: $13.99
Rubber Soul: $13.99
Revolver: $13.99
Sgt. Pepper: $13.99
Magical Mystery Tour: $13.99
White Album: $19.99
Yellow Submarine: $14.99
Let It Be: $13.99
Abbey Road: $13.99
Past Masters (33 tracks): $22.99

Box sets don't seem to be listed.

Who has a guess as to why Yellow Submarine and With the Beatles are a buck extra?

More Palin please!

Oh, yay! She's got a twitter feed! You'd think she's got someone writing this stuff for her, but here is her first post ...

This is my official Twitter feed - from here I’ll provide updates on issues concerning Alaskans. Learn more about AK at www.alaska.gov.

So we're establishing that the purpose of the feed is to write about issues concerning Alaskans. Because, you know, she's the governor. Of Alaska. Remember?

So yeah, a feed by an Alaskan, for Alaskans. But then her very next post ...

AP gravely misquoted my staff, saying I 'changed my mind' on the stimulus package. For accurate info, go to http://tinyurl.com/c7v84t.

Contradicting one sentence with her very next sentence? It's her! It's really her! Whew! Baby, you had us worried there! I thought maybe this would really be about Alaskan issues, and not just a chance to put more of your 2012-focused nonsense out there! Thanks for always being there for us, Sarah Palin. Even if 'there' is in outer space.

On Connecticut State Senate Bill 349

SB 349 would change possession of small amounts of marijuana from a misdemeanor (punishable by jail time) to an infraction, which would be merely ticketed.

I followed some link and sent my state senator, Toni Boucher, an e-mail asking her to support SB 349, which has passed the senate's Joint Committee on Judiciary. Senator Boucher wrote back and relayed her testimony before the Committee against the bill.

What follows is my response to her, on which I CC'd Governor Jodi Rell.

Toni

Thanks very much for writing back. I respect that your views differ from mine. It's why I voted for the other guy in November. But the way I understand it, you represent me nonetheless. So I hope you will not impose your own views on the state, but rather aim to represent the majority's will. You might know that a Quinnipiac University poll this year indicated that 58 percent of Connecticut voters favor SB 349.

It would be even better if I could sway you by illustrating where your thinking is, in my opinion, misguided. Since you were kind enough to relay your views to me, I offer the following rebuttals.

You cited a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to drugs. You do not say that the drug on which the son overdosed was marijuana, and I imagine that's because it wasn't the drug on which he overdosed. To my knowledge, marijuana has never killed anyone. This, of course, is not true of alcohol or tobacco, two legal substances. In fact, you call marijuana a gateway drug, and say it was identified by the parents as "the real killer," which again I assume is merely evidence that it was not the real killer. Perhaps you also favor illegalization of alcohol and tobacco, as any 15-year-old can tell you that these are the gateways to marijuana use. Most people against marijuana legalization don't favor outlawing cigarettes and alcohol, and therefore are guilty of hypocrisy. Perhaps you are the exception; I have not researched your views. But the state of Connecticut has not outlawed alcohol or tobacco; it instead has satisfied itself with laws governing the two substances' use.

The same should be true for marijuana. It is not physically addicting, the way tobacco and alcohol are, and so there is no evidence that there would be health issues -- especially where marijuana is potent enough to deliver its effects with minimal substance ingestion. If one could feel the effects one desired from as little alcohol or tobacco, there would be no health issues with those substances either. I'm afraid any studies you cite are going to be of extremely limited value; most are conducted or sanctioned by the federal government, which outlaws marijuana in the first place, and what few remain relied on government-supplied marijuana, which of course is not representative of the many strains available to users. Have the studies looked at both indica and sativa strains? For what other variables have these supposedly scientific studies accounted? I also find that critics draw highly spurious conclusions from these studies, like the 40 percent statistic you cite. If marijuana increased the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, there would be a great many college graduates with mental disorders in this country. Assuming relationships to be causative is a fallacy that extends far beyond drug studies, but it certainly is a popular one among anti-marijuana lawmakers.

There absolutely are people who have other issues -- motivational, organizational, social -- related to their marijuana use. Marijuana does not cause these issues. It sometimes enables them. A shut-in who doesn't answer the door because he's high would be a shut-in without marijuana. And he likely would seek some other substance instead -- doubtlessly a more dangerous substance, since marijuana is the least dangerous of illicit substances. Rather than trotting out a story of a couple, many years ago, who lost their son to some other substance, I suggest you talk to more marijuana users. You can find many of them achieving at the highest levels of our country -- although some are not free to admit their use, thanks to stigma of the drug's illegal status -- as well as working at the nearest Burger King. Talk to former users, too, including those who say their lives were miserable while they used. Many of them will tell you that they came to realize that the drug made it easier for them to avoid working out the issues that challenged them, but that in most cases, when they stopped smoking, they still needed to work out those issues. And while you're talking to them, see if those serious and costly long-term health effects you presage have come to pass. I also would love to the the sourcing for much of what you cited in your testimony to the Joint Committee. Sixty percent of Connecticut drug treatment center admissions are for marijuana addiction? I'd love to hear more about that.

You worry that SB 349 will overturn decades of progress "combat[ing]" marijuana use. How are you measuring that progress? Is progress combating measured in arrests? In prison sentences? This kind of "progress" is easy to achieve. Do lower percentages of the population use marijuana? Impossible to measure, of course, since respondents would need to admit to lawbreaking. But anecdotally, I can tell you there has not been significant progress of anything. I can direct you to any number of peers who use habitually, and others who did for years before stopping. They are not in hospice care, or mental wards. If you are against adults' being legally allowed to smoke marijuana, I assume you are not aware which of your friends and family are smokers (although if you did know, I imagine you would prefer they be ticketed for marijuana use, and not put into the criminal system). I urge you, for the purposes of researching this issue, to widen your circle. And the percentages of college kids who smoke marijuana today will not be appreciably lower (if, in fact, they're not higher) than they were 20 years ago when I was in college. So I wonder what kind of progress you had in mind.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the statistics and purported evidence you cited in your testimony. But it is not easy. It reads like the boilerplate claims I've seen elsewhere so many times from other lawmakers who were closed on the issue. These "facts" fit their argument, and these were the "facts" they were sticking with. I hope you will consider it your responsibility to seek out the other side of the story. I suspect it would lead you to question some of the "evidence" that seems so compelling to you now. I believe you owe it to yourself, and I am certain you owe it to me and the rest of your constituents.

Yer pal
troy

No, seriously -- shut the @&#^ up

She's baaaaack!

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter," said Bachmann. "And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."

Note that her sentence construction is starting to resemble our girl's; "... back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then ..."? Even? Also, it might not surprise you to learn she's wrong. I don't think that's an interesting coincidence.

Ranking the monsters of rock my damn self

I came kind of late to rock. I remember bringing in a cassette to fifth-grade art class and playing a song on it for the whole class in one of those school cassette players you remember if you went to elementary school in the '70s. Why art class? And why did the teacher let me? I suspect the answer to each question is the same: She hated me. The song was 'Stairway to Heaven.' I don't really remember anyone in class thanking me for showing them the light. I do remember my ears turning red, so red I didn't need a mirror to see it.

This glorious debut had a couple of follow-ups. In sixth grade, I found my Dad's 'The Best of Bread' cassette, with the song 'Freedom.' I didn't get mocked too much for playing it at recess. No, I got mocked more for playing the tape on this candy apple-red 'portable' stereo that was like a Walkman, except I insisted on bringing in the speakers that came with it. A little unwieldy. In seventh grade, when we had to do a project for The Fellowship of the Ring, I went to my guitar teacher's basement, where he had a four-track and makeshift studio, and wrote and recorded a song called "The Road Leads to Nowhere." I still don't get why that wasn't a good idea, although I do still remember everyone laughing at me so hard, I slammed the door shut on my finger running out of there. Hurt like hell, too.

By the end of high school, I was listening to Metallica and Celtic Frost and M.O.D. and S.O.D., so I'd more or less caught up, having already found Rush, AC/DC, Zeppelin, and of course the Beatles. I pretty much stopped listening to all of the classic rock bands except the Beatles at one point or another, although Zep and the Police certainly got airings from time to time, but recently, I've been filling in the gaps in my collection. Last month, I downloaded my favorite Cheap Trick. A couple of nights ago, I found some free Kinks on emusic. And I was thinking of how the Kinks had aged, and that got me thinking about how I perceived the bands back when I was a teenager and how I perceive them all now. Of course, if I want to post about it, I have to rank them. So here's one man's thoughts, in reverse order of how much I want to listen to them today:

16. Kiss

Never liked 'em.

15. Black Sabbath
Then: Seemed a little scary. I mean, even when I was listening to Celtic Frost and looking for the scariest metal I could find, I was a little afraid to check out Sabbath.
Now: Well, of course I eventually checked them out, and they're still a little scary; Ozzy would scare me if he were a temp working for me. I find that I really like what I really like by them, but they don't go as deep (in terms of quantity of quality songs) as I would like.
Songs I still like: Supernaut; Fairies Wear Boots

14. Yes
Then: I liked these guys. The musicianship was impressive, and I have a prog side to me. I liked 90215.
Now: Seem a little silly.
Songs I still like: I thought I liked "I'm Running" off Big Generator, but it turns out not so much.

13. The Kinks
Then: Seemed like a kind of generic classic rock band. I liked them OK, liked some of their songs a lot.
Now: I still admire the songwriting, but the music hasn't really aged well at all; it sounds very dated now. Don't like the arrangement, don't like the production. And that tends to make Ray Davies sound silly, even on a potentially good song like 'Living on a Thin Line.' Dave Davies is woefully underrated though.
Songs I still like: Tired of Waiting for You

12. Queen
Then: Wasn't interested.
Now: I admire the musicianship, and the production was good. And you've got to give it up for the ambition of Freddie Mercury. Most songs don't really resonate for me, though.
Songs I still like: Under Pressure

11. The Who
Then: Liked 'em fine. I really liked some of their songs a lot. I owned tapes of theirs, although you kind of had to back then. I remember really loving "Athena."
Now: They're definitely passe, and I can mock a Who fan as well as the next guy, but I suspect I'm due for a renaissance with them, where I'll pick up some of their hits. But my strongest feeling about them is that they had no heart.
Songs I still like: The Seeker (helped by its appearance in 'American Beauty'), and I guess Join Together and Who Are You.

10. The Doors
Then: See The Kinks. I liked some of what they did a lot, though. But overall, they weren't anything special.
Now: I came to be a big fan in college, bought all the discs, and when they were on, they were on. But I don't have anything by them now, and don't plan to.
Songs I still like: Peace Frog; Soft Parade

9. Cheap Trick
Then: See The Kinks. Liked them well enough.
Now: I really like their best songs. They really influenced the distorted-guitars brand of power-pop that I love, bands like Sloan. They just don't go all that deep. I've come to want to be entertained for every second of a song. I don't want it to take two minutes to warm up. I don't want it to go on one verse and chorus too long. And I don't want a pedestrian rock song. I kind of feel like too many of Cheap Trick's songs fit that last category; I only bought four of their tracks. In their favor, they aged great, especially if you like "Tonight It's You," from their '80s resurgence, which I do.
Songs I still like: Dream Police; Surrender; I Want You to Want Me; Tonight It's You

8. Rush
Then: Had to respect the greatness in the writing, and the proficiency of all three guys, but I found some of their stuff a little goofy, like Yes's. I mean, 2112 and 'The Trees' were a little silly, right? Or was I missing something?
Now: I really like the songwriting, which turns out to have been a big influence on my own, especially their '80s hits. But the production sounds a little too '80s. The 'classic' '70s stuff aged better.
Songs I still like: The Big Money; Time Stands Still

7. AC/DC
Then: Mostly I just gave props to Back in Black, which was a really deep album. I mean, they buried "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution," you know?
Now: I later came to love the Bon Scott stuff, but after a while, a lot of it sounds a little pedestrian, bar band, and formulaic. I have all the Bon Scott stuff, but only because I got it free off Napster eight years ago.
Songs I still like: Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution; Highway to Hell; half of Powerage

6. Pink Floyd
Then: I was a huge fan of the "Wish You Were Here" album and selected stuff off The Dark Side of the Moon, and LOVED "Comfortably Numb" and "Hey You." But I only listened to what I heard on the radio.
Now: I guess they're kind of a band I'm keeping in reserve, that I can always get more into someday when I've got no one else to listen to. But I wouldn't mind getting my hands on "Wish You Were Here" again. Not really into the Syd Barrett stuff, or the The Division Bell era.
Songs I still like: Breathe; Shine On You Crazy Diamond

5. Van Halen
Then: I mean, any teenage guitar student is going to be into Van Halen. The first song I ever was taught to play was "Dance the Night Away," which I don't know why, because I'd never heard it at that point; my teacher chose it, probably because it wasn't hard. I eventually got into all of it, especially lesser known stuff like Van Halen II and Women and Children First.
Now: They lost me when Sammy came aboard. I still like the old stuff that got second-tier radio play, but only have it from Napster, and don't listen very often. Still sound great though; it's usually the writing that damns the weaker Halen.
Songs I still like: Little Guitars; Beautiful Girls

4. The Rolling Stones
Then: I mean, I knew they were bigger than The Kinks, but I wasn't much more impressed with them than I was with The Kinks. You know?
Now: I admire their oeuvre and everything, but after hearing everything I needed to hear 100 times, well, that was enough. When people say they like the Stones better than the Beatles, I get confused, and tilt my head, the way a dog will look at you.
Songs I still like: Gimme Shelter; The Last Time; Miss You; Only Rock 'n Roll

3. The Police
Then: One of the first albums I ever got was "Synchronicity." I really didn't hear any of the early non-radio stuff until college ...
Now: ... when I got really into it. Great songwriters, and great players, and it still holds up today. They wrote more songs that I like than a lot of other bands, but not everything they did was up my alley.
Songs I still like: Can't Stand Losing You; Next to You; Don't Stand So Close To me; Driven to Tears; Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic; Does Everyone Stare; On Any Other Day; Synchronicity I

2. Led Zeppelin
Then: Maybe my first love. The Beatles, I had those stupid Red and Blue albums, and you really miss out on the color that makes the Beatles great if that's all you're hearing -- no "And Your Bird Can Sing," and "For Sale" is just woefully underrepresented. On the other hand, I had the first five Zeppelin records in high school, and thought they were the balls; I listened to Houses of the Holy every night when I went to bed for like two years.
Now: More than anyone else above them on this list, they stand up. Still sounds great to me, although I know they've been remastered. The songs were just excellent, and diverse for classic hard rock.
Songs I still like: Immigrant Song; Celebration Day; Since I've Been Loving You; Battle of Evermore; Misty Mountain Hop; Song Remains the Same; Rain Song; Over the Hills and Far Away; Custard Pie; The Rover; In My Time of Dying; this is getting a little ridiculous, isn't it?

1. The Beatles
Then: I knew what I was hearing was amazing in terms of sheer quantity of quality, but I really think you've got to own them to get them. On those two greatest hits records, you got stuff you didn't like (well, I didn't like) like Michelle and In My Life instead of Hey Bulldog and, you know, pretty much anything great from Abbey Road. (I think the White Album choices are awful too.)
Now: Well, I mean, they're the freakin' Beatles, now aren't they?
Songs I still like: Um ...

OK, you may go now

So suddenly, Dick Cheney's got a lot to say:

"What I find disturbing is the extent to which [President Obama] has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth.

“And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world… I don’t think we have much to apologize for.

Well, depends who you mean by 'we.' Me and my friends? Not so much. But 'we' as in Dick Cheney and, well, anybody Dick Cheney might have anything to do with? Let's just say that if he would apologize -- or, you know, wouldn't have done all the messed-up stuff he did -- the current president wouldn't have to.

Cheney said that as long as we're going to start declassifying memos showing what sick twists he and his puppets were, we should also declassify the ones that show that the torture was entirely productive. “And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

Yes, I think we'd all like to see those. Cheney also knows how we should deal with Central and South America, parts of which, for reasons unkown, also don't like us much lately:

“You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond. And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it's not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard.”

“I've seen Hugo Chavez in operation before, and Daniel Ortega down in Nicaragua. These are people who operate in our hemisphere, but who don't believe in and aren't supportive of basic fundamental principles and policies that most of us in this hemisphere adhere to.”

“Basically, the position we took in the Bush administration was to ignore it. I think that was the right thing to do.”

"OK, now I'll take some questions. Yes?"
"Uh, yeah, Mr. Former Vice President/Torture King, troy from kinde words here. Can you please cite the evidence of 'ignoring it' being 'the right thing to do'? And I have a follow-up."

“The United States provides most of the leadership in the world. We have for a long time. And I don't think we've got much to apologize for. You can have a debate about that."

Gee, you think? Cheney also said he never got a chance to share his thoughts with Joe Biden, who didn't ask Cheney for his insights. Go figure.

Move over, crazy, there's a new crazy in town

Can this really be her first appearance here on kinde words? I find that hard to believe. Anyway, Sarah Palin's chief competitor for ... um, whatever had this take on the president's recent G20 summit appearance:

I think that there may have been agreements made behind closed doors that we aren’t even aware of, that could be ceding American sovereignty.

Can't he just cede Minnesota? Or Congress? Bachmann continued:

That would be very frightening.

She would know.

I have seen ...

... this black SUV. Up close. From behind.

Sorry to say

I'm still a little afraid of Germany.

Next up: The GOP budget proposal

My favorite NCAA Tournament phrase: "score the ball." I'll also except "score the basketball."

Brush with oldness

Was cutting through town today with my peeps, heading to the library for a pickup, when an SUV stopped in front of me, hazards blinking, on a stretch where there was no way around him. The driver hops out and rushes to open the door behind his seat, and pulls out some books. Meanwhile, an older woman is slowly progressing out of the passenger-side door in front. We're in front of the library, so I interpret what I'm seeing as a guy stopping traffic (i.e., me) so he can let out some old lady to go to the library - even though we're surrounded by parking lots that abut the library; we're in between two right then. So I make a face, just a little impatient face, not the full-on where you throw your arms up in the air at the injustice of it all. And the woman, now coming around the back of the SUV, gives me the dismissive wave, like the wealthy alumni used to give at Rutgers basketball games when a ref made a call against us. The "ah, go bite yourself" wave. You've seen it.

"That's Martha Stewart!" yells my wife. And sure enough, the driver -- chauffeur, actually -- hands the books -- cookbooks -- to the old biddy, and off she ambles to the sushi restaurant across the street. The driver clears out of there quickly; I definitely got a hit of harried off him. I imagine I'm not the first driver he unwillingly annoyed. I hear she's not too popular around here. Probably the black Chevy. She couldn't afford a Lexus? Or an Escalade? Anyway, I guess I'm lucky I escaped without getting a shiv in the ribs.

Fast becoming my new favorite Palin

From TPM:

"So I'm looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra," said Palin. "And the McCain campaign, love 'em, you know, there're a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray."

Where to start?

1. "Maybe a little help, maybe a little extra"? Just a little? Like, almost? As in maybe, with just a little extra, you're right in that thing?

2. The idea of Sarah Palin thinking God wants her to be VP easily replaces the previous titleholder for Most Ridiculous Example of Someone Thinking God's Pulling For 'Em, which was held by professional athletes for at least 50 years until the 2000 presidential election.

3. Which god do you think Sarah Palin prays to? I like to think it's not my God. Can we wake up Dana Carvey for this? And how about her patron saint? St. Jude? St. Rita of Cascia? St. Dymphna? St. Catherine of Sweden, of course. St. John Chrysostom?

4. Dear Sarah: If we were on a plane, and it was going down, and there was no one else on it, and I was looking for someone to hold hands and pray with, I would look at you, and then I would look out the window, and then I would look at you again, and then I would shrug and say "Fuck it, I guess we're going down." Which is to say, I didn't poll the McCain camp or anything, but I bet the feeling was mutual.

Yer pal
troy

Tony Atlas Shrugged

What would happen if fans stopped attending sporting events, presumably because tickets prices are too high, which is presumably because athletes’ salaries are too high?

And what would happen if the commissioners of the major sports leagues told their athletes they were making too much money, and the salary system was going to change immediately.

What would happen if the athletes went on strike and the team owners, and presumably the fans, refused to budge on the ideal that athletes should not be allowed make millions of dollars more per year than the average worker?

Is that something we’d be interested in?

Because a recent ESPN/Seton Hall University poll proclaimed that the majority of its respondents (40 percent) said that baseball’s biggest problem is players making too much money.

Huh? … What? … Whuh?

Not steroids? Not the prices of tickets? Not the length of ballgames? Not the length of the season? Not the dwindling numbers of African-Americans playing the game? Not the “Viva Viagra” commercials played incessantly on TV to young viewers? Not the fact that the most important games of the season aren’t decided until hours after little kids have gone to bed?

It’s not Bud Selig? It’s not even Jeannie Zelasko?

The biggest problem in our national game — and no, historically and culturally, the American Rugby League (a.k.a., the NFL) is not our national pastime, but that’s a post for another day — is that Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez make too much money??? That Scott Boras is too good of an agent?? That the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers spend too much money on salaries???

Oh sure, millions of people are outraged right now over bailouts and economic nationalism and unseemly bonus money, yadda, yadda, yadda. And, oh boy, was there an outcry from many of these same people when Candidate Obama suggested that people making more than $250,000 per year should pay a larger percentage in taxes than those who are comparatively closer to the poverty line! (Remember those idiotic chain e-mails, supposedly based upon an "actual" classroom exercise by an “actual” high school teacher that likened tax hikes on the wealthy to an entire class automatically getting C’s?)

But you ask these same millions of nimrods if there should be salary caps in sports, they say Yes. Definitely yes! Why? Because it’s “not fair” that large-market teams like the Yankees have a major financial advantage! The playing field, in baseball, is “not level!” I’ve stopped counting how many dummies I know who say they enjoy football more than baseball because the American Rugby League “has parity” and doesn’t allow teams to simply outspend everyone else.

Though, when you look at the past 10 Super Bowl champs …

(Pittsburgh, New York, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, New England, New England, Tampa Bay, New England, Baltimore, St. Louis)

… And the past 10 World Series champs:

(Philadelphia, Boston, St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, Florida, Anaheim, Arizona, New York, New York)

… I’m not exactly seeing much of a difference in “parity.” If anything, the playing field looks a tiny bit more “level” in baseball, the sport without a salary cap. Just sayin’.

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand argued that individual achievements (and the financial fruit of that achievement) enable society to thrive, and that, over time, coerced self-sacrifice cheapens and ultimately destroys a society.

Listen to any hard-core football fan (or better yet, Steve Young or Emmitt Smith) long enough, and you'll hear them complain about how the best NFL teams of today can't compare to the old Steelers or Niners or Cowboys juggernauts. Why? The salary cap.

So let Manny and A-Rod get their money if somebody’s willing to pay them. Let the teams from New York and Boston and Los Angeles outspend everyone if they have the resources to do so. Who cares if a left-handed pitcher or a trash-talking wide receiver breaks the bank? Why do you really care?

Or then, let’s not pay the very best athletes a dime more than your average CEO — still a pretty sweet salary, if you ask me — and let them walk off the playing field in disgust. Let them quit.

And then let’s not pay any attention to sports, and let’s start watching a hell of a lot more CSPAN, and let's start paying a lot more attention to how our children do in math class, which probably is something we should’ve been doing all along …

Wow

Duke really still gets all the calls, huh?

I want to make it clear

I am NOT mocking an 18-year-old girl whose single momdom just got a little more firmly entrenched. No, I'm mocking the delusional woman who wrote this, which was released under Bristol Palin's name ...

"Unfortunately, my family has seen many people say and do many things to 'cash in' on the Palin name," she said. "Sometimes that greed clouds good judgment and the truth."

... and thought anyone would be fooled into thinking it wasn't she who wrote it. I understand other right-wingers might write something like this purely for their base, but Sarah Palin really expects you to believe it. Just as soon as you figure out what the hell it means.

Dancing about architecture

So I'm trying to get in on the Animal Collective Madness; the critics are very big on Merriweather Post Pavillion right now. There's a lot to like about it. And I'm getting into the lyrics, which I often ignore, but there's something about the way they juxtapose with the type of music the band is making on this record. I was reading an interview with the dude who sings (and presumably wrote) the first track, In the Flowers, and he's definitely of the school where he doesn't want to get into too much detail, because the words should mean whatever the listener thinks they mean. Anyway, the lyrics to that song fascinate me. Here's one posting I found of them:

A dancer who was high in a field from a moment
Caught my breath on my way home
Couldn’t stop that spinning force
I fell into you
Everything drowns you to giggle
You are up with the flower and I care

So the dancer who gets wild to the deep reveling rhythm
But I am always away for weeks
that pass slow like mind gets lost
Feeling envy for the kid who danced in spite of anything
And we’re out in the flowers and feel better

If I could just leave my body for the night

Then we could be dancing no more missing you while I am gone
Then we could be dancing and you’d smile and say I like this song
And then ours would meet them we will recognize nothing’s wrong
And I wouldn’t feel so selfish I won’t be this way very long
To hold you in time
To hold you in time
To hold you in time
To hold you in time

And we’re dancing, early hours drunken days finally ended
And the streets turn for pillowcase
And I fumble all good lie
Then the ecstasy turns the writhing light through our windowpane
Now I am gone, I left flowers for you there

I'm not convinced these are 100 percent right, not by a long shot; I'm willing to believe they're purposely fragmented and incoherent, kind of in a 'this, not linearly, is how we experience life' way; it's more that I'm saying when I listen to the song with the words in front of me, some of the phrases seem like a reach. But I'm willing to work with them.

So I was talking about the freedom to interpret the lyrics as we please. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the guy sees some kid who's obliviously dancing away, and the singer is feeling a little sorry for himself, because he's lonely and can't forget it, unlike this kid, who surely has worries of his or her own but has seemingly put them behind him for now. And, the way almost anything can, it reminds the singer of his girlfriend or wife, and how much he misses her, and he wishes he could be with her now.

Then we could be dancing no more missing you while I am gone
Then we could be dancing and you’d smile and say I like this song

I love this part, and while obviously "this song" could be whatever song the two of them would be dancing to, I immediately came to think of it as *this* song, In the Flowers. And the way it resonated with me is it made me a little jealous. I've made some music, and I've married a woman with whom I have little in common culturally. She doesn't much like my kind of music, although she is kind about it. So I was a little jealous of the guy, imagining he had married a woman who liked his music, and who wanted to share it with him. I mean, that's why a lot of us started making music. All of us, really, did it to connect with someone, if not someone specific.

Anyway, I was thinking about the song again on the train in this morning, when I realized the singer could mean something else. I mean, he's fantasizing that she's there, dancing with him (and that 'nothing's wrong'). Maybe he's also dreaming about her liking the song. Maybe they don't connect in that way, and that is part of the fantasy too. I'm in the throes of new fandom, so I'm reading everything I can get my hands on about these guys. A couple of reviews of the album have denigrated the lyrics. But I think the lyrics to this song might be perfect.

Dear Jackass

OK, I get it. You've decided not to like David Foster Wallace. Or, seemingly, decided to hate him. It's fine. With me, I mean. For you, it's a loss. Your loss. But I respect your experience: You didn't like Infinite Jest -- felt violated, or felt some trust violated, by its ending, or by its length and the promise you felt went unfulfilled. I mean, sure, he also wrote some excellent essays/reportage. And the short stories. See, even I am not a total Infinite Jest convert; I love the last two books of short stories, and the essays, but didn't absorb or connect with Infinite Jest on my first read through. Of course, in my case, I assume the shortcoming is mine, where you assume it's DFW's. This might be connected to your oth-- the other issue. Let's not call it your other issue. The other issue is that Wallace knew a lot of words, and what they meant, and what they connoted, and in each instance he preferred to use the one he meant. You seem to regard this as a sort of showing off, intellectual braggadocio or something. Well, that's fine too. You don't have to care that other people like the writing. I don't know, maybe you think no one should write about astrophysics, because you don't get that either. Probably you're against the existence of Popular Mechanics. Is Popular Mechanics even around anymore? Well, if it's not, that just proves your point, am I right? Anyway, I also know he has a vocal following, and that can be annoying too. I'm sure it seems quite daring to be in the vanguard of a blacklash against it. You think the footnotes were cutesy. Any or all of the above. It's not important.

So OK, we've established that you hate DFW, even though you've read either very little or none of his work. And seriously, I'm OK with that. How could I not be? You want to seethe over footnotes? Have at it. I just have one favor to ask. Could you please shut the hell up about it? Could you please stop being so proud of it, or of being contrarian, or of whatever impulses have led you to write about it? I don't like Madonna. I don't like tomatoes. I don't like my cousin Mervyn. I also don't write 1,000 words about it. I mean, who would care?

Ranking the Presidents my damn self: Hail to the Chef

Happy March 4th, everyone! In case you forgot, for 148 years, starting with John Adams in 1797, this was the traditional date the Chief Justice would swear into office the President of the United States.

And in case you forgot, we’ve got a new president. And depending on which AM radio stations you’re listening to, his name might be Something Hussein Something. Whatever.

Between Mrs. Tonto’s request that back on Jan. 20th I cook a special Inauguration Day dinner featuring selected items on President Obama's luncheon menu, and CSPAN ranking the presidents from worst (Buchanan) to first (Lincoln), and Ol’ Abe turning 200 a few weeks ago, and Washington turning 277 a couple weekends ago — the White House has been on my mind quite a bit lately.

Not to be outdone by Kimo Sabe’s recent college-campus-quality cyber-lecture about almost everything the Beatles ever burped or coughed …

… Here’s my list of the Presidents of the United States, from worst to first. (Hint: It might or might not seem eerily similar to CSPAN’s. I don’t really know, because I didn’t really read it.)

44. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Probably not the absolute worst president we’ve ever had, but tell that to the Joad family. And residents of Hooverville. And all those who pelted his motorcades with eggs and rotten fruit during the ’32 campaign. The final months of his lame-duck administration were so terrifying we eventually decided March 4 was too long to wait for a new president.

Favorite food: Corned beef hash with tomato sauce.

43. James Garfield (1881)
Got himself shot by some crazy guy inside a D.C. train station barely four months into his term. Lingered for 80 days before dying in his sickbed at the Jersey Shore of a heart attack, which was followed by blood poisoning and bronchial pneumonia. Died with a bullet still in his body because back in 1881, even though we were smart enough to invent a metal detector, we were still too dumb to realize that the brass coils in Garfield’s bed kept setting the damn thing off. Probably would have lived if several doctors hadn’t inserted their unsterilized fingers into the wound to probe for the bullet. Holy crap. This is wayyyy too depressing.

Think about this for a second: What was the quality of life like for the people who weren't president?!?

Favorite food: Bread (Again, just depressing.)

42. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
What was Lincoln thinkin? Ol’ Abe received so many death threats before his first inauguration that he snuck into D.C. in the middle of the night. So for his second term, Abe taps Andrew Johnson, a pro-union Southerner who promptly shows up drunk at the inauguration. As luck would have it, Lincoln becomes the first president to get assassinated, Johnson takes over and turns out to be a fervent white supremacist hell-bent on destroying Reconstruction. Oh yeah, and he got impeached.

Favorite food: Spanish-style stuffed eggplant. (Served by a Klansman.)

41. Barack Obama (2009 - present)
Don’t get all upset, kids, I voted for him. In fact, I even stuck one of his campaign signs in my lawn this past October, much to my neighbors' chagrin. But, he’s a president, and that means he’s gotta be on the list, even if my rankings are published a handful of weeks into his term. So that’s why he debuts on the charts a couple notches ahead of the guy who liked bread. It’s only fair. Time to get to work.

Favorite food: Chili.

40. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
A Northerner who sympathized with the South. Failed to avert the Civil War, which is cited by scholars as the single-worst failure by an American president. Despised abolitionists and was believed to be personally involved in the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Normally ranked last on most lists.

But hey, it could’ve been worse: Pat Buchanan could’ve been president.

Favorite food: Pennsylvania Dutch stuffed shoulder of pork. (Maybe it’s because I didn’t eat lunch today, but this sounds really yummy.)

39. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Man, this asshole really had us fooled, didn’t he? And I voted for him TWICE. First term inspired Rush Limbaugh’s and Newt Gingrich’s rise to power. Second term inspired Dubya to defeat the guy who invented the internet. Bubba's presence during the 2008 campaign inspired us to turn against his wife’s presidential bid. In sum, this guy is a horse’s ass.

Favorite food: Chicken enchiladas.

38. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
I dunno. He just sounds like a dopey president.

Favorite food: Huguenot torte.

37. Chester Arthur (1881-1885)
Him, too.

Favorite food: Mutton chops.

36. John Tyler (1841-1845)
Him, too.

Favorite food: Sally Lunn. (It’s the name of a teacake. We think. … Hey now!)

35. Rutherford Hayes (1877-1881)
Truly a dope. Stole the election from Sam Tilden and had to take the Oath in private for fear of public rioting at the inauguration.

Favorite Food: Roast Beef.

34. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
Booooorrrrrrrr-ing. ... See his grandfather (No. 6).

Favorite Food: Fish chowder.

33. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Man, in the 19th Century it was pretty much “Lincoln and Jackson and pray for rain,” wasn’t it?

Favorite food: Boiled lobster.

32. James Monroe (1817-1825)
They named a doctrine after him or something. Or maybe I’m simply confusing him with somebody else. (See No. 11.)

Favorite food: Gumbo.

31. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Fell 25 rankings from the last time I did one these polls back in 1978 for the sole reason that I’ve since learned that I had him confused with the guy nicknamed “Stonewall,” which I’m sure we all agree that this is a pretty damned cool nickname whether you’re 7 or 37. “Old Hickory” is OK, I guess. …

Was first president to have his wife accused of past bigamy by the press. (And they were right!)

Was one of our most influential chief execs, but it’s going to take me a while to get over the fact that he’s not “Stonewall.”

Favorite Food: Roast leg of pork.

30. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
Got elected because he was a war hero or something.

Favorite food: Crabmeat on shells.

29. Ulysses Grant (1869-1877)
Him, too.

Favorite Food: Roman punch. (What is this? A food? A drink?)

28. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
Him, too.

Favorite Food: Quail hash. (Tastes like chicken.)

27. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Every time I see his name I think of reading the Sunday funnies as a kid, and there, toward the back with the tire ads was “Mallard Fillmore.” I didn’t really follow it, but I thought Mallard Fillmore was a hilariously funny name. I still chuckle about it.

Favorite food: Roast capon.

26. Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Honestly, when I watch a TV show or movie that includes someone wearing a Nixon mask while performing a bank robbery, it just makes my week.

Favorite food: Beef Wellington.

25. Warren Harding (1921-1923)
Women and the press loved him. Died of a stroke midway through his term. His administration was the reason why most of us were forced to learn about the Teapot Dome Scandal back in high school History.

Favorite food: Roast filet mignon with sherried mushrooms.

24. George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Never really looked at Dan Rather the same way after Poppy got through with him. And we never really looked at Poppy the same way after he wet his pants with excitement over the technological improvements at grocery stores.

Might or might not be true, but it’s entirely possible he hated Dubya’s presidency even more than the rest of us did.

Favorite food: Broiled steak with baked potato.

23. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
A popular, small-government conservative who restored public confidence in the White House. He pretty much was what Reagan fanatics mistakenly believe what Reagan was.

Presidency was tarnished somewhat by the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 when Coolidge basically reacted in the exact same fashion as What’s-His-Name did after Hurricane Katrina.

Favorite food: Baked beans.

22. William Taft (1909-1913)
The only president to weigh more than 300 pounds. The last president to wear facial hair. Was also the only former president to serve on the Supreme Court.

Favorite food: Lobster Newberg.

21. Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
A vice president and president, and never won an election for either office. Because of this man I can look my slightly-above-average children in the eyes and honestly say, “Yes, play your cards right and be a nice guy and someday you, too, can be President of the United States of America. Or at least play Big Ten football."

Favorite food: Spaghetti and meatballs.

20. James Polk (1845-1849)
Often listed between eighth and 12th in most of these types of rankings. Greatly expanded the geographic size of the country, lowered tariffs, defeated the Mexicans, scared off the British, established a treasury system that lasted for 60 years, and nearly purchased Cuba(!). But I’ll never forgive him for opposing the Wilmont Proviso. Never.

Favorite food: Tennessee ham.

19. William McKinley (1897-1901)
His favorite food was bacon and eggs. This alone will put a man in my Presidential Top 20. Somebody please pass me the toast and jelly!

18. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
Took the oath of office on March 4, 1825 with his hand on a book of laws as a symbol of the separation of church and state. Why more presidents don’t do this escapes me. ... Like his old man, served only one term. Like his old man, failed to figure out that you really were not supposed to put political enemies in your Cabinet.

Served in the House after his presidency and is perhaps the only major figure in American history who knew the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.

Favorite food: Baked codfish pie.

17. Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
He tried. He really did.

Favorite food: Chili.

16. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Right man at the right time. Inspired millions of white people to be proud to be Americans again. Does it matter that the Soviet Union would have collapsed even if he weren’t president? Nahhhhhhhh.

Favorite food: Broiled swordfish with lemon butter.

15. John Adams (1797-1801)
That was a nice job by A-Bart’s kid in that HBO miniseries. A NICE job. Almost made us completely forget what a pompous ass Adams was.

Favorite food: Baked salmon.

14. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
I don’t care what anyone says, he was wicked smaht.

Favorite food: Brunswick stew with buttermilk biscuits.

13. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Him, too.

Favorite food: Roast turkey with cornbread stuffing.

12. Harry Truman (1945-1953)
The original Decider. The Japanese never quite looked at us the same way again. He (and we) can thank David McCullough’s 1992 biography for Harry’s rehabilitated modern image.

Favorite food: Tuna noodle casserole.

11. George W. Bush (2001-2009)
The most fanatical of the GOP apologists claim history will vindicate Bush and Cheney just as it exonerated Truman and Marshall. So let’s pretend for a moment that they’re correct. (Scary, huh?)

Favorite food: Tacos.

10. Josiah Bartlett (1999-2007)
His great-grandfather’s great-grandfather was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. An expert economist. Nearly studied to become a priest.

Granted amnesty to illegal immigrants from the Americas, appointed the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice and first female Chief Justice, negotiated a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, created millions of new jobs, provided strong support for alternative energy, orchestrated a Social Security reform plan, and dealt with major foreign policy crises in Haiti, Colombia, Bolivia, Equatorial Kundu, India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Russia, Iran, Syria, Israel, and Qumar. He got censured. (He got over it). He got shot. (He survived). His youngest daughter got kidnapped. (She was rescued.)

Yeah, I know this was a TV show. But it got me through the Dubya Administration with most of my marbles intact.

Favorite Food: Didn’t like French people, but loved their cuisine, as evidenced by the “Stackhouse Fillibuster” episode.

9. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 & 1893-1897)
CSPAN ranked him 21st, which probably means he wasn’t all that great and he wasn’t really all that awful. Regarded as a classic liberal, he is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms. Seriously, even Billary couldn’t pull off that trick. That is greatness, my friends.

Favorite food: Turban of chicken.

8. James Madison (1809-1817)
Our shortest president (5-4) and the Red Coats lit the White House on fire on his watch.

But he spoke fluent Latin. Graduated Princeton in two years. Pretty much wrote the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights. And cranked out a good portion of the Federalist Papers. Plus, Dolly was a total babe. This guy had skills.

Favorite food: Williamsburg pound cake.

7. Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945)
"He lifted himself from a wheelchair to lift the nation from its knees.”

Generally regarded as a lock at No. 3 on these types of lists. But I’ll say this: Having Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo in his foursome turned out to be an advantage. Who’s not going to come out looking great after 18 holes with those guys? And falling asleep at Yalta – or was it Malta? – was a bad job.

But honestly, name one other candidate who could get re-elected even though most of the country expected him to be dead within six months. That too, my friends, is greatness.

Favorite food: Boiled salmon with egg sauce.

6. William Harrison (1841)
“Old Tippecanoe” croaked 32 days after taking office. Honestly, we could’ve used a few more presidents like him. Seriously.

Favorite food: Roast wild duck.

5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
His face is on Mount Rushmore. They named a genre of stuffed animals after him. And that Panama Canal thing worked out pretty well. And until Gov. Palin ascends to the Oval, he remains the last president who knew how to field-dress a moose.

Favorite food: Roast suckling pig. (And I betcha he ate it with his hands!)

4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
A statesman, architect, archaeologist, horticulturist, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia.

The tinfoil hats in CSPAN’s poll had TJ listed as seventh. And I know, I know, as a political administrator he had his shortcomings. But gimme a break. Not in the Top 5? He was a thinker – did you READ the Declaration of Independence – not a politician, and he grew to detest the office of the presidency. Honestly, I don’t think his bad mood wasn’t anything modern central-air conditioning could have fixed.

Favorite food: Wine jelly. (Interesting.)

3. John Kennedy (1961-1963)
Big Red Sox fan. And in the early 1960s chicks really dug the long ball, if you know what I mean (wink, wink).

Favorite food: Fish chowder.

2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
OK, this is how smart ol' Abe was: After he died they scooped out his brain and weighed it. Just to see if it was bigger than everyone else's.

One of America’s great thinkers and writers, he only had about a year’s worth of formal education. He preserved the Union and freed the slaves, and managed to do this with his crazy wife yapping in his ear.

Abraham Lincoln personifies the values of honesty and integrity, as well as respect for human freedom. And his monument is awesome.

Favorite food: Apples. (As in, how do you like them apples? Or something.)

1. George Washington (1789-1797)
As a lad, he admitted to chopping down the cherry tree and he didn’t blame it on the King or the House Democrats or Rush Limbaugh or the Taliban or the Jews. His favorite food was beefsteak and kidney pie – a MAN’S food – and he used wooden teeth to chew it up with gusto.

Washington is the absolute standard all American presidents and military leaders are measured against.

The historians and perfessers usually save this spot for Ol' Abe, the same way classic rock stations rig it so that Stairway is No. 1 in their Fourth of July Weekend “Firecracker 500” programming. So consider this one of those rare years that Teenage Wasteland (Babba O’Reilly) wins.

Or you can consider this: If the father of your country isn’t even ranked No. 1, how great is your country?

Thank you.