Thursday, January 29, 2009

The Senate Race Hilarity Continues

Apparently doing a complete 180° on whether or not you want rejected absentee ballots counted depending on how much they think they favor you, putting up witnesses that have to be reminded they voted absentee instead of at the polls or can't testify about injustice of not having their vote counted without fully admitting they committed voter fraud, or not quite understanding how exactly a recount works isn't enough stupidity on behalf of the Coleman campaign.

They've just been busted for trying to make supportive "traffic" to their website seem overwhelming (BECAUSE OF THE LUV FOR NORM AND GOOD AMERICANS) by... intentionally shutting down the site and hoping no one would catch on.

It's also nice that the only page they allowed people to get to was the page that contained confidential donor information.



Is for suckers, apparently.

Yes, as predicted by many, despite cowing and putting in useless tax cuts (that helped us so much in the past eight years while the GOP was spending like mad) and taking out contraception (because every knows that the way to increase a family's spending power is help them have unplanned pregnancies), President Obama's stimulus plan passed the house without one Republican vote.

Many bloggers are speculating that Obama should learn from this, and understand that the Republicans are not acting in good faith. After eight years of a spending free-for-all, Republicans suddenly claim they are the party of fiscal responsiblity. And those "Main-Street-real-heartland" Americans the GOP loves so much? Helping them out instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy during a financial crisis is socialism, even though they were more then willing to help out those poor Wall Street investors. These are also the same Republicans that were screaming about there not being enough to "create jobs" in the stimulus, right on the tail of screaming that we have to let the big three auto companies fail even if it means massive job loss, because they wanted union employees to be fucked over. Rush Limbaugh has publicly come out and stated he wants Obama to fail (even if it means he has to sacrifice buying only a few cases of imported cigars a month instead of many), and Republicans that dared speak out against that statement have now cowed and admitted that Limbaugh rules their world. And as for claiming to be the party of the true American people, they have a funny way of showing it, being that they honestly think birth control and bipartisanship are the most important things about this bill, rather then, you know, a financial crisis that has millions of Americans facing job losses or foreclosed homes.

But despite the fact that the Republicans are playing games while we are teetering at the edge of a depression, it's a good thing Obama catered to them put in those tax cuts and took out contraception, because otherwise the Republicans wouldn't have voted for the bill. Oh, wait.

But actually, I agree with Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight (who is rarely wrong) that this could actually work out really bad for the Republicans. And I agree with him. Polling indicates that the majority of Americans support the stimulus. And someone losing their home or job probably doesn't actually give a flying fuck about women not being punished enough for having sex.

Republicans have always been very good at pulling the bi-partisan card, and defining it as "agree with everything the Republicans do". Democrats just can't get a leg up on this one, if they cave, they are spineless, if they fight, they are obstructionists. But this might turn the tables on that, because it is now on record that despite Obama accommodating some of the Republicans' demands, they still opposed the bill unanimously. And like Silver points out, that it was unanimous portrays a complete lack of bipartisanship on behalf of the Republicans. If even a couple of Republicans had voted for the bill, the status quo would have been maintained. But the unanimous vote shows the same partisanship and groupthink mentality that people voted to get rid of in the past election.

So this could work out well for Obama. He can now say that he tried to reach out to Republicans, only to be "slapped in the face". And so the next time, with the next bill the Democrats try to pass, they can fall back on the argument that they tried the bi-partisan road, and it failed, leading to no obligation to try again in the future. The Republicans have outed themselves as a party that can't play nicely, and that puts ideology ahead of the welfare of the American people and economy. It will be hard for Republicans to keep up their "we are the ones that really care about "real" Americans" shtick when the public sees them actively screwing them over and refusing to work on a bill that would "real" Americans out, particularly after watching them attack the auto unions and bail out the banks so that they can try to buy luxury limited edition jets (which Obama wisely called them on) - and yes, Republicans, that is on you. That was your president's plan, complete with the lack of regulations and oversight that would of kept the frivolous spending in check.

Every time the GOP marches in lockstep, listens to the wingnuts, and puts themselves and their pride above the country, it works out bad for them. The Terri Schiavo debacle left a bad taste in the mouths of many moderate Republicans and Independents. It showed the county just how far these guys will go regardless of what the public actually thinks, showing how out of touch they are with the public. This could work out the same way. The country now knows now where the Republicans stand, thanks to this unanimous vote, Limbaugh's statements and those Republicans in congress licking his boots and declaring him their mouthpiece, they know that Republicans would rather see the country fail then see Obama and the Democrats in congress accomplish anything.

Which probably isn't going to work out well for them.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It's a Brand New, Bright Obama Day!

I was lucky enough to get to watch the inauguration speech at my parents' place today. I thought it was a good speech, Obama managed to get across the idea that we need to move forwards and put aside some of the divisiveness that has been poisoning the country for the past eight years, yet made it very clear that the irresponsible policies and the lack of transparency and accountability that defined the past administration are indeed coming to an end.

There were a couple of things nestled within the speech that gave me hope that this was the beginning of something different. It wasn't really the predicted and bold statements that made me want to cheer, as they are part of any presidential speech, but the little things that were mentioned in passing but which spoke volumes. For example, Obama's assurance that "We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost" is a fairly bold statement after the repeated demonization of science for political gain that we saw so much of the past eight years. As is the assurance that we need to move past the same tired old talking points that mean so little:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

The most important part of the speech for me was probably Obama's statement about reclaiming America's core ideals in the face of wartime or danger: 

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

And not just because of the deserved slam at an administration that ran drunk on it's own entitlement issues when it came to abusing military power, but also because of the assertion that it is in our best interest to work with the rest of the world, instead of telling all other countries to bascially fuck off.

The nod to people that don't embrace faith was a nice touch as well, not something you'd usually see in an inauguration speech:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it. And I know that the inauguration was layered pretty thick with religion (the Christian one), that small shout-out seems huge to me. And I think the above statement here is also noteworthy because it seems to indicate that, despite some of the rhetoric to the contrary that was around everywhere during the Bush administration, we can indeed criticize America's misdeeds to achieve the ideal that we hold for America, and that in the end, doing so made us stronger.

All in all, it's a good speech. I don't believe that Obama is going to become the progressive or liberal messiah, and it could be argued that it's better that he doesn't. But I still do have the "hope" bug, as I do believe that Obama is sincere, intelligent, and that he will make a tremendous change in this country for the better. In my opinion, he already has, even before he took the oath.

But on a snarky note, I rather liked this comment on the inauguration from Sadly, No!:

I'm disappointed that Obama rejected the first draft of my inauguration speech, which involved him torching the Bible, lifting up a Koran and yelling, "WHITE PEOPLE, YOU BE FUCKED NOW!!!! AAAAAH-HAAAAAA-HAAAAA-HAAAAAAA!!!!"

Yeah, that would of been good, too. 


Bush pardons two border patrol agents who shot an unarmed drug suspect in the back and then lied about it to cover it up.

Edit: The border patrol agents were actually granted clemency. My bad.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Gold-Digging Gene is Directly Linked to the X Chromosome

"Evolutionary Psychology", well known for trying it's damnedest to reinforce sexist stereotypes, is at it again:

Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance. They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.

“Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,” said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research. He believes the phenomenon is an “evolutionary adaptation” that is hard-wired into women, driving them to select men on the basis of their perceived quality.

The study is certain to prove controversial, suggesting that women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers.

Gee, controversial? You think? I mean, why would anyone be upset about a "study" that claims that gold-digging is "hard-wired" yet refuses to publish it's methodology to back it up?

And golly, it couldn't be that people that are wealthy may have more time to have sex, or may be more relaxed because they don't have to worry about, you know, money. It's not like a lack of time or stress has ever dampened a sex life, amirite?

No, it must be that "gold-digging" is totally not a completely made-up sexist stereotype and instead is HARD-WIRED into women. And across the country, many misogynists squeal with glee over having their worst assumptions about all women, like the idea they are all gold-digging whores, "proven" through the magic that is evolutionary "psychology".

On a side note, I find this statement kind of interesting:

David Buss, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, Austin, who raised this question in his book The Evolution of Desire believes female orgasms have several possible purposes.

“They could promote emotional bonding with a high-quality male or they could serve as a signal that women are highly sexually satisfied, and hence unlikely to seek sex with other men,” he said. “What those orgasms are saying is ‘I'm extremely loyal, so you should invest in me and my children’."

Because women, who we all know have no other purpose then to please men at every waking moment, apparently even have biological responses like orgasms not for themselves, of course ( I mean, they are women, not human or anything), but only to send messages to men.

Without even looking at the study, that statement alone pretty much tells you all you need to know about it's validity, doesn't it?

via Echidne of the Snakes, patron saint of tearing down bullshit sexist studies.

Monday Mara Blogging

Please Take Treat Out of This Contraption

Mara with her treat ball. Hopefully I'll have time to post something today other then pictures!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Friday Cat Blogging

Playtime Now?

"(I)n three words, the world changed as far as I’m concerned"

I didn't really pay attention to the confirmation hearings of Eric Holder. But on Think Progress, I caught this notable exchange between Holder and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), in which Holder is asked about a "hypothetical" about the "ticking-time bomb" scenario with only waterboarding as a means of interrogation.

Now, the proper response here, is I've learned anything from the past five years, is to quake in one's boots and agree that waterboarding is totally not torture (but only when Americans do it) and necessary to protect America (despite all the evidence otherwise). After all, YOU DON'T WANT INNOCENT AMERICAN BABIES TO BE BLOWN UP BY FOREIGN TERRORISTS, do you?

Refreshingly, Holder is having none of it:

HOLDER: I think your hypothetical assumes a premise that I'm not willing to concede.

CORNYN: I know you don't like my hypothetical.

HOLDER: No, the hypothetical's fine; the premise that underlies it I'm not willing to accept, and that is that waterboarding is the only way that I could get that information from those people.

CORNYN: Assume that it was.

HOLDER: [Laughs] Given the knowledge that I have about other techniques and what I've heard from retired admirals and generals and FBI agents, there are other ways in a timely fashion that you can get information out of people that is accurate and will produce useable intelligence And so it's hard for me to accept or to answer your hypothetical without accepting your premise. And in fact, I don't think I can do that.

But it's Dick Dubin (D-IL) for the win:

DURBIN: I listened to your opening statement and in three words, in three words, the world changed as far as I'm concerned, because you stated without hesitation that waterboarding is torture. I can't tell you how many times Senator Whitehouse and I asked that of the current Attorney General and we could never, ever get a straight declarative sentence. I think it's important — important for our country, important for our position in the world. And I understand Senator Cornyn's questions. They are questions that anyone who watches Jack Bauer on "24″ would ask.

This gives me hope. It's going to take a long time to erase the ugliness that the Bush Administration painted over America with their human rights violations. But this is a step in the right direction. In the long run, I think it's very important that we never let this happen again, and I don't see how we can achieve that if we don't hold those responsible accountable. But I can take comfort that at the very least, these shameful acts appear to be coming to an end. For now.

Who Needs the 4th Amendment Anyway?

Bad news:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant.

The 5-to-4 decision revealed competing conceptions of the exclusionary rule, which requires the suppression of some evidence obtained through police misconduct, and suggested that the court's commitment to the rule was fragile.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said that the exclusion of evidence should be a last resort and that judges should use a sliding scale in deciding whether particular misconduct by the police warranted suppressing the evidence they had found.

This ruling pretty much removes all incentives for following proper law enforcement procedures. I guess it justs assumes that the police never act in bad faith, so they need no deterrent to keep them from violating civil liberties. The consequences of this aren't going to be pretty.

Bush may be leaving us, but his "legacy" (such as actively appointing judges like Roberts and Alito that will make the constitution obsolete) will haunt the country for years to come.

But hey, no problem. After all, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to worry, right?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

And While The GOP Was Screaming About Gay Abortions...

This is so much awesome:

The Republicans—who had just finally won control of the State House for the first time in 40+ years – were suppose to elect their Speaker of the House today. And failed!

The Tennessee State House has 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats. Well, Rep. Kent Williams (R-TN) got the support of all 49 Democrats plus his own vote to put himself in the Speaker's chair.

In the last election, a bunch of belligerent right-wing radicals tried to bully Rep. Williams (a moderate) into taking far-right stands—going so far as to threaten boycotts on his family business, etc.

Well, Rep. Williams had had enough of bullies and blowhards destroying the Republican Party from within. And the Democrats knew it. So the Democrats approached Rep. Williams about being the new House Speaker.

Rep. Williams said, "yes," and history was made, just minutes ago.

The GOP was promising all sorts of abortion votes, 2nd amendment votes, anti-immigrant votes, anti-gay votes, etc. – your basic nightmare right-wing nutjobs run amuck scenario. Not so fast!!

The local news has more:

As the vote took place, the House chamber at moments erupted into near bedlam, with spectators raining down boos, hisses and angry shouts, all of which was quickly quieted when Naifeh threatened to have unruly audience members removed from the chamber.

Williams has been administered the oath of office, and speaking from the well, says "it's time to end the infighting and the bickering." Boos came from the gallery.

Republicans appeared shaken in the aftermath of the vote, and sat in stunned, stony-faced silence.

And to top it off:

The official Republican nominee, Jason Mumpower (a wingnut from Bristol in Sullivan County) was left speechless, clutching the family bible that he had brought in preparation for taking the Speaker's oath of office. 

More of this, please. Seriously, good for them. I'm still amazed that the wingnuts don't seem to realize just how out of touch they are these days with moderate America. They just keep screaming about the "us vs them" culture war while the economy tanks and pissing everyone off with their entitlement issues. And as expected, the country is tired of them. I actually feel kind of bad for conservatives like Williams sometimes, who have to be very pissed off at how embarrassing the current GOP is on a daily basis. If this keeps up, I think we are going to see a long stretch of Democratic majorities in state and federal office (probably until the Democrats inevitably become corrupt after getting drunk off their own power, which will happen).

Literally Stifling the First Amendment

This is rather awesome. Guy paints a mural on the side of his bait shop depicting fish, city claims it's billboard advertising and is fining him for it. So the guy covers the mural with a banner containing... the First Amendment.

Which amusingly leads to the city "looking to see what, if anything, it can do about the First Amendment banner."

via The Agitator.

Update on Oscar Grant

The police office that basically executed Oscar Grant has been arrested on suspicion of murder after refusing to provide an explanation for pulling out his gun and shooting Grant after he was subdued by police. 

ColorOfChange (via Pam Spaulding) notes that this isn't the first time the BART cops have used lethal force on a non-threatening civilian.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Monday Mara Blogging


I actually was trying to get a shot of her playing with her treat ball, but by the time I got the camera out she already had gotten the treat out already.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

No Shame

So apparently, after eight years of a spending free-for-all, and on the heels of a massive 700 billion giveaway to Wall Street's elite courtesy of President Bush, the Republicans in congress have decided that the most importantest thing evar right now is not to invest in the country to fend of a looming depression, but to be the stoic guardians of the taxpayer's dollar.

Say what you will about Republicans, but man, have they got some balls on them. We all knew that eventually, the revisionist history and alternate reality would begin. But it takes an incredible amount of chutzpah for them to begin the attempt to erase the past decade when Bush isn't even out of office yet.

One begins to think they are living in a parallel universe when they read op/eds arguing for limited executive power by Bush administration figures John Bolton and John Yoo. Yes, that John Yoo, who only a few short years ago was bending over backwards to justify the abuses of executive privilege by the Bush administration.

Not that this is unique to Republicans. Just as Republicans have no shame with being big old hypocrites if it will make the Democrats look bad, Democrats also have no shame with being being big old hypocrites... if it will make the Democrats look bad.

I state this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. It's healthy and necessary to have a chuckle at the absurdity of the Republican's attempt to hide their history and completely contradict themselves. For anyone that's paying attention, the attempt to convince the public to not believe their lying eyes and instead believe Republicans are genuine about limiting government and spending merely because they claim to be is almost parody.

But the problem is not everyone is paying attention, and instead often rely on intellectual shortcuts, like sound bytes or talking points, when it comes to their political views. And we cannot deny that the right has been very successful in making their themes convincing to the public. But when the country is in dire straits, and meaningful debate on how to fix it's ills is replaced by talking points, the result can be disastrous.

This problem is only compounded when it's an issue that is seen as the Republican's turf, like spending and taxation. Despite the pattern of excessive Republican spending followed by periods where the Democrats clean up the budget messes, the idea that it is the Republicans that are the fiscally responsible, and not the Democrats, is dogma in this country. And when it's accepted without question that the government is always bad and intrusive, the "fiscally responsible" Republicans floating what would normally be seen as horrible, failed ideas can be accepted as legitimate, and as such, dangerous.

This idea that we have no obligation to jump-start our economy, or that what is needed is even more tax cuts for the wealthy, trickle-down economics, less spending for the public good and every other idea that has failed miserably every time it's trotted out, can be harmful when in reality, our periods of greatness and economic recovery have come when we invested in the country. And the idea that because America is full of so much awesome that another great depression could never happen here is incredibly naive. It most definitely can, and if the Republicans have their way, it probably will.

Even by the Obama's team's own estimates, the current stimulus package, due to it's being watered down to appease the Republicans, may not be enough to lift the county out of economic danger. Now, if there were any evidence that some of these Republican staples like tax cuts worked, I'd be fine with them in the stimulus bill. But as we've seen time and time again, when trying to stimulate the economy, tax cuts just don't work.

It may not be all doom and gloom. Some folks, realizing what is at stake here, are calling out the flaws. While everyone is talking about "bi-partisan" tax cuts, Senators like John Kerry (D-Mass) are encouraging more infrastructure spending instead, which at the very least, will help the debate by placing a liberal point to begin a compromise with the far right on (rather then a moderate one). And the public probably has not forgotten the increased spending during the Bush years, so attempts by Republicans to paint themselves as trustworthy may be premature, and backfire on them. And although I'm uncomfortable with the pandering to Republican interests, Obama has laid out the issues with the economy as transparently as possible, which will not only boost confidence in his plans, but also put the Republicans at odds with the public should they decide to dissent against the stimulus plan that most Americans believe is necessary.

I think this is key here, if we can present the actual situation as simply and honestly as possible, then the talking points and right-wing obstructionism may fail. It's rather hard to convince the public that the country needs to go down in flames for the sake of Republican ideology.

All the same, we should probably cross our fingers. Or, more productively, contact our representatives.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Start the Police-State Acceptance Training Early...

With your very own Playmobil Security Check Point!

Via The Agitator, who's right - the reviews on the Amazon page are hilarious.

Upset About the Oscar Grant Shooting? Here's What You Can Do About It.

Via Racewire - 5 Things You Can Do Right Now About The Oscar Grant Shooting:

1. Digg the story so that the national media can pick up on it

2. Contact BART Director Carole Ward Allen and demand that 1) the officers involved be taken off duty without pay and charged and fully prosecuted; 2) there be an independent investigation of the shooting that includes a review of training and hiring practices; and 3) BART establish an independent residents’ review board for the police Call her at 510-464-6095 or email the BART Directors at

3. Call the BART police to complain about the officers’ conduct and demand immediate action: Internal Affairs: Sergeant David Chlebowski 510.464.7029,; Chief of Police: Gary Gee 510.464.7022,

Call them toll free at 877.679.7000 and press the last four digits of the phone number you wish to reach.

4. Talk it up on your blogs, networks and talk radio shows (call Michael Baisden 877-6BADBOY or Rev. Al, etc. to get this on the national radar)

5. Stay tuned for other actions, protests, etc., especially if you are in the Bay.

What troubles me the most is the attempt to prevent the onlookers from filming and taking pictures with their various hand-held media devices. If this hadn't been captured by the onlookers, we probably either would have never heard about it, or we would have been given a version of the story that painted Grant as the perpetrator instead of the victim.

It happens all the time.

h/t: A Slant Truth

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Breaking up with Norm isn't all that hard to do

Norm Coleman handed local and liberal bloggers some great schedenfrude yesterday when he declared that a lawsuit contesting the recount results would be filed, naturally after the finished recount put Al Franken ahead by 225 votes. Which is precisely the opposite of what he indicated he'd do on November 5th when he claimed that if he were Franken, he'd just let it go. Guess it's easier to do the supposed right thing when it's at no cost to your own political career.

Seriously, did anyone really think that statement wasn’t going to come back to bite him in the ass in the near future? I knew the second those words left his mouth that we’d have a good old time making him eat them.

Not that I begrudge Normie for filing his suit. If there are issues that need to be brought up, he should do so. And it would be dishonest to claim that if the Frankin campaign was behind, they wouldn’t of had the same attempt to cherry pick ballots like the Coleman campaign is attempting to now.

But honestly, I just don’t think Normie can win this one without some major sleezy moves (or, sleezy moves from his supporters at the Moonie Times who have no problem just making shit up in order to paint Minnesota as the new Florida in order to discredit any outcome that doesn't end with Coleman as the winner). Luckily, Coleman has never been opposed to using the court to compensate for his own misfortune, no matter how stupid the charge. But this time there’s a lot of national attention, from political junkies and curious onlookers alike, and it’s not as easy to get away with such things, particularly with allegations of corruption lurking in the background.

I predict that he’s either going to drop the suit, or, if his RNC overlords won’t let him do so, end up looking pretty bad in the public eye for being the one that drew out the election. The odds are not in his favor. A lot of the challenges seem to be merely a re-hashing of issues that were already worked out during the general campaign. Prominent Minnesota politicians like Walter Mondale and Arnie Carlson have requested he step down. There is no mandatory requirements he can lean back on like Frankin was able to, so if the election is stalled, the public will look at Coleman as the cause. Minnesotans might not be too pleased that the new congressional session is starting minus one Minnesota senator. And even the wing-nut-o-sphere may already be gearing up to make Frankin the new leftist boogeyman that is magically persecuting with his lefty-leftness.

Add that to the fact that Minnesotans, a stubbornly prideful bunch, don’t really like it when their representatives shit all over their state. Which sadly for Norm, may be the only tactic the Coleman camp has left. Pre-emptive attacks on election officials earlier in the recount meant to build up a framework in which Coleman could declare himself victim of evil liberals that have time and time again been pronounced as bogus, even by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. And if Norm sells out his state to win one election, his political career in Minnesota is over.

And as the last nail in the coffin, “the Facebook” is on the case, and your ass is just screwed when a bunch of people that have nothing better to do then spend all day long on the internets poking friends, commenting on thong pictures, and posting flash animations decide to get together and mobilize. For reals.

But if all this isn't enough, we can address it on a personal level as well, from me to you, former Senator Coleman. Let’s just look at this realistically, shall we? Even if you were to manage to squeak out a few votes ahead by counting ballots that were already thrown out by a bi-partisan committee, the fact is that you couldn’t gain a significant lead in a race between you and an egotistical New Yorker responsible for “Stuart Saves His Family”. And when something like that happens, it’s time to fact the facts, and if I have to be the one to break it to you, so be it.

Minnesota… is just not that into you. Don’t be sad. It’s not you, it’s us.

Actually no, we’re just trying to be nice. It’s all you.

Brookdale Woes

Macy’s just announced that they were closing 11 stores nation-wide today.

And yes, of course one of them is the one located in Brookdale.

Poor Brookdale. It was my old stomping grounds, I used to hang out there as a kid, I had my first kiss there, my husband worked there for a while, I even had my first indiscretion with the law there, good times, good times. So there was always a part of me that was kind of rooting for it to make a comeback. But with Macy’s pulling out, I just don’t think Sears, with its inventory halved already, can hold it.

My husband and I stopped at Sears this past holiday season, the weekend before Christmas, to pick something up. It was the only place there were customers. We walked through the rest of the mall a bit for a trip down memory lane, and it was a ghost town, almost eerie. There was just an article in the Star Tribune that documented Brookdale’s new status as a ghost town as well, and captured it pretty accurately. And somewhat by accident, because the Star Tribune comment section is the cesspool of humanity, we also get an accurate picture of the racist mentality that started the ball rolling on Brookdale’s.

It’s probably silly to make an issue out of this. I know it’s just a mall. But it was my mall.
Eventually I will figure out how to post to this blog via email. Until then, you will just get a cluster of posts around 6pm (or later) about things that you probably already read about this morning and are already board with.


Saturday, January 3, 2009


Could this be the year of the Super Volcano? Yellowstone National Park is seeing an increase in earthquakes this week, and apparently it is long overdue.

Fascinating stuff, if not a wee bit unnerving.