« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
I know it's not quite the equinox, but we have passed the 50-50 mark for effective light! Whew:
(Sorry if you're not in Seattle and don't understand my joy, but between the rain and the latitude here, it gets dark before 4pm in the depths of winter....)
Thanks to a commenter linking to my Greenwood Space Travel Supply Fedex story, I noticed that the 826LA "fake front" store just opened! And if the Hyper Slush™ machine is any indication, they appear to have done a brilliant job. Can't wait to see it in person.
I saw this on the ground floor at Macy's the other day. It has a cool robotic arm and everything. Is it a pilot project? Some new Steve Jobs world domination plan, like maybe it's also got some mini-Google-server-farm hidden inside of it...?
We've told him he can't play *in* the oven until he eats more cake and candy:
Have you seen the new round of photos from Abu Ghraib? These just came out at the TED conference in San Francisco, from a psychologist working as an expert witness in the defense of a guard. I'd say that they're NSFW (they made me physically ill to look at), but the taxes from your job is what's paying your fellow Americans to torture people—so they should be safe (and maybe even required) viewing for everywhere.
Remember when we used to be about this?
Via economist Brad DeLong:
And as he says, "The last five of these are, I think, the worst from the point of view of their long-run implications."
That's one of the things going on at our house right now:
Ah, the Onion. I'm surprised at just how good their foray into video has been—or I guess maybe I've only seen the best ones. Whatever the case, this is hysterical, and just when you think it's slightly too long it gets funny all over again (and it's still just 3 minutes):
Via Utne Blogs. E.g.:
(“I overheard one parent saying, 'One thing is for sure, a lot of learning has gone on this week.'”)
I was surprised at how angry I got yesterday morning, reading Geraldine Ferraro's editorial in the New York Times about super-delegates. The whole tone was so patronizing, and it was pretending to be some sort of historical survey of super-delegates—plus, as a bonus, it made the same go-nowhere asides about Florida and Michigan. But guess what, ultimately, Ferraro says is the role of super-delegates: it's to decide the race in favor of Geraldine Ferraro's preferred candidate. So that's what they're for!
Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country.
"About the same number" of delegates. I love that. Can't wait to see what qualifies as "about," but I'm guessing it's whatever number the difference ends up being. Hey, Geraldine Ferraro: you lost in 1984. You lost in 1984. Do you have any idea how long ago that is (esp. to the millions of voters who weren't even alive then)? I respect your achievement, such that it was, but you're history. You're an answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, alongside "Where's the Beef?" and Karma Chameleon. I'm happy to hear your opinion on what's "best for our country"—along with the opinion of any other 73-year-old white lady (had to look that up, but wow!)—but where do you get the hubris to say your opinion should supersede mine?
To make matters worse, I later saw this on Politico, from Harold Ickes, who works for the Clinton campaign (and who, coincidentally, was making the exact opposite argument when he was working for Jesse Jackson):
“I think it depends upon the amount by which he leads,” Ickes said. “There is a degree here. If he were to lead by one pledged delegate — I don’t want to be pinned down to a number — there would be a difference than if he were leading by 500.”In other words, Ickes believes that if Obama has only a very narrow lead, Clinton could get away with using the superdelegates to overturn that lead.
I like Hillary. I think she's been treated unfairly in general. I think she would make a great president. I even favored her over Obama until I decided a month ago that he had a better chance of uniting voters and winning in the general—and that I was ready for my wee kid to grow up in a post-Clinton/Bush world.
But here's my prediction: if Obama leads by even *one* pledged delegate and the super-delegates decide for Clinton, the party will be fractured and countless pissed-off voters will stay home. And here's a promise to myself: after watching the Democrats bungle the last two presidential elections, I'll be one of them.
Recent Comments