Oh my - the bigot knives came out big time at the Rules Committee hearing chaos. Take at look at what Jane Hamsher captured— this inconsolable Hillary supporter, Harriet Christian, screaming at reporters in this clip about how the party is…
”...throwing the election away…for what—an inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for president. I’m not going to shut my mouth anymore. I can be called white, but you can’t be called black…God Damn the Democrats.”
You have to watch the whole thing. This is out of control; this chaos must end, however…
The result of today’s meeting: In the case of Michigan, delegates will get 1/2 vote (Clinton nets 34.5 and Obama 29.5. For Florida, delegates also have 1/2 of a vote; Clinton receive 52.5 and Obama 33.5 (Edwards 6.5).
While Ms. Christian has lost her cookies, she’ll be happy to know that Clintonista Lanny Davis is threatening to take this to the credentials committee (and thus the convention—will the PHB baristas need flak jackets?), based on an update I just received from Jane. This is likely an attempt to extort the VP slot for Hillary, but I can’t imagine that after all of the BS during the primary—and still with a growing lead in delegates—Obama is even giving this serious consideration.
It was simply time to cut his ties to the Trinity United Church of Christ. (AP):
Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.
It happened “over the last few days,” Gibbs said. Messages left for a church spokeswoman in Chicago were not immediately returned Saturday afternoon.
...On Thursday, Obama was again forced to reject another man of the cloth, this time Pfleger, who made racially charged comments mocking Clinton in a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church.
Obama made it clear he wasn’t happy with the comments — in which Pfleger pretended he was Clinton crying over “a black man stealing my show” — and said he was “deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.”
It’s an abject lesson that mixing church and politics can inevitably get any pol in an endless amount of trouble. From McCain sidling up to Hagee/Parsley or Obama and the latest remarks by Father Michael Pfleger, it’s a crap shoot to inject your faith into “your game” of political ambition.
In Obama’s case, and for the Democratic party generally, the courting of the faith based vote has been purposeful—to make inroads into these communities and voters. Wearing faith on one’s sleeve was thought to be the best way to counter the belief that the Democratic party is a bunch of heathens, atheists, paganists, Satanists, you name it - all trying to persecute “Christians.”
However, pastors aren’t beholden to any focus group or poll; they don’t have to guard what they say—it’s inevitable that blowback, explanations and apologies can’t outweigh the endless MSM bleating about all of it.
Quite frankly, with the economy crumbling, an endless military action, and corruption at the highest levels of government, focusing on religious clerics and their misguided, inflammatory remarks is a waste of air time.
Democratic National Committee advised of
Criminal Case in US Supreme Court involving
Senators Clinton and Obama
Holy crap! What’s this now, and why haven’t I heard of it? You’d think this would be front…page…oh.
The Democratic National Committee, slated to meet this weekend, has been advised of a criminal case filed in the United States Supreme Court on May 27, 2008, titled “United States of America vs. Seditious Conspirators”. (A case number has not yet been assigned). The criminal case names both Democratic contenders for the US Presidency, Senator Hilary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, as defendants. The case involving the senators was initially filed in the US District Court of Colorado under criminal case no. 1:08cr00087. The case has progressed through the 10th Circuit Appeals Court as case no. 08-1061, where three associated cases were consolidated into the one case now under contention in the US Supreme Court.
The Democratic National Committee was advised that pursuant the statutes 18USC2381 and 18USC2383, and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the senators are barred from holding any office under the United States. The Committee was further informed that there are other Democratic Delegates and so-called ‘Super Delegates’ who are also named as defendants in this criminal case. Pursuant the same statutes and Section of the Constitution, they may not be electors of a United States President. To do so would be violating the law.
The filing of this criminal case in the Supreme Court may be verified with the Supreme Court Police with whom it was filed, with the Court Clerk William Suter, or with any of the 9 Justices who have been provided with a personal copy of the criminal complaint. The involvement of Senators Clinton and Obama in the seditious conspiracy may be verified with President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts, Attorney General Mukasey, or FBI Director Mueller.
Oh, it’s
allegedly
about horseshit. Now I get it.
Did you catch that at the end, by the way? This case was filed with the Supreme Court Police. And yes, such a thing really exists. Its “mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the Supreme Court by protecting the United States Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors.” And this guy
allegedly
filed a criminal case with them! A treason case with them! And he may - stay with me here - he may not have been laughed directly out of the building.
But let’s come back to that. Who, exactly, is “this guy”?
I just want to write a quick post about the issue of “silence” arguments—-i.e., the “why aren’t group A writing more about topic B?” posts. It’s similar to the “you can’t prove a negative” fallacy. All too often, when we get angry with someone for not blogging a specific news item, it’s not that they don’t care, but something more mundane. They were napping when it came out and missed it in their news reader. They don’t feel they have anything useful to add to the discussion, and think someone else blogged about it more eloquently. They cover similar topics so often that they occasionally skip a news item on the topic lest they come across as shrill, one-note bloggers. There’s only so many hours in a day, and even the most devoted bloggers spend some of those napping, earning money, or keeping their marriages together. And of course, at least 50% of the time someone is accused of ignoring an issue or story, they actually blogged it and the complainer is ignoring that or conveniently missed that to make a point.
For me, the number one determinant on whether or not I blog a news item is whether or not I have anything entertaining or useful to say on the topic. If you really feel strongly that I have an obligation to blog about X, Y, or Z, and I don’t, please consider that I might not be all-powerful and have witty, intelligent things to say on everything.
Since I so often find myself compelled to write reviews of TV shows I catch well after they initially came out, thanks to the combination genius of Netflix, iTunes, and just buying DVDs straight up (though mostly Netflix), I thought I’d just start calling these Way Behind Reviews. Marc and I just finished Netflixing all of the first season of “Heroes”. I’ll admit; I was skeptical of this show after catching a random mid-season episode, which I watched because a friend of mine with usually stellar taste recommended the show. The episode I caught seemed way too corny and derivative for my tastes, but what I realized watching the first season from the beginning was that the corny, derivative aspects are part of the fun. With the constant nods to comic books and other sci-fi and fantasy shows, the show wears its derivative aspects like a badge of honor, as if to say that these stories are the new mythology of a secular era.
I also squeaked with IMS joy to see that the score is written by Wendy Melvoin and Lisa Coleman. Whip out your lighters now.
Still, make no mistake—-this show is a guilty pleasure. They rely on some of the crutchiest of storytelling crutches, with at least three separate characters having some combination of pre-cognitive powers and/or the power to travel through time. Making time travel the centerpiece of the show is how generally to avoid using time travel as a crutch, which they do since the entire plot of the first season is about how visions of a future where a bomb blows up New York City and the characters’ attempts to stop it. That mediates the problem somewhat, but you still have a lot of moments where you’re rolling your eyes saying, “Okay, since you know who the bad guy is, why don’t you just shoot him in the head before everything goes wrong?” The show milks cliffhangers for all they’re worth, which probably means it loses a lot in rewatchability. You bite your fingernails, and then you feel bad about it.
But there are also a lot of plot twists and turns that take good advantage of the characters’ powers, so it balances out the plot problems. But what really makes this show more than a guilty pleasure is the characterization and the details/direction. Just when I’m getting irritated with some corny plot twist, the remarkable look of the show (shots and titles that throwback to comic books) will smooth it over for me, or the characters will win me over with how cool they generally are. This show just has more bad ass characters than any other show on TV, and they often defy expectations in interesting and believable ways.
The cheerleader Claire and her father Bennett have the most interesting story, which makes sense given the importance of family and genetics on the show, because Claire is a Hero and she’s adopted. But I’m also impressed by the Petrelli brothers, which is one of the more multi-layered portrayals of sibling rivalry I’ve ever seen on TV, one that captures the way that such rivalries are often as defined by love and dependence as competitiveness. And like everyone else, I’m in love with Hiro, who initially seems to be cartoonish but ends up being one of the biggest badasses on the show, has one of the most tragic love affairs, and even plays a deft hand at political maneuvers in his family. Nikki, the woman with superstrength and multiple personalities, was wearing on my nerves a bit, but it was leavened by being impressed at how the actress does manage to make it clear what personality is dominating without leaning on tricks like overacting or changing her hairdo. I’m amused at the portrayal of her son Micha and how everyone talks down to him, unaware that he’s a lot more aware than adults give him credit for.
Because the tendency to have superpowers is genetic, family politics dominates the show. The writers borrow, therefore, as much from soap operas as they do comic books, and with equally excellent results. You have the multi-generational intrigues, the same fussing over custody and control of children’s destinies, and even a hat tip to the soap opera convention of sending the little kid away until they can come back as a teenager to engage in intrigues of their own. What makes this work is that the show has a lot of people at odds with each other, but with the exception of a MacGuffin bad guy (Sylar) to push the plot forward, people aren’t easy to break into good/bad categories. Nathan Petrelli, played by the awesome Adrian Pasdar (who killed on a classic brilliant-but-canceled show “Profit”—-and is a fellow Austinite), is a Machiavellian for real, not in the sense that it’s usually used. He’s not a bad person, but just very ambitious and easy to convince that means justify ends. He’s probably my favorite character next to Claire and Bennett. Claire is probably the most pure and good character on the show, and even then there’s a few times when I wanted to knock her for behaving selfishly or thoughtlessly. The Petrelli matriarch (a classic soap opera matriarch, by the way) seems the easiest to hate, but even I thought she had her moments of good.
I’m also impressed at the subtle way the powers people have reflect their personalities. The most obvious is how Claire’s tough stuff personality-wise and impervious to injury as her power, but you also have the ambitious Nathan flying, the savvy D.L. able to walk through walls, the imaginative Hiro able to bend space and time, the caring Peter with his empathetic powers, the boy genius Micha able to control machines with his will, the hot-tempered Ted is radioactive, and the manipulative Eden has the power of persuasion—-just to name a few.
At the end of the day, I don’t think I’ll be watching any episodes again, because so much of the show is built on cliffhangers, but I also can’t wait to watch the DVDs of the second season.
Today’s the delegate showdown day as the Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee sits down and attempts to come up with a solution for seating some, all or none of the delegates by the renegade states of Florida and Michigan. Those states chose to move up their primaries in violation of party rules and the penalty all candidates and states agree on was that those delegates cannot be seated.
There is supposed to be a huge rally at this meeting; purportedly 10,000 Hillary supporters—along with McCain and Huckabee fans (!?)—will show up. (Joe Sudbay of Americablog is at the Wardman Park Marriott to liveblog the meeting and just IMed me to say there aren’t ten thousand people there, and he has pix.)
“We don’t think it’s a helpful dynamic to create chaos,” David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, said. “In the interest of party unity, we’re encouraging our supporters not to protest.”
...Allida Black, a professor at George Washington University and a Clinton supporter, is helping to organize the demonstration and is hoping that people come from all over the nation. “We’re trying to flood it,” she says
The Clinton campaign believes that all delegates should be seated, the argument being every vote should count, since “the people” didn’t make the decision to move up the primary. On the flip side, since Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, the results of that primary can hardly be considered a barometer of the will of the voters there; in Florida, he was on the ballot, but did not campaign, something both candidates also agreed to at the outset. Given all of this, it will come down to a decision by the 30 members of the rules committee. And who is on the committee?
The committee has several Democratic heavyweights such as Harold Ickes, one of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers; Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000; and Alice Germond, the DNC secretary. The rest is made up of lawyers and state party members otherwise unlikely to appear on network TV.
And Ickes position is, no surprise. Read below the fold.
Well, this is a new one. Most of the trackbacks I get from people not accusing me of blogging about what they want me to blog about—-it goes without question that their judgment on my obligations is better than mine—-comes from people accusing me of not blogging enough about how we should liberate Muslim women from head coverings through bombing aimed at liberating them from their earthly existence. Occasionally I get a leftist lamenting that I spend too much time making this place entertaining instead of a nobly unread drag that posts to a non-existent readership, but mostly it’s the right wingers demanding that I free Muslim women by blogging against their right to live free of being killed by American shrapnel. But this guy is accusing me of wasting my time exposing religious nuts who want to deprive both men and women around the entire globe of pretty much every freedom you can name, and instead suggesting that I don’t—-get this—-write enough about rape. That I write about rape 1000% more often than any other blogger with this much traffic, except maybe the fine ladies at Feministing is no matter. Because by my neglectful inability to dwell non-stop on a topic that’s, let’s face it, pretty fucking depressing, I’ve personally caused the abysmal sexist politics that have resulted in a 6% conviction rate for rape in Britain.
Horrible “American Feminists” at Feministing (where Jessica is also editing a book confronting sex negative/misogynist attitudes that contribute to rape) did in fact cover the story, which has so far not led to a dramatic reversal for the criminal justice system in Britain. But I promise that if they could change things, they would. It seems in fact that the conviction rate has been sliding over the years, so I suspect what’s going on is a similar situation to other reactionary movements such as the ones that sprung those obviously guilty of lynching or war crimes. In other words, if our nutball friend actually cares about convicting rapists, he needs to quit ranting about horrible, no good feminists, because it’s precisely those sentiments that encourage reactionary backlashes that lead to these situations.
Interestingly, because of ineffective American Feminist bitchy worthlessness, the rape rate in the United States has been going down consistently since feminists ineffectively made it an issue though they probably didn’t want to. Like 85% gone down. Despite annoyingness to random internet assholes with strange agendas, it turns out that American Feminism has something to do with the decline in rape.
I flashed for a moment of how much things have changed in the U.S., and why this probably has so much to do with the significantly lower rape rate here, something you should want if you are really concerned about rape. I was listening to the Datarock CD and they ironically quote the lyrics to “Summer Nights” from Grease. It’s been years since I’ve heard that song or a reference to it, I guess, because my mind really tripped on the casual crack about rape in the lyric, “Did she put up a fight?” Granted, the lyric is there as a 50s historical detail, but even so, the casual reference to the traditional battle between guys who want it and girls who want to preserve their reputation—-and the acceptance that it culminates in rape on a regular basis—-gave me pause. In the 70s, they put it there to suggest how much sexual mores have changed. Now gender and power mores have changed that the 70s wink and nudge is nauseating. Witness: On the show “Mad Men”, there are regular cracks from male characters about women “putting up a fight”, and instead of being a colorful historical detail, it’s supposed to make the audience queasy. If that shift in attitudes about women’s rights and sex hasn’t contributed to a lowered rape rate, I’d be shocked.
Why this has resulted in a misogynist backlash in Britain, I can’t say. I don’t know enough about the cultural or legal differences to offer an opinion. Maybe British readers have some sort of insight?
Well, Pandagonians, it’s me, Michael Bérubé, professor of dangeral studies, and it’s been a long time since I last posted something here. Too long, perhaps. In recent weeks, in fact, I’ve heard some nasty rumors as to what happened to me.
Some people say I was offended that in response to my last post, one or two readers disagreed slightly with my assertion that Julie Taymor has the best visual imagination evah, and that I stomped off in a huff – though not before sending Amanda a short but furious email, “delete my account!!1!1!” Others say that my departure was part of the breakup of the short-lived Pandagon Supergroup of 2007, during which I drove five or six fine bloggers from this site thanks to my insistence on playing twenty-minute drum solos on every song. (The truth about that, by the way, is that I joined the Supergroup in March 2007 primarily in order to meet the legendary jedmunds and learn more about his odd obsession with Oasis. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I was told that jedmunds no longer blogs here, and indeed is never spoken of! Oops. Sorry about the otnay-eakingspay-of-edmundsjay thing.) Still others claim that I was swept away by a giant nuclear fireball of some kind. As if.
The truth, folks, is that I have spent many months doing research. Yes, research! I have been developing a Theory that may explain a great deal about human cultures and societies, and I have spent many months painstaking accumulating empirical evidence for it. Long have I toiled in some of the most obscure recesses of the Intratubes, and when even the Intratubes were not enough, I turned on the television. I am now in the final stages of formulating my theory, during which I plan to read a “book.”
I will be sure to share this Theory with you as soon as it is ready for public dissemination. In the meantime, however, I’d just like to say thanks to Amanda for keeping the door open for me even as Pandagon has moved to this new house, and to let you all know that I hope to stick around for a little while longer before returning to the groves of academe. And I’d like to point to two dead-tree items that might be of interest. The first is the latest issue of the American Book Review, which features a special section, “Women of Color Publishing.” Its contents are not available online, though, so consider this a subtle invitation to subscribe. You’ll be glad you did! The second is a new book edited by Suzanne Kamata, Love You to Pieces: Creative Writers on Raising a Child with Special Needs. (Suzanne’s blog is here, and her post on the book for Beacon Broadside is right over there.) Some of you may know that I myself happen to have a child with special needs, so if you do check out the book, you won’t be terribly surprised to see a couple of my favorite Jamie stories in it. But more important, you’ll also find some terrific writing by people like Vicki Forman, Jayne Anne Phillips, Clare Dunsford, Bret Lott, Penny Wolfson, and Jane Bernstein. Or, if you’d like to stick with the Intratubes for a bit longer, you can listen to this April 28 interview with me, Suzanne, and Vicki, conducted by Andrew Tonkovich for his KPFK-FM radio show, “Bibliocracy.” (You have to start the interview about one-quarter of the way in, though, because for some reason the podcast includes the last five or six minutes of a show on the music of Carole King. No, I have no idea why.)
I’ll be back before too long. In the meantime, wish me luck with my research!
It’s what you all have been waiting for…this year’s “research” on the International Mr. Leather event by Peter LaBarbera. Long-time readers of the blog know that The Peter has become an expert in this sexual subculture, because every year he returns to the same event to gather even more information for his “Christian” readership—shocking information that has to be documented with photographs and breathless reporting.
He didn’t even manage to put up a photo from this year’s event in this post. Behold…
LISTEN ONLINE: Hyatt Regency Chicago Hosts ‘International Mr. Leather’ Perversion
WARNING: Interview contains highly graphic content describing twisted behaviors; NOT for children
Just dropping in a quick note to tell folks here that Pam’s House Blend will be credentialed in the general pool at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 25-28. Of course I will represent fellow Pandas on the road trip!
You can read the DNCC press release here, and the full list of credentialed blogs here. As far as commentary on the selections (or level of access issues discussed in prior posts), off the top of my head, I’m not surprised at most of the top-tier blogs, since traffic was one metric used; this is clearly a more diverse list, but are already discussions about who made this cut and speculation/curiosity about why. There’s an article about the state blogs that didn’t make the original cut—some still have reservations about the difference in floor access that state vs. general receive, the same problem members of the Afrospear have cited numerous times. And there’s some controversy about the selection criteria when it came to LGBT blogs as well, as Bil of The Bilerico Project points out.
Father Pfleger sermon is not what he said about White privilege. Melissa’s post recognizes this while properly focusing on the misogyny. In fact, for the first half of the video, I was getting ready to post about it positively, in contrast to Michelle Malkin (thanks for the transcription, Michelle, such as it is):
to address the one who says, “Well, don’t hold me responsible (gesticulating) for what my ancestors did. But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits (voice rising), throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you WALKED INTO BECAUSE YO’ DADDY AND YO’ GRANDDADDY AND YO’ GREATGRANDDADDY–(screaming at the top of his lungs)–UNLESS YOU’RE WILLING TO GIVE UP THE BENEFITS, THEN YOU MUST BE REPSONSIBLE [Malkin’s sic] FOR WHAT WAS DONE IN YOUR GENERATION ‘CUZ YOU ARE THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS INSURANCE POLICY! (Wild gestures, wild applause).
…We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head.
Malkin’s editorializing punctuation aside, I was nodding my head in agreement until after all that, when he got to the part where he became a raving misogynist. (See Melissa’s post.) But I’m not bringing it up as a 50% defense of Pfleger; merely to point out that the media attention is focusing on the wrong part of the sermon. Which, of course, and unsurprisingly, is just redoubling the misogyny at play, with the added bonus of denying the existence of white privilege!
Goddamn it. The only thing that would piss me off more is if a large portion of commenters at a place that called itself “TalkLeft” were behaving exactly the same way. (Looks like Big Tent Democrat got sick of it and closed comments.)
Update: As Incertus in comments indirectly reminds me I should have said “But I’m not bringing it up as a 50% defense of Pfleger; merely to point out that the media attention, and Obama, are focusing on the wrong part of the sermon.”
David Brooks:Gail, I watched “Recount” on HBO the other night and learned a bunch. For example, did you know that Republicans are evil yet efficient, while Democrats are noble but slightly too good for this world?
There are two possibilities here, and neither of them are very good.
1) David Brooks, who has one of the most prestigious pundit positions in the country, actually did learn this from the movie, and therefore was appointed to his position without the ability to grasp the basic facts of American politics without a movie to hold his hand.
Or
2) Brooks is trying to be ironic. Unfortunately, he fails to grasp the first rule of irony, which is that what you say has to differ from reality, preferably in a way that showcases the absurdity of that reality. Understanding irony seems like it should be the first rule of being a NY Times columnist. That’s Writing 101.
So bad pundit, bad writer, or both. But reliable disingenuous partisan for the Republicans, so I guess he’ll be keeping his job.
Okay, my vanity can’t take it any longer. Confession time: The picture yesterday was staged. I thought the voluminous amount of drool (actually water, though I was willing to move onto Vaseline if that didn’t show up properly under the flash) was a dead giveaway, as is the oversized (borrowed from boyfriend) sweatshirt that would be murderously hot this time of year in Texas. It was my attempt to satirize the “blogging femme fatale naps with her favorite weapon” picture in the NY Times profile of Emily Gould.
Like Penn and Teller, first I show you the trick and then I explain it.
Okay, you know the drill. Ten songs at random from your MP3 collection.
1) “If You Stayed Over”—-Bonobo
2) “Him For Me”—-The Ex-Boyfriends
3) “Sock It To Me”—-John O’Brien Docker
4) “A Love Problem”—-Eldrige Holmes
5) “Up To You”—-Conner
6) “Panic”—-Fifty On Their Heels
7) “If You Should Try To Kiss Her”—-Dressy Bessy
8) “Jocko Homo”—-Devo
9) “You Ain’t Woman Enough To Take My Man”—-Loretta Lynn
10) “Furnace Room Lullaby”—-Neko Case
I found a cat picture on the camera when I was downloading that shot yesterday. I’ll try to be more on top of it, I promise.
Okay, I’ve run out of patience. What’s it going to take? I’m young and single and write a blog. True, it’s not the Gawker, but still pretty popular and lively. I don’t live in New York, but I still live in a pretty trendy city stock full of creative types. I am not shy about frank sexual jokes. I have tattoos. I have a book out with lots of that frank sexual talk in it. I humiliate my loved ones* by telling embarrassing stories about them on the blog. I’ve dated rock musicians and writers. I drink alcoholic beverages. I own material goods that I’ve paid cash money for. I totally sleep in my make-up sometimes. I use first person pronouns. I’m ready and willing to become the girl everyone loves to describe as materialistic, self-centered, and oversexed.
Sure, I’d never describe fighting lovers as having “wild eyes and clenched jaws”, but that’s a minor issue. I’d be happy to describe myself as needy and/or vulnerable,** if that’s what it takes. So come on, where’s my big league profile in New York Times Magazine? Vanity Fair? Surely I’ve managed to check off all the requirements on the list.
In the same week that Gould was covering this “SATC”-critical terrain, she graced the cover of the New York Times Magazine—tank-topped, tattooed and lounging upside down in mussed bed sheets......
More annoying—and twisted—is that those meager spots for women are consistently filled by those willing to expose themselves, visually and emotionally…..
When magazines feature stories about writers like those smart young men over at N+1 (as the Times magazine did a few years ago) those men are not typically photographed blogging in their beds; when, as the Observer suggested, we read a first-person confessional by Philip Weiss (who wrote recently for New York about his extramarital sexual yearnings) we are not treated to a bare-limbed image of him, or any image of him at all.
Well hell, if that’s what it takes, I’m game. And I can prove it.
For those who’re impressed with my ease with the boudoir shot and would like to give me huge features in your glossy magazines, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
*Well, if you count how much I make fun of my cats by bestowing nicknames like “Lady Crapsherself” on them.
**Who isn’t?
I just want to write a quick post about the issue of “silence” arguments—-i.e., the “why aren’t group A writing more about topic B?” posts. It’s similar to the “you can’t prove a negative” fallacy. All too often, when we get angry with someone for not blogging a specific news item, it’s not that they don’t care, but something more mundane. They were napping when it came out and missed it in their news reader. They don’t feel they have anything useful to add to the discussion, and think someone else blogged about it more eloquently. They cover similar topics so often that they occasionally skip 
