Redirect I made a decision! (I hope you were sitting down for that) From now on you can read my musings at the Latest Obsession. This blog will no longer be updated. See you over there!
¶ 11:43 PM

inspiration ok. I'm getting inspired again.

I need to figure out how to have blogergy. synergy. blog synergy. right now I have a knitting blog, a personal blog, and this. Seems a shame to let this go to waste, and lots of the stuff I put on the personal blog could go here instead/also. I see my friend waking slow/slowlyawake do this crossposting all the time, I will ask her about how it works if she doesn't see this first.

I'm used to livejournal at this point, and I like its ease of use and its levels. Maybe I should become a paid user there and bring over the notastripper name? Or is this just as easy and I haven't figured it out yet? It'd be nice to have a place more formal than that, where I can do something resembling writing.
¶ 11:05 AM 0 comments

Robert Bork NPR this morning aired this overview of the Watergate scandal, which was very interesting and useful to someone who didn't live through it and knows the basics, but tends to get confused by the many names involved :)

Anyway, one part stood out. The Saturday night massacre ended when Robert Bork fired Archibald Cox, after his two superiors refused to do so. This depraved act of Bork's was surely a motivating factor behind the Democrats' opposition of his nomination to the Supreme Court in the 1980s (altho I'd appreciate some perspective on this from someone who knows more about the hearings).

That hearing seems to be the point in time people mark as the beginning of the current combative legislative tone, everything having been tit for tat since then. It's interesting to me that even that moment had its origin in the jaw-dropping abuse of power that was Watergate, surely one of the more clear-cut cases of right vs. wrong we've had in American politics.

On other words, the Republicans' choosing loyalty over fairness and justice is what got us where we are today. Hmm, when I say it that way it seems kind of obvious...
¶ 1:04 PM 1 comments

I'm back Sorry readers, I was expecting blogspot to email me if I had any comments, and they didn't so I thought nobody was reading anymore! I revisited my blog today after showing it to someone and noticed that I am still in some rss feed lists. :) I haven't deicded what to do with it, or anything. I could make it a "what's going on in my life" thing in general, but then I feel like that shoudl move to livejournal, I kind of have problems editing myself at times and who knows what I'd reveal ;) I had this problem in college once when a girlfriend told me she talked to her best friend every day. I don't always feel like I have thoughts worth sharing every day...then of course there are those days with plenty to go around.
¶ 11:32 PM 1 comments

Remember Me? Hi.

Well. Lots of changes.

--This blog was originally begun to give me a political outlet. However,
--I don't really need one anymore, since
--(insert angry comment about election here), and
--I had a dissertation to write, and
--I wrote it, and in the process weaned myself from politics.

Oh, I still keep up, kind of. But my outrage meter got severely reset by the election and everything happening since. The point at which I find my brain turning off out of self-protection from the anger politics produces comes a lot earlier than it did before. A LOT earlier. Like, I can sometimes feel it happening during the DAILY SHOW. During joke SETUPS.

So I'm not sure what to do with this blog now.

(and we'll see who still has me in their RSS. Holla!)
¶ 6:00 PM 2 comments

Tom Tomorrow is surprised This Modern World:

I have to admit, I'm surprised by the public response (though not unpleasantly so)--this is how Bush always looks to me. So he's shifty-eyed, smirks inappropriately, doesn't seem capable of maintaining a coherent train of thought for a full ninety seconds, seems generally befuddled and irritable? Well, it's nice the media and the commentariat finally noticed, but it's not exactly as if any of this is news. Point is, when I went back to the hotel last night I was too tired to watch much post-debate spin, so I had no real idea how this was going to play--I would have been unsurprised to find that Kerry had been declared the loser, or that the whole thing had been declared a draw. I just can't tell anymore. The gulf between what I observe when watching Bush and what the media report has just grown too wide.

I started this here blog (which got its perhaps-first non-friend reader last night, thanks for stopping by, narcissist :) because one day, I felt this exact way about the Iraq war reportage. I hope that this is the first weekend of the rest of our lives, and that in a few months, I'll be inspired to write another such dream column about how Bush had no clothes on the WHOLE TIME.

It feels like something is happening. I hope that's real. I've often marveled at how this election seems to go the way I want it to just at the right time.
¶ 9:59 AM 1 comments

Yes, I'm sober this time.... and I'm rewatching the debate, all hail TiVo. I started doing so because of this here rumor, but I got sucked in. I'm not sure what I can see that I haven't already seen the first time or read about in the last few days, and let's face it, I'm so partisan that all it's gonna do is solidify my leanings :), but it's pretty interesting to carefully watch Bush and how he gets more and more annoyed as time goes on.

If you're too lazy to follow links, the rumor is based on this: at one point Bush is stumbling, and says "let me finish"--but he had plenty of time left, and nobody was interrupting him. They have an mp3 of the moment. It definitely happened. The tinfoil hats come out at the explanation they offer: he was talking to someone who was feeding him answers in an earpiece. Now given Bush's relationship to the English language, I think a more parsimonious explanation may just be that he got his verbal feet tangled up in his mental thicket and tripped. But hey, it's early on Sunday morning, and I am a scientist. Let's think about it a bit more systematically. What would one need to pull this off?

--an earpiece small enough (I'm sure the technology is good enough for this by now)
--a transmitter within range (ham radio people? what say you? what sort of boosters could bush wear to increase this?)
--a person feeding the info who can unsuspiciously be scarce during the debate (got to be a ton of these)
--practice with the system, requiring at LEAST one tech dude to handle the electronics and one policy dude to handle the content (I do not think you could find those skillsets in one person.)

Who is going to be looking for this sort of thing? The debate commission? They're busy running the hall etc. The other campaign? You'd have to have a suspicion first, and they are busy enough without going on snipe hunts.

Now, on the other hand, the video doesn't support this well. He seemed to be looking at someone (Lehrer?) as he was speaking, and kept eye contact with him and even gestured when he said "let me finish". So another possibility is a misreading of Lehrer's body language (because he had at least 30 seconds left). All I have is C-Span split screen video, so it's hard to be sure.

Another point against the idea is that inside accounts seem to suggest that even campaign Republicans were surprised at how Bush bombed the debate. "Everyone", including people like me, thought Bush would do about five times better than he did, and that Kerry'd be lucky to fight it to a draw. I doubt the Bush campaign thought differently enough to be scared enough to risk this.

But even if you think my tinfoil hat is reeeeeeeeally shiny right now (with the shiny side out, more of the mind control rays are deflected), you must admit that this is EASILY within the realm of possibility. We're talking about the party who sent their interns and staffers to Miami to stop the recount in 2000 by rioting in the halls of the county building. The party that even AFTER the Florida debacle in 2000 when they KNEW they'd be under scrutiny, tried to submit fucked-up felon lists that required a subpeona to uncover. What is stopping them from doing this? What moral principle? Only a nonbinding agreement with an opponent they don't respect and a commission with no real power.
¶ 2:55 AM 1 comments

Say what you will about the media's cravenness.... but by rejecting the candidates' rules about the video feeds for the debates, thereby putting Bush's reactions and demeanor on the table, the republic just may have been saved.
¶ 2:47 AM 0 comments

Debate #1 Multiple Choice Which of the following is a true statement?


A) Bush is prematurely senile


B) Kerry is a wicked good debater


C) I am drunk


D) ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!


OK, if the blogosphere and punditocracy try to call this a tie I'mma spit on them all PERSONALLY.
¶ 9:32 PM 0 comments