"Call to Love" - Crooked Fingers
- John Cole concisely explains once again that whatever our disappointments with the Obama Administration, it is imperative that he win in 2012. In sum, he must win because the other guys are fucking crazy -- individually and collectively. Cole also links to a Krugman column in which he makes a point that I have tried frequently to make -- that the Republicans are an ideologically driven, Leninist-style party, where reality has long since ceased to matter and where completely contradictory attacks on their enemies -- the atheistic supporters of sharia law -- are delivered with a completely straight, if foam-flecked, face.
- And more garbage from David Brooks, whom I believe Krugman took another veiled swipe at in the linked column. Yes, what Obama really needs to do to win is vow to privatize Social Security.
- Romney's continued lack of conviction -- about anything -- smart move or deadly in a Leninist party? I am truly at a loss to see how the GOP nomination battle is going to play out. The smart money would continue to be on Romney by default, but I still can't quite believe he can make the sale. Update: Multiple Choice Mitt moves somewhere beyond self-parody on the flip-flopping front.
- Lately one or two have fully paid their dues: I must admit to being a bit mystified at the hand-wringing over the death of Muammar Qaddafi, brutal as it was. Shockingly enough, if you govern as a monster, you are liable to meet a monstrous end, assuming you are stupid or delusional enough to let your people get their hands on you. I guess my attitude would be succinctly summed up as "fuck 'im." I assume Bashar al-Assad is taking note of the Colonel's demise. And it certainly wouldn't break my heart to see him go out the same way.
- New recommendations for boys to also receive the Gardasil vaccine against HPV. We actually did this with our son a couple of years ago, but had to push a little bit with the doctor's office to get it for him. I will be curious to see what the response is to this.
- Contrary to the author's claim, I find this kind of anti-abortion argument -- but "you wouldn't have been born if your mother had an abortion canard" -- to be horribly solipsistic and jejune and not in the least persuasive or even discomforting. If my mother had had an abortion I wouldn't give a shit about the issue. Rachael Larimore's presence on Slate is another reason not to read it.
What's bugging you?
